Smearing chavez american lies!

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: Smearing chavez american lies!

jimmoyer said:
You are right about the neo-cons. You certainly do know what you oppose.

So there you go. Battle the neo-cons. Please do.
Rail away into the night. Carry on.

But, do not let this visceral feeling you have make you blind.

It is human nature to glorify the opposite.

But such overreaction is no more an accurate reading of the picture than the scarecrow you whack at daily.

It is too soon to tell whether Chavez is a hero.

It is too soon to glorify him.

What accuracy lies in that over-reaction ?

who on earth is "glorifying " him???? sheesh. What this is about is recognizing the facts for what they are.....and seeing POTENTIAL. Sadly it is the neo cons and americons that do the hero worship thing which blinds them completely. Let that hero step out of line and they attack like savage sharks. Turning on the former "hero " with a vengence. Psychologically very unstable....... these neo cons and their hero worshippers.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
jimmoyer wrote:This whole thread is as guilty of overreacting as the neo-cons.

I don't think it is overreacting to bitch like hell when the U.S. starts calling the democratically elected leader of a sovereign country a terrorist, or saying that he harbours terrorists. Particularly when that country has huge reserves of oil. There is no doubt that the CIA was responsible for the attempted coup that tried and failed to unseat that leader. Most of your newspapers applauded the coup when they thought it was going to work. Unlike the American people, most of the rest of the world know about the millions of civilians killed in VietNam, Cambodia, and Laos. We've also seen Iraq bombed to rat shit We've seen all the signs before and we get nervous.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
#juan said:
jimmoyer wrote:This whole thread is as guilty of overreacting as the neo-cons.

I don't think it is overreacting to bitch like hell when the U.S. starts calling the democratically elected leader of a sovereign country a terrorist, or saying that he harbours terrorists. Particularly when that country has huge reserves of oil. There is no doubt that the CIA was responsible for the attempted coup that tried and failed to unseat that leader. Most of your newspapers applauded the coup when they thought it was going to work. Unlike the American people, most of the rest of the world know about the millions of civilians killed in VietNam, Cambodia, and Laos. We've also seen Iraq bombed to rat shit We've seen all the signs before and we get nervous.


you bet we do.......(get "nervous".) as the only REAL terrorist nation has already terrorized two nations; with verbal threats and terrorization of many more. Fact is the the USR is a rogue regime in a rogue nation now. And yes the world is watching closely.....as the potential for a rogue nation to get out of control is a very real concern. And yes, it is too bad the the US population only gets the sanitized news........while the rest of the world sees the REAL damage the US has done over the past years. Murder incorporated , comes to mind.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Of course none of you think you are capable of over-reacting.

Of course none of you ever over-reached and called Chavez, "the saviour" or "the hero."

Of course none of you are glorifying this cat.

But you are wrong that the American newspapers supported that coup and you are wrong that most Americans (even the ones who voted for Bush) don't know that coup has stupidly enhanced Chavez' appeal and is causing the world to overreact to its new Champion.

I have no doubt that Chavez will do some good, but I highly doubt he will do any better than Castro and highly doubt the poverty in that country will change in 20 years and highly doubt that anyone understands how more people in Canada and US and Europe benefit from more entitlement programs than this guy Chavez with his oil dollar will ever accomplish.

And yes, he's got a long hard road.
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: Smearing chavez ameri

Do all you neocons read from the same playbook or something?

Whats wrong with Castro? America can not break him as much as they try and you will never break Chavez.

Hell the rest of the world now knows Americas dirty little game. The rest of the planet is tired of the bs from america and its terrorist war criminal leader. We know the truth about america and its government.
America won't be able to run over the world like it has in the past. It does not have many friends left.
 

peapod

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2004
10,745
0
36
pumpkin pie bungalow
"that most Americans (even the ones who voted for Bush) don't know that coup has stupidly enhanced Chavez' appeal and is causing the world to overreact to its new Champion."

Ya jimmy :roll: :roll: :roll: not to mention the people that must have died over it...but hey whats that over chavez' image :roll: :roll: the neocons might loose some greenbacks??
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Regarding playbooks ? No1important?

LOL !

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Man oh man.

There are two herds on this planet and both are marching lockstep to their favorite drummer, eh?

And believe me my fellow sincere citizen of the world, America has no monopoly on sin.

It's convenient for the world to think so.

But Castro's sins or even Chavez's sins don't cause the Nielsen ratings to soar.

Be wary of your own righteousness.

I stumble over the same all the time.

Sincerely.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Jimmoyer wrote:But you are wrong that the American newspapers supported that coup


Media Advisory

U.S. Papers Hail Venezuelan Coup as Pro-Democracy Move

4/18/02

When elements of the Venezuelan military forced president Hugo Chavez from office last week, the editorial boards of several major U.S. newspapers followed the U.S. government's lead and greeted the news with enthusiasm.

In an April 13 editorial, the New York Times triumphantly declared that Chavez's "resignation" meant that "Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator." Conspicuously avoiding the word "coup," the Times explained that Chavez "stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader."

Calling Chavez "a ruinous demagogue," the Times offered numerous criticisms of his policies and urged speedy new elections, saying "Venezuela urgently needs a leader with a strong democratic mandate." A casual reader might easily have missed the Times' brief acknowledgement that Chavez did actually have a democratic mandate, having been "elected president in 1998."

The paper's one nod to the fact that military takeovers are not generally regarded as democratic was to note hopefully that with "continued civic participation," perhaps "further military involvement" in Venezuelan politics could be kept "to a minimum."

Three days later, Chavez had returned to power and the Times ran a second editorial (4/16/02) half-apologizing for having gotten carried away:

"In his three years in office, Mr. Chavez has been such a divisive and demagogic leader that his forced departure last week drew applause at home and in Washington. That reaction, which we shared, overlooked the undemocratic manner in which he was removed. Forcibly unseating a democratically elected leader, no matter how badly he has performed, is never something to cheer."


The Times stood its ground, however, on the value of a timely military coup for teaching a president a lesson, saying, "We hope Mr. Chavez will act as a more responsible and moderate leader now that he seems to realize the anger he stirred."

The Chicago Tribune's editorial board seemed even more excited by the coup than the New York Times'. An April 14 Tribune editorial called Chavez an "elected strongman" and declared: "It's not every day that a democracy benefits from the military's intervention to force out an elected president."

Hoping that Venezuela could now "move on to better things," the Tribune expressed relief that Venezuela's president was "safely out of power and under arrest." No longer would he be free to pursue his habits of "toasting Fidel Castro, flying to Baghdad to visit Saddam Hussein, or praising Osama bin Laden."

(FAIR called the Tribune to ask when Chavez had "praised" bin Laden. Columnist and editorial board member Steve Chapman, who wrote the editorial, said that in attempting to locate the reference for FAIR, he discovered that he had "misread" his source, a Freedom House report. Chapman said that if the Tribune could find no record of Chavez praising bin Laden, the paper would run a correction.)*

The Tribune stuck unapologetically to its pro-coup line even after Chavez had been restored to power. Chavez's return may have come as "good news to Latin American governments that had condemned his removal as just another military coup," wrote the Tribune in an April 16 editorial, "but that doesn't mean it's good news for democracy." The paper seemed to suggest that the coup would have been no bad thing if not for "the heavy-handed bungling of [Chavez's] successors."

Long Island's Newsday, another top-circulation paper, greeted the coup with an April 13 editorial headlined "Chavez's Ouster Is No Great Loss." Newsday offered a number of reasons why the coup wasn't so bad, including Chavez's "confrontational leadership style and left-wing populist rhetoric" and the fact that he "openly flaunted his ideological differences with Washington." The most important reason, however, was Chavez's "incompetence as an executive," specifically, that he was "mismanaging the nation's vast oil wealth."

After the coup failed, Newsday ran a follow-up editorial (4/16/02) which came to the remarkable conclusion that "if there is a winner in all this, it's Latin American democracy, in principle and practice." The incident, according to Newsday, was "an affirmation of the democratic process" because the coup gave "a sobering wake-up call" to Chavez, "who was on a path to subverting the democratic mandate that had put him in power three years ago."

The Los Angeles Times waited until the dust had settled (4/17/02) to run its editorial on "Venezuela's Strange Days." The paper was dismissive of Chavez's status as an elected leader-- saying "it goes against the grain to put the name Hugo Chavez and the word 'democracy' in the same sentence"-- but pointed out that "it's one thing to oppose policies and another to back a coup." The paper stated that by not adequately opposing the coup, "the White House failed to stay on the side of democracy," yet still suggested that in the long run, "Venezuela will benefit" if the coup teaches Chavez to reach out to the opposition "rather than continuing to divide the nation along class lines."

The Washington Post was one of the few major U.S. papers whose initial reaction was to condemn the coup outright. Though heavily critical of Chavez, the paper's April 14 editorial led with an affirmation that "any interruption of democracy in Latin America is wrong, the more so when it involves the military."

Curiously, however, the Washington Post took pains to insist that "there's been no suggestion that the United States had anything to do with this Latin American coup," even though details from Venezuela were still sketchy at that time. The New York Times, too, made a point of saying in its April 13 editorial that Washington's hands were clean, affirming that "rightly, his removal was a purely Venezuelan affair."

Ironically, news articles in both the Washington Post and the New York Times have since raised serious questions about whether the U.S. may in fact have been involved. Neither paper, however, has returned to the question on its editorial page.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Do all you neocons read from the same playbook or something?


actually they all memorize the same script. :wink: ......and repeat it until they don't have to think anymore. :wink:
 

no1important

Time Out
Jan 9, 2003
4,125
0
36
57
Vancouver
members.shaw.ca
RE: Smearing chavez ameri

Funny only one country I know of has an embargo against Cuba. The CIA or any other agency has yet to take him out. He is a thorn in your side. America made him what he is today.

Man I remember a couple years ago, Castro's plane stopped here in Vancouver to fill up and he was greeted by throngs of people as if he were a celebrity.

Why laugh at the neocon playbook? well here it is

the good american

btw-Viva Chavez.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
Re: RE: Smearing chavez ameri

no1important said:
Funny only one country I know of has an embargo against Cuba. The CIA or any other agency has yet to take him out. He is a thorn in your side. America made him what he is today.

Man I remember a couple years ago, Castro's plane stopped here in Vancouver to fill up and he was greeted by throngs of people as if he were a celebrity.

Why laugh at the neocon playbook? well here it is

the good american

btw-Viva Chavez.


sorry for the momentary diversion No. 1.....but look what I found on one of your links:'

Bush Administration policies are not only a "great catastrophe" but the products of a disturbed mind, according to this provocative blend of psychological case-study and partisan polemic. Psychoanalyst Frank sifts through family memoirs, the writings of critics like Al Franken and David Corn and the public record of Bush¹s personal idiosyncrasies for clues to the President¹s character, interpreting the evidence in the rigidly Freudian framework of child psychoanalyst Melanie Klein. He finds that Bush, psychically scarred by an absentee father and a cold, authoritarian mother, has developed a galloping case of megalomania, characterized by a Manichaean worldview, delusions of persecution and omnipotence and an "anal/sadistic" indifference to others' pain, with removal from office the only "treatment option." The author's exegesis of Bush¹s personality traits-the drinking problem, the bellicose rhetoric, the verbal flailings and misstatements of fact, the religiosity and exercise routines, the hints of dyslexia and hyperactivity, the youthful cruelty to animals and schoolmates, the smirk-paints an intriguing, if exaggerated and contemptuous, portrait of a possibly troubled public figure. But Frank's attempts to translate psychoanalysis into political analysis are unconvincing. Indeed, if Bush's reneging on campaign promises is a form of clinical "sadism," and his budget deficits an "unconscious attack on his own parents," then Karl Rove, the Cabinet, and both houses of Congress belong in group therapy with him. MORE


"I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure me out...
I'm just not into psychobabble." -- George W. Bush

For all his simplicity and affability, George W. Bush has remained, to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, "a mystery wrapped in an enigma." In Bush on the Couch, Dr. Justin A. Frank, a well-respected Washington, D.C.­based psychoanalyst and professor of psychiatry, unwraps that mystery, assembling a comprehensive psychological profile of President Bush. Using the principles of applied psychoanalysis -- the discipline of psychoanalyzing public and historical figures pioneered by Freud -- Frank fearlessly builds his case ... and reaches conclusions that are at once highly persuasive and deeply disturbing.

Through a close analysis of Bush's public statements and behavior, as well as the historical record provided by journalists, biographers, and those who have known the president well, Frank traces the development of Bush's character from childhood to the present day. Examining closely the role of the president's parents -- especially Barbara Bush, an acknowledged disciplinarian whose own insecurities may have prevented her from adequately nurturing her son -- Frank finds in Bush's childhood the roots of a dramatic psychic split that remains a dominant influence on his adult worldview. Frank argues that this split has inevitably hampered Bush's ability to manage his emotions, charging his psyche with restless anxiety, and conditioning him to view the world in the black-and-white terms that have so evidently shaped his administration.

Among the other subjects Frank explores:

Bush's false sense of omnipotence, instilled within him during childhood and emboldened by his deep investment in fundamentalist religion

The president's history of untreated alcohol abuse, and the questions it raises about denial, impairment, and the enabling streak in our culture

The growing anecdotal evidence that Bush may suffer from dyslexia, ADHD, and other thought disorders

His comfort living outside the law, defying international law in his presidency as boldly as he once defied DUI statutes and military reporting requirements

His love-hate relationship with his father, and how it triggered a complex and dangerous mix of feelings including yearning, rivalry, anger, and sadism

Bush's rigid and simplistic thought patterns, paranoia, and megalomania -- and how they have driven him to invent adversaries so that he can destroy them

At once a compelling portrait of George W. Bush and a damning indictment of his policies, Bush on the Couch sheds startling new light on an administration whose record of violence and cruelty seems increasingly dependent on the unstable psyche of the man at its center. Insightful and accessible, courageous and controversial, Bush on the Couch tackles the question no one seems willing to ask: Is our president psychologically fit to run the country? MORE


21JAN2005 Official Day of Mourning After for USA


Is George W Bush Legally Insane?


Sign the petition demanding that George W Bush
submit to a psychiatric examination

We the undersigned, contending that no sane man would knowingly and willfully cause the deaths of more than 200,000 Iraqis with an absolutely unjustified war, find that George W Bush did exactly that. We also contend that George W Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of between 1,300 and 1,400 U.S. soldiers since March of 2003.

We the undersigned, petition the Congress of the United States to demand that George W Bush submit to a psychiatric examination. If it is then determined he is any variation of nuts, runamuck, balmy, batty, berserk, bonkers, certifiable, crackers, crazy, daft, demented, demoniacal, deranged, harebrained, haywire, idiotic, loco, loony, loopy, maniacal, non compos mentis, possessed, psychopathological, psychotic, stark @#$%-ing raving mad, of unsound mind and/or just plain mentally ill, as the 25th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides, he shall be:


1. Removed from office

2. Tried for War Crimes, and if found guilty

3. Ordered to spend the rest of his natural life in the Crawford (Texas) City Jail.




Click HERE to Sign the Petition


Code:
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Tell me again Jimmoyer

how the U.S. newspapers didn't support the (failed)coup in Venezuela.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
And Ocean Breeze, do you not follow a script also ? I hear your same drum sound the same beat just as you hear the opposite drum sounding.


And #juan, thanks for correcting me on the matter of major newspapers (except for the Washington Post) supporting the coup, but those papers did note the demagoguery correctly and to their credit have looked to find out if there was any meaningful American involvement.

Shame on them for not rushing to judgement on our role in the coup, eh?

But maybe whatever we had to do with that coup, I wonder whether we were the dominant player or just a shadow in the dark egging on whoever wanted to stage such a plot.

I doubt neither side will ever adequately answer that question, but I do not doubt that either side knows itself to be indisputably right.
 

neocon-hunter

Time Out
Sep 27, 2005
201
0
16
Cloverdale, BC
RE: Smearing chavez ameri

Wow bushie is crazier than I thought. Thanks for the links. He should be locked up in a padded cell. Maybe some forgein country should go remove him from office?
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
jimmoyer

Don't get the idea I hate Americans. I don't.

I do think that the current U.S. administration would really like to get control of Venezuela's oil though they would prefer to get somebody in power in that country that was pro-U.S. I don't know if they would invade. After all the publicity they probably won't.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,399
95
48
And Ocean Breeze, do you not follow a script also ?

nope......write my own "script".===as I go along.. :wink:


.......The question that comes to mind is this: WHY the heck does the US have to play so damned DIRTY ????? Have they gotten this arrogant because they have been "getting away " with it for so long??? Do they not realize that every "party' can only last for so long??? Sadly they have burned far too many bridges on the world stage now........and have lost all credibility.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Looks like a script to me.
Just like the neo-cons have one.

I know it's hard to believe. Neither side really understands who they attack and therefore both sides will always assume the other side does not think and has to follow some imagined script.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
I don't know if they would invade. After all the publicity they probably won't.

That's the angle Chavez has been playing. He wasn't making nearly as much noise until the US went after him, then he started screaming.

But maybe whatever we had to do with that coup, I wonder whether we were the dominant player or just a shadow in the dark egging on whoever wanted to stage such a plot.

You backed it financially and supplied weapons and logistics, according to FBI documents that have been uncovered. That's a major role. It's also illegal.

Shame on them for not rushing to judgement on our role in the coup, eh?

The role of the press in a democracy is to hold the government to account, Jimmy. Since your government was acting illegally, they had, and still have, a duty to publish that.