Chavez ... Human Rights Violator ... and Liar

[I think not]

No, he wants changes to the treaty before he signs it. Same as the US.

150 countries signed the treaty, your boy didn't, he preferred to align himself with his role models.

Bush is deeply involved in this because of his own actions. I'll mention him whenever the feck I want. Why don't you try dropping the ridiculous "everybody is picking on the US" act.

Bush has nothing to do with him not signing the Human Rights resolution at the UN. And I'll mention your flagrant anti-Americanism anytime I feckin want.

I have several links I find credible. Many of them have been presented here and I have no intention of reposting them. Go read through the many threads on Chavez and you'll find them.

Your attitude toward Chavez is nothing more than an echo of what's being presented by your government and in your mainstream press and you've gone in search of links that you feel support that. You have not looked at the overall picture or considered the history. You have not thought about the fact that if the US installs a regime it prefers, every indication is that human rights abuses will again increase; Venezuela's poor will lost access to medical care and education; and the country will become more politically unstable.

I'm surprised you didn't ask me to read Mel Hurtig. That's an improvement on your end.

 

[I think not]

Brother :roll: :roll: thats it eh think?? why bite?? thats all you have to say about using the same chemical weapons your goverment accused saddam of using, but its okay when your government uses it on civilians. Why bite, indeed :roll:

Then quit baiting, I've already said I'm against it. What else you want me to say?

 

[I think not]

I suppose for the same reasons Canada doesn’t.

you gotta be kidding. :roll: the US following Canada ......??? Ya gotta dig a lot deeper for a sensible sounding excuse for US violations and conduct.

Okie Dokie. Galloway says your complicit in the Iraq War. You know, the TRUE GRIT. Suck it up.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Hey, ITN just came out against reason...no surprise there.

150 countries signed the treaty, your boy didn't, he preferred to align himself with his role models.

Want to talk about treaties that your boy either hasn't signed or has broken? Oh but when that comes up you revert to the cowardly cry of "Anti-American" so you don't have to deal with the facts.

Bush has nothing to do with him not signing the Human Rights resolution at the UN. And I'll mention your flagrant anti-Americanism anytime I feckin want.

Actually, the US influence in the UN has everything to do with Chavez not not signing the resolution. Nice try with your cowardly cry of anti-americanism.

I'm surprised you didn't ask me to read Mel Hurtig. That's an improvement on your end.

You should read Mel Hurtig. That's not really the point though. You should have a hard look at who your government supports in Venezuela and other countries and ask yourself some hard questions about the people they support and their motives for doing so. So far you've shown no inclination for doing so, an exhibition of purposeful ignorance that leads directly to the charges that you so cowardly try to write off as anti-Americanism.

Okie Dokie. Galloway says your complicit in the Iraq War. You know, the TRUE GRIT. Suck it up.

Galloway is right, we are complicit. We're also complicit in US attempts to dominate South and Central America. If you'd done any real research, you could have said the latter rather than the former.

 

[I think not]

Want to talk about treaties that your boy either hasn't signed or has broken? Oh but when that comes up you revert to the cowardly cry of "Anti-American" so you don't have to deal with the facts.

No, I want to alk about Venezuela, Syria, Cuba, Iran. Algeria and all those other countries you like to excuse.

Actually, the US influence in the UN has everything to do with Chavez not not signing the resolution. Nice try with your cowardly cry of anti-americanism.

Right, you're the personal advisor to Chavez. Chavez didn't sign it for the same reason the others didn't.

You should read Mel Hurtig. That's not really the point though. You should have a hard look at who your government supports in Venezuela and other countries and ask yourself some hard questions about the people they support and their motives for doing so. So far you've shown no inclination for doing so, an exhibition of purposeful ignorance that leads directly to the charges that you so cowardly try to write off as anti-Americanism.

I have read Mel Hurtigs', The Vanishing Country. I haven't rejected any charges, you just keep spinning so much you have gotten to the point you can't remember what we're talking about.

Galloway is right, we are complicit. We're also complicit in US attempts to dominate South and Central America. If you'd done any real research, you could have said the latter rather than the former.

If Galloway is right, why were you so defensive and claimed he wasn't referring to the Canadian people before you even read the article? I thought you said he was a newsmaker? Can't keep up with the demagoguery?

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Galloway is right, we are complicit. We're also complicit in US attempts to dominate South and Central America.

indeed.

Maybe the difference here is that "we" are able and willing to see our acts/faults for what they are and NOT defend them blindly or go into something like crying anti canadianism. (that old poor me syndrome.......that the US plays so well)

We can handle the truth......even if it is ugly. That is the only way we can make the essential changes. too.

**********
the rev is right: Galloway IS a newsmaker........and he is also right.about the complicity thing.

 

[I think not]

Galloway is right, we are complicit. We're also complicit in US attempts to dominate South and Central America.

indeed.

Maybe the difference here is that "we" are able and willing to see our acts for what they are and NOT defend them blindly or go into something like crying anti canadianism. (that old poor me syndrome.......that the US plays so well)

We can handle the truth......even if it is ugly. That is the only way we can make the essential changes. too.

Get real, I've read your posts. You're only convincing the meek.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Galloway is right, we are complicit. We're also complicit in US attempts to dominate South and Central America.

indeed.

Maybe the difference here is that "we" are able and willing to see our acts for what they are and NOT defend them blindly or go into something like crying anti canadianism. (that old poor me syndrome.......that the US plays so well)

We can handle the truth......even if it is ugly. That is the only way we can make the essential changes. too.

Get real, I've read your posts. You're only convincing the meek.

OFF TOPIC ........a poster is not the subject material here.

 

[pastafarian]

OK, Jay, Chavez led a failed coup against a regime that was implementing policies that he felt (and anyone who has looked into knows further impoverishes the poor, cripples a country's ability to be self-sufficient, decimates the middle class and further enriches the already-rich. So? A bunch of Americans took control of a handful of british Colonies in 1776. Most of Chavez' critics see that as heroic.

I am listening, really. What is the specific list of "human rights violation" committed by Chavez and is it impossible that they were required for a gerater good? Unlike many, I can be convinced that I'm wrong and I will admit it, but I won't make it easy. :wink:

 

[Reverend Blair]

No, I want to alk about Venezuela, Syria, Cuba, Iran. Algeria and all those other countries you like to excuse.

No, you want to talk about anything but US foreign policy. More importantly, you want to keep us from talking about US foreign policy because you are incapable of handling the criticism.

Right, you're the personal advisor to Chavez.

Well, if he offered me the gig, I'd certainly consider it.

Chavez didn't sign it for the same reason the others didn't.

How do you know what those reasons were? You don't because you certainly won't accept what they say as a reason, but all too willingly allow the imperialist policies of the Bush regime to filter what little knowledge you attempt to gain.

I have read Mel Hurtigs', The Vanishing Country. I haven't rejected any charges, you just keep spinning so much you have gotten to the point you can't remember what we're talking about.

Sorry you are so afraid of the truth getting out little buddy. You've rejected every criticism of what your government is doing as anti-Americanism without ever considering another viewpoint.

If Galloway is right, why were you so defensive and claimed he wasn't referring to the Canadian people before you even read the article? I thought you said he was a newsmaker? Can't keep up with the demagoguery?

Because if you look at what Galloway said, the entire quote, he was pointing out that the Canadian people weren't really aware of what our government was doing.

 

[I think not]

No, you want to talk about anything but US foreign policy. More importantly, you want to keep us from talking about US foreign policy because you are incapable of handling the criticism.

I have never done that, I see you haven't changed much in the last couple of months, you base your arguments on trying to discredit posters with no backup.

Well, if he offered me the gig, I'd certainly consider it.

Actually, so would I.

How do you know what those reasons were? You don't because you certainly won't accept what they say as a reason, but all too willingly allow the imperialist policies of the Bush regime to filter what little knowledge you attempt to gain.

I suppose I know the same way you know, opinion.

Sorry you are so afraid of the truth getting out little buddy. You've rejected every criticism of what your government is doing as anti-Americanism without ever considering another viewpoint.

Prove it, I have over 3000 posts, can't be all that difficult to backup your claims. Or could it?

Because if you look at what Galloway said, the entire quote, he was pointing out that the Canadian people weren't really aware of what our government was doing.

"I'm amazed that so many people in Canada believe they're not a part of this crime," George Galloway said at the sixth annual conference of the Islamic Circle of North America and the Muslim Association of Canada.

Nope, read the whole article, nothing there about Canadians not knowing what their government was doing.

Here's the link again to refresh your memory

 

[Jay]

A little comic relief.....

 

[Jay]

OK, Jay, Chavez led a failed coup against a regime that was implementing policies that he felt (and anyone who has looked into knows further impoverishes the poor, cripples a country's ability to be self-sufficient, decimates the middle class and further enriches the already-rich. So? A bunch of Americans took control of a handful of british Colonies in 1776. Most of Chavez' critics see that as heroic.

I am listening, really. What is the specific list of "human rights violation" committed by Chavez and is it impossible that they were required for a gerater good? Unlike many, I can be convinced that I'm wrong and I will admit it, but I won't make it easy. :wink:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu

 

[Reverend Blair]

The entire point of Galloway's speech was to point out what our government is doing and the implications of that, ITN. Most Canadians are not aware of that. I don't know why you have such a problem understanding that except for your hatred of anybody who dares to criticise your government and your apparent need to change the subject when the actions of your government cause them to be thrashed on a public forum.

Try to find Galloway's speech instead of a link to single tight-leaning news source though. It might clear your foggy head.

Prove it, I have over 3000 posts, can't be all that difficult to backup your claims. Or could it?

In those 3000 posts you have screamed that we were just being anti-American time after time. You've been singing the same tune since you got here.

 

[Jay]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/29/AR2005102901043.html

 

[Jay]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/4/134616.shtml

 

[Jay]

.... that except for your hatred of anybody who dares to criticise your government and your apparent need to change the subject when the actions of your government cause them to be thrashed on a public forum.

This is blatantly not true.

 

[Reverend Blair]

http://www.gateway-greens.org/2005/apr0205.htm

The Venezuelan government's human rights record is remarkably positive given the irresponsible behavior of the opposition and the extreme political polarization. However, there is little doubt that high oil prices have cushioned the economy and capitalized the social programs that are improving people's lives. The challenge is make these programs sustainable without oil subsidies and to preserve the impressive democratic innovations of the Bolivarian Revolution.

http://www.counterpunch.org/blum041...wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/vene-j20.shtml

There were several attempts to revive the anti-Chavez campaign. On January 3, two men were shot to death during a confrontation between pro- and anti-Chavez groups on the streets of the capital. The Venezuelan media, which is completely controlled by the right wing, denounced the killings as an atrocious act of repression by the government. It later emerged, however, that both victims were supporters of Chavez, one of them a security guard at the Education Ministry, the other a poor street peddler with two children.

 

[Jay]

http://www.boston.com/news/world/la...zs_threat_to_expel_evangelists_spurs_protest/


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17039789%5E23109,00.html

 

[Reverend Blair]

This is blatantly not true.

Oh? Go read his posts. The second anybody questions the right of America to do whatever it wants he starts crying about anti-Americanism. He doesn't do the same when somebody complains about Britain or Canada or Spain though. He never screams about anti-Canadianism or Brit bashing or strong anti-Spanish sentiment.