And there it is.

He's got another post just below about Chavez, with 32 posts. He hasn't answered any of the replies. I thought you didn't like this sort of thing. It's not too late to edit that post with a better example of what you were talking about.

dumb, sourcing a right wing cretin who runs a "security firm." Even people like me, who really don't give a hoot one way or another about Chavez or this whole debate, look at a thread like that and say "C'mon, man. This is just pathetic."

So, of course he's not going to try to respond to that one. It's not likely even he fails to see the stupidity of it.

on the day I wrote that OP. As I said, I was not calling out the author, just asking a question about posting and leaving. I used a current example. I also did not suggest that any action should be taken with regard to such posts. I was just mentioning that I don't particularly like them. I just find post and leave threads annoying, personally. I was hoping to stimulate posters into sticking around for the discussion on things they post. Besides, the OP of this thread has returned to the thread to comment on replies. I did not see the other thread, because my interest in Chavez is minimal. This thread is about his opinion of President Obama, so it does interest me.

And, BTW, when you wrote that I don't much like you in that other Meta thread, you were wrong. I have no animosity towards you in general. I didn't respond in that thread, because I don't participate in such threads as a rule. I think you're fine, and hope you'll continue to post regularly.

And I think Chavez has earned the right to say things like that, too.

He walked the walk.

But he expressed himself with undiplomatic frustration?

The comment is irrelevant to the question of whether his policies benefited the mass of people who voted for him in his country better than would those of his rightist opposition, just as it is irrelevant to substantiating charges he was a dictator, a tyrant, etc., nor does it refute the facts of U.S. backing of at least one coup against him.

Again, this is irrelevant to the question of whether his policies benefited the mass of people who voted for him in his country better than would those of his rightist opposition, just as it is irrelevant to substantiating charges he was a dictator, a tyrant, etc., nor does it refute the facts of U.S. backing of at least one coup against him.

The point is to show that Chavez was no friend of Obama, which wasn't exactly a secret.

What matters is whether his policies benefited the mass of people who voted for him in his country better than would those of his rightist opposition, whether charges he was a dictator, a tyrant, etc. can be substantiated, and the well-established fact of U.S. backing of at least one coup against him.

On a Democratic site dedicated to supporting him.

Again, you're answering a question that wasn't asked. The OP didn't say anything about Chavez's domestic politics.

The only element which matters is whether his policies benefited the mass of people who voted for him in his country better than would those of his rightist opposition, whether charges he was a dictator, a tyrant, etc. can be substantiated, and the well-established fact of U.S. backing of at least one coup against him.

The focus of the O.P. on irrelevancies is simply confession he cannot successfully contest ( particularly on a site for progressives and liberals ) the substance of the late President's policies and social movement.

He wasn't some bureaucrat working in a cubicle. He quite deliberately cultivated a high profile on the international stage. Diplomacy will be a huge part of his legacy.

What he said about Obama matters. Just like what he said about Bush matters.

By that logic, you should have the same response to an OP with the headline 'Chavez called Bush a donkey'

'Utterly irrelevant, sir, to his policies that benefited . . . ' I highly doubt you would respond that way in such a thread.

Chavez's anti-Americanism was a major part of his identity. It's worthy of discussion, just as his domestic policies are.

While his likening of Bush to the devil at the United Nations amused me, it was in fact quite irrelevant to whether his policies benefited the mass of people who voted for him in his country better than would those of his rightist opposition, whether charges he was a dictator, a tyrant, etc. can be substantiated, and the well-established fact of U.S. backing of at least one coup against him. A great many people have denounced Bush without thereby endearing themselves to me....

A certain distaste for the Giant of the North is part of the political heritage of Latin America, and has been come by honestly over the centuries. Its absence is more likely to rouse my suspicions than its presence is to rouse my ire.

Chavez's public statements about Obama or anybody else aren't all that relevant to his domestic policies or the 2002 coup attempt. But the coup and his domestic policies are not the sum total of his identity or legacy.

That may not matter to the few things that you cite. But it still matters.

'Your instinct for the capillary?' Aren't capillaries the little things that connect arteries and veins? Did you mean 'jugular?' If so, I disagree. I don't think I'm a go for the jugular type of person. But whatever.

Off topic, but have you ever noticed that in songs/poetry, veins are by far the most popular blood vessels? Nobody ever says 'the blood in your arteries/capillaries.' It's always 'veins.' Maybe because it's easier to rhyme with it.

"I'm going home. Someone bring me some frogs and some bourbon."

Still not getting it.

In any case, enjoy the frogs.

...despite his feelings for our government's leaders.

re:"Chavez's anti-Americanism was a major part of his identity."

http://www.policymic.com/articles/3357/hugo-chavez-gives-heating-aid-to-u-s-poor-following-obama-budget-cuts

TYY

It's a site for liberals, progressives and dems and there is NO mandate to support President Obama.

But I get the impression that some degree of support for the Democratic President is expected here. I'm fully aware that 'liberal' and 'progressive' are not synonyms for 'Democrat.' But nonetheless the admins certainly encourage support for the President.

In any case, that wasn't even the main thrust of my argument. Whatever DU's purpose is, it's understandable why members might be interested in what Chavez had to say about Obama and would factor that in to their impressions of the man.

his foreign policy approach was to hate on the United States and bear hug every anti-American dictator he could reach.

then you don't know much about the history of Latin America.

That's not incredibly troubling--not nearly as much as his lavish praise of Mugabe, Assad, Ahmadinejad, Qadhafi, etc. That man loved dictators the way Ronald Reagan used to.

But since we're not Venezuelan, it shouldn't matter to us that Chavez befriended dictators who posed no threat to the U.S. (Ahmadinejad, by the way, has no decision-making power in the Iranian government.)

The enemy then being the Soviet Union.

If we're talking about his role in changing the lives of his people, yes he was a pretty good guy though imperfect. Venezuelans made the right choice.

If we're talking foreign policy, his foreign policy was every bit as cynical and unprincipled as US foreign policy typically is.

It was more like what would happen if a foreign leader buddied up to one of our right-wing militias.

was certainly less than admirable.

You know, the same claims were made about the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and it turned out that they were fabricated by the Reagan administration (specifically, Otto Reich).

politicians to avoid being "poisoned by those wandering Jews" and claiming that Zionism "threatens to destroy the entire planet" in attacking a political rival of Jewish ancestry and his embrace of the world's most famous Holocaust denier?

All fabrications I'm sure.

I thought I was going insane with all the disgusting worship of this man - so nice to see someone who doesn't close their eyes to uncomfortable truths about supposed heroes.

Jewish school raid:

http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=837277&ct=873329

"Wandering Jews" and other material:

In November 2004, after the assassination of well-known prosecutor Danilo Anderson, the Government used satirical comments made by journalist Orlando Urdaneta on a U.S. television program to allude to possible Israeli participation in Anderson's killing. The Israeli Embassy in Caracas denied any Israeli involvement in the assassination and warned that such representations by the Government were misleading. On November 29, 2004, members of the country's investigative police searched the Hebrew Center of Caracas at the beginning of the school day as part of the Anderson investigation. Jewish community leaders expressed outrage and indicated doubt regarding the authorities' explanation for the search. Newspaper reports suggested that rumors of Israeli involvement in the assassination might have been behind the investigation.

In August 2004, several incidents of anti-Semitism occurred during the time of the presidential referendum. The pro-government daily newspaper VEA published an article containing accusations that Jewish leaders in the country had participated in the 2002 coup against the Government. During a political rally, graffiti labeling Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon an assassin and condemning the Zionist movement was painted on a Caracas synagogue. A few days after his electoral victory, President Chavez gave a speech in which he compared the opposition to "wandering Jews."

Can't say I don't agree with the assessment.

Especially after they way Obama blew off the coup in Honduras and is militarizing SA again.

I won't even get into the whole drone, kill at his leisure thing.

Very fucking lame.

Very fucking lame.

But you knew that.

getting insulted by Hugo Chavez is political gold.

Being hated by the far left and far right is the best situation for him politically.

I'm a huge Obama supporter and I am hot and cold re: Chavez (RIP) and I don't care.

ETA: I struck "I could care less" from my original comment. Not grammatically correct and almost as controversial here as circumcision and Olive Garden.

My pro-Chavez views do not conflict with my loyal support to President Obama.

Dude can't even juggle, much less ride that teeny-tiny bicycle.

for the love of reason, can't you do better than that. Fucking pathetic.

well, I guess.

"The Devil is right at home. The Devil, the Devil himself, is right in the house. And the Devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the Devil came here. Right here. And it smells of sulphur still today. Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the Devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world." - on George W. Bush, who appeared before the UN General Assembly a day earlier in 2006.

How about showing some class.

Bringing up such items today is Classless. 48hrs ago was OK, maybe a week after he's laid to rest. But in the interim, We can stay classy and say nothing or focus on how he was loved by family etc. Let the divisive crap lay for now.

as you do unto them and theirs.

"criticised Venezuela's business and political links with Iran and Cuba". That's the point; Chavez wasn't going to say "yes sir so terribly sorry, I see the error of my ways and will henceforth conform my governance to serve American interests rather than those I judge to be Venezuela's".

One can question Chavez making allies of Cuba and Iran, but Castro's survival in power for 50 years in the face of US opposition and assassination attempts, and despite crushing economic sanctions levied by the US, is both impressive and something that has some resonance in Latin America generally...and Iran, as a major oil-producing country, made a natural partner for Chavez in his efforts to create a bloc of countries with mutually-aligned interests as a counterweight to American hegemony. And I don't really see how Chavez' alliances with Castro and Ahmadenijad and Gaddafi are any worse than the USA's support of Batista and Pinochet and the Shah and Somoza and Marcos and the military juntas in Brazil and Greece; for an American president to presume to lecture the leader of another sovereign country on whom he chooses to ally with is, frankly, absurd.

but think he went easy on the president.