Is it True Hillary Blasted Chavez Today!?!?

If so she is off my list and I will refuse to vote for her. If the Dems start this same shit that Bush does what is the difference???:evilfrown:

:popcorn:

Just kidding.

OK not really. :evilgrin:

http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2007/03/hillary-shut-lights-hurt-chavez-save-polar-bears.html

:mad:

Why can't ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT beyond Kucinich stand against imperialism and smashing other Democratically elected leaders? Chavez has done more for his country than any of these DLC corporate pigs will ever do for us...I already told her to take me off her list after her Nazi like attacks on Iran.

of the aisle. They are ALL a disgrace.

I'm so sick of this shit that I'm willing to fire all of them. All we can do is keep fighting.:banghead:

At least until Hugo came along...

It's the closest they have come to a democracy yet...

:(

At this rate, my only hope is that Gore, and/or Clark gets into the race.

:)

she sounds like bush and lou dobbs

<snip>

The first question she received after a speech to employees of the Pioneer Hi-Bred International facility in Johnston raised the issue of the Chavez government. The former first lady assailed the Venezuelan president for fomenting "anti-Americanism across Latin America" and returned, in unusually personal terms, to one of the themes of her speech - how energy independence could prevent the transfer of American dollars to anti-American regimes.

"My late father was a child of the depression and he never left a room without turning out every light. Well, now I go around turning out the lights," she said.

"If we said, 'Turn off that light because we don't want to send any more money to Chavez in Venezuela,' that would make a difference."


http://thepoliticker.observer.com/2007/03/hillary-shut-lights-hurt-chavez-save-polar-bears.html

L

C

unfortunately, the Dem nominee will be in the same anti-Chavez camp as all those corporate/fasicst-progressives at DU, no matter who it will be.

what Gore's views on El Presidente Chavez are?

Isn't "corporate/fascist-progressives" an oymoron?

ironic vein, you see.

a purposeful 'oymoron'

I dunno how to use those little thingies for sarc, etc.

didn't quite get my "x" in.

Oy vey..I getcha now.

It's NOT about Chavez and it's NOT just about Latin America! The criminals permitted to run amok in the Executive Branch with the complicity of Quislings and Fascists in the Legislative and Judiciary branches have EARNED "anti-Americanism" around the entire fucking world!

anti-bush unlike hillary. But, hillary is too busy pandering to know the difference.

This woman has no clue.

but she does have a clue, the DLC/AIPAC/Corporatist clue. It is her supporters that need the clue bus on her to pull up.

That's the only clue she needs to know, evidently.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thanks for the lovely insult to me and my parents.

How niiiiiccce!

pay attention to superficialities instead of substance.

I have no idea why ANYONE would want to see a corporatist apologist DLCer as the Dem candidate for president. I can only assume that they are people who don't have a very deep grasp of the underlying issues of the plutocratic control of our government.

Be insulted if you want. On the other hand, you COULD make some effort to educate yourself on the very real issues of power and control and who wields it, and for whose benefit. Hint: it isn't for OUR benefit, or for the benefit for most of the world's population.

sw

are just a buncha back woods bumpkins. We ain't got no fancy education.

:eyes:

twist it into an implication that you're uneducated.

But hey, if it makes you happy...

It's so easy to get people in GD to climb up on their high and might perches!

Bravo, hon!!!

and are instead reduced to refering to me by a diminuative, I'll consider our dialogue finished.

Good night.

Nite hon!!!

:woohoo:

You alawys have the best responses sw! I can never say it better than you!

:)

piss off. I've witnessed too much shit going down in this country in my almost 60 years on this earth to have any patience anymore with willful naivite.

Thanks, as always, for your kind support. :loveya:

sw

:D

:evilgrin:

a real progressive and not someone who just marches like a zombie behind anything that calls itself a Democrat. Zell Miller and Lieberman called themselves democrats once...just saying. I think DU would do itself a world of good if it read some Marx, Michael Moore, Chomsky, Lenin, Jimmy Carter, Michael Harrington and others. I know that sounds like a strange list but they all knew/know what was up socially and economically in the world...even if they don't all agree with eachother. Hillary is a fucking shill and she will do nothing for this country.

:yourock:

:thumbsup:

"superficialities instead of substance" I am stealing that!

Dismantling Public Housing and public schools funding (an ongoing consensus among neoliberal Washington insiders and wealthy urbanites) and opposing trade deals that "liberal" Dems like Clinton, Gore and possibly even Obama have spent years arguing for.

is no different than the RNC's.

In fact the DC Democrats may even be more aggressive in grabbing Latin American resources.

The first question she received after a speech to employees of the Pioneer Hi-Bred International facility in Johnston raised the issue of the Chavez government. The former first lady assailed the Venezuelan president for fomenting "anti-Americanism across Latin America"

Maybe they don't like us because we start coups, kill their people, steal their resources ect..This is why I hate the Clintons. The more I learn about the inner workings of our government the harder it is to be a Democrat.

Soooo, she thinks s democratically elected president (once deposed for a day and twice elected thanks to OUR "fomenting") should not speak ill of our Dear Leader and how we treat our poor. Well then why doesn't SHE do something about it? Sheesh.

Cat In Seattle

off my list after her "shock and awe" speech to AIPAC about Iran. Hail Hillary! (goosestep goosestep)

not to vote for her. Good gawd.

she loses voters. Sorry for expressing my opinion. I forgot here on DU we can't do that around election time. God forbid I look into what she stands for, beyond having a "D" behind her name. Some of you people..

and start a thread that she's got "disdain" for the voters now.

The innuendo about her never ends...

Wouldn't want you to have nothing to do.

First he's says now that Hillary said something about St. Chavez he won't vote for her .... then he said after some other speech he "wrote her off".

WOW! I'm sure La Hillary is shaking in her sensible shoes. I know I AM!

That's two times he won't vote for her! That's like doubleplusungood, isn't it?

knocked her off my primary list. Now I just plain won't vote for her. Like I said in an above post. Hillary supporters sure get mad if anyone expresses their opnion. If you don't bow down and kiss Hillary's feet you are in trouble here. I don't really care if you vote for her or not. I simply stated my intentions. Get a grip.

Write in Hugo Chavez for dictator? That'll show her!

care if you or her are shaking in your boots. Whether she is shaking or not she is making a lot of enemies who will not vote for her. Your insults to everyone aren't helping her either. Perhaps she should hire you for he rcampaign. Neither of you have any grasp on the issues you just insult people. You would be a perfect match.

You might as well support Kucinich because he's probably the only one who isn't negative towards Chavez. And I'm not even sure about that.

sent him a letter of support along with other congressional Dems. I considered all of them. Thus far she and Biden are crossed off for good. I just sent her a message about my disgust on her foreign policy issues.

:yourock:

I love these anti-Hillary threads. I don't use the "ignore" list. But I have a very thick "fuck you" list.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm so crushed!

this guy has been acting like an ass. If a Dem can't say so, then we're in trouble. We can't allow our most electable Dems to be driven to the left of Jane Fonda. Remember that the general public, while certainly war-weary, will still be too afraid to vote for someone who isn't going to stand up to dictators, terrorists, and wayward regimes. If she says she's unilaterally invading Venezuela, then I'll be alarmed. Obama needs to talk tough too, which he has been doing in terms of Iran. They know what they need to do. Let them do it!

Nothing like a voice of reason. Good job!

he was democratically elected and he has every right to go after Bush. He has tried to fuck him over at every turn. In the past, Chavez has said he had good relations with Bill Clinton, so why would she go off like this? If we get her as president are we going to see her funding military squads and imposing sanctions on everyone? No thanks.

back up your statement. How has he been acting like "an ass"? I guess any Latino who DARES to challenge Uncle Sam and the unabashed exploitation of his country and people is just "an ass" in your view. :eyes:

administration was turning Venezuela AWAY from a democracy and more into a dictatorship--he is on a power-grab. Am I wrong? And you know and I know that Chimpy IS "el diablo", but sorry, another country's leader should not be allowed make anti-American, anti-President statements without challenge, no matter how we feel about our own "dear leader". HE is provoking us with his words, and possibly inflaming anti-American sentiment in the region. This we do not need. Our elected officials need to respond with appropriate condemnation. His being Latino has nothing to do with it.

Well yes you are.

Calling that fucking sorry clown in the white house 'el diablo' (hey and he called him a stupid burro too) is not anti-american, it is anti-dumbass. I applaud Chavez noting that not only does the chimperor have no clothes, he is a stupid arrogant idiot too.

Chavez didn't inflame anti-american sentiment in the region - we did that all on our own. For example in Bolivia we put Bechtel in charge of water, and required Bolivia to make collecting rain water in barrels illegal so that Bechtel could collect their rent. In Argentina we forced an economic program on them that completely wrecked their economy: total economic collapse. Our history of massive and disastrous interference in the region is long and bloody. Chavez is not 'inflaming anti american sentiment' he is bringing hope to the people of the region that there is another way.

But lets talk about Democracy and Venezuela. Venezueala has open transparent verified elections. We don't. Chavez is overwhelmingly popular with the people of Venezuela, which is why they keep voting him back into office. He is not a dictator. In fact one of the many democratic reforms he and his Bolivarian Party instituted was an amendment to the constitution providing for a direct recall election to remove the president from office at any time.

is asking Venezuela for HELP!

"Poor and Working Class Black Hurricane Survivors Visit Venezuelan Communal Councils and Expose “Hatred” of the Poor by Progressive and Government Forces in the U.S.

New Orleans, LA, March 1 - A delegation of four members of the New Orleans Survivor Council and two bottom-up organizers have just returned from a truly inspiring and life-changing trip to meet the people of Venezuela. True to their commitment to bottom-up leadership in New Orleans, they went directly to the bottom: to the everyday, grassroots folk of Venezuela. They met with several of the Venezuelan Communal Councils (organized groups of neighbors within Venezuela who run their communities, and control the resources for their communities; much like what the New Orleans Survivor Council is attempting to do within their poor and working black New Orleans community), and told their stories of survival and struggle to an undeniably attentive audience. The Communal Councils were equally excited and inspired by the meeting with the survivors, and leaped at the chance to bring their needs and requests to the Venezuelan government.

This was the first time a group of poor and working class black people visited Venezuela representing themselves and their own organizations and were not just a backdrop or exhibit for other groups led by the privileged. The effort of the New Orleans Survivor Council delegation to develop camaraderie and a direct working relationship with Venezuelans who are also struggling through class and racial oppression is unheard of in the modern era. Most relationships between the masses of the people throughout the world have not been developed by the masses themselves but by people who claim to represent them, or advocates for them, or those who have styled themselves as their leaders."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3142615

http://www.peoplesorganizing.org/breaking_news.html#nos

On January 31, 2007, Venezuelan National Assembly approved an enabling act granting Chávez the power to rule by decree for 18 months. He plans to continue his "Bolivarian Revolution", enacting economic and social changes. He has said he wants to nationalize key sectors of the economy.<93><94> Chavez, who is beginning a fresh six-year term, says the legislation will be the start of a new era of "maximum revolution" during which he will consolidate Venezuela's transformation into a socialist society. His critics, however, are calling it a radical lurch toward authoritarianism by a leader with unchecked power.

--this is essentially what I heard from the news.

Some foreign governments, including the government of the United States, view Chávez as a threat to global oil prices and regional stability.

'nuff said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez

wikipedia confirmed what I had heard--and yes, I know it's not always the most reliable source, but usually I find it helpful. Reading what you highlighted doesn't make me change my attitude toward Chavez--he is sounding like an anti-American power-hungry authoritarian. I don't doubt he has some good deeds under his belt, and I wouldn't say he's evil, but if he is spreading anti-American sentiment, then I would denounce him. Not BOMB, or OVERTHROW, or SANCTION, but denounce. Rhetoric intended to inflame should not go unchecked. And yes, I thought Chimpy's "Axis of Evil" was inflammatory, brain-dead and didn't help us any.

huh?

no matter what "our fearless leader" has done to screw the world over, we are to get all indignant when a person of another country points it out?

are you for real????

here's 50 cents. buy a friggin' clue.

:grr:

but sorry, another country's leader should not be allowed make anti-American, anti-President statements without challenge, no matter how we feel about our own "dear leader".

Why? Truth is truth no matter where it comes from.If our society is so lame it can't handle it then shame on us,not the ones saying things.

HE is provoking us with his words, and possibly inflaming anti-American sentiment in the region.

You mean like we've been pissing on Latin America for decades now? That kind of provocation?

And I got news for ya,he's not creating anti-American sentiment,it's been there for decades thanks to our ""dear leaders".

Chavez was elected by the people by a considerable margin (56%) in an election that the Carter Center (of former President Jimmy Carter) called valid and fair.

He called Bush exactly what he is. I'm not sure what the problem is unless you're into blind nationalism.

When "anti-American" and "anti-President" comments are warranted and justified, they are warranted and justified; Chavez' comments were both.

But Venezuala isn't one of them.

I think that's the point.

bush with 1/2 the snarkiness.

of the rabidright.

Driven to the left of Jane Fonda?

Geeze

Impressive. Which one is Chavez by the way, a dictator or a terrorist? Or is he just 'wayward'? Do we topple the wayward regimes, or just the terrorists and dictators?


Ain't I rough enough, ooh baby
Ain't I tough enough
Ain't I rich enough, in love enough
Ooh! Ooh! Please

I'll never be your beast of burden
I'll never be your beast of burden
Never, never, never, never, never, never, never be

Maybe we should run ol' Mic for presidunce.

is Jane Fonda not pretty far to the left? Is she not the rallying cry for the right wingnuts? Did they not help defeat Kerry by painting the two with the same brush? She's radioactive--and not especially helpful.

Why yes she is. So why did you bring her up?

to let the Repugs paint Dems as soft peacenik hippies. We'll lose. Look at Giuliani--his big (maybe his ONLY) real strength to the GOPers is his supposed willingness to stand up to Terra and continue Bush's wars. Like it or not, people need to be reassured that Dems aren't going to allow the USA to be pushed around. Foreign policy and national defense have traditionally been considered the strengths of the GOP--if we allow that to stand, we won't win in '08. I think we're reading too much into her remarks. It's just an image thing she's working on--especially important for a woman running for pres.

Oh my. First Jane Fonda. Now "Dems". You are just letting the buzzwords slip out non stop.

Yes indeed that is Hillary's thinking: 'can't be seen as soft, must be aggressive, support war, bash Chavez'. No offense, but fuck that shit. Clinton voted for the Iraq War with just that kind of stupid thinking. She is willing to kill people, just like her husband was, if it will further her political ambitions. Sorry, not interested in that Democratic candidate.

Democrats. If I wanted to go all "Freeper", I'd say "Dhims" or "Rats". My point here is not what I think about our candidates, it's how they are surely going to be portrayed in the general election. Fear is still going to push SOME people to vote GOP, though I don't think it will be with the same force as in the last pres election. Image is key. Go too far to the left or right during the primaries, and it's hard to go back to the center without some damage. Hillary is not my favorite gal--I am pulling for Obama. But I can understand why she's doing what she's doing.

.... that you really ARE a Democrat and that you are trying to make a serious point - think about this.

Why bring Chavez up at all? He is a non-issue to everyone except the breast-beating faux-patriotic numbskulls who think that anyone who DARES to decide what to do with his own natural resources is the enemy.

Why even mention him? Why? Because HRC cannot RESIST an opportunity to play the stupid fucking idiotic triangulation game, she is beyond sickening.

I hope somebody, ANYBODY takes the nomination from this person!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A moderate or even rightward-leaning Democrat, maybe, but a Dem nonetheless.

... welcome to DU :)

thousands of our soldiers and Iraqis dying senselessly cannot compare to Hillary taking a shot at a guy who's acting a bit rogueish and making inflammatory statements to garner attention and whip up an us-vs-them sentiment in South America. Yes, I'm sure that there's a whole lot of South American political history you can all fill me in on, but for my purposes, I just don't see that what she said is somehow a vote-killer. Unless you were inclined not to vote for her anyway, which is fine by me.

Our last march on D.C. would have been so much cleaner with regard to MESSAGE, if Jane didn't force her way to being in the middle of it.

Sure, if she wishes to send money, great, but some will NOT ever forgive her publicity jaunt to NORTH Vietnam while (my brother was being operated on after shrapnel wounds almost killed him) our troops were dying in the South. :grr:

Too bad he can't run.

oh well.... the last i looked the south american people have the right to choose who they want to lead them whether we like it or not. talking tough against iran? ya i forgot iran holds free elections and just recently voted the conservatives out of power.yet the people are stuck with a group of people who behind the curtains controls the wealth of the country and it`s people rights...hey just like the usa! i got it- why don`t our democratic candidates start "talking tough" about the guys who control our country--and stay the fuck out of other country's business?

stay out of other countries' business. We are all globally connected. We do need an assertive foreign policy, and we need to promote American values and goodwill. That's survival. The Neocon plan has done so much damage to our world standing that we will be digging out of the hole for a while. We can't afford to disengage. I'm speaking DIPLOMATICALLY, of course, not militarily.

Are you even aware that we tried repeatedly to topple the Chavez government? We routinely mess with our weaker neighbors to the south. The history of our interference in the region is disgusting.

Engagement does not mean plotting coups, destabilizing economies, fomenting dissent. How about we start by treating every other nation on the planet with respect and as an equal?

that we were trying to topple the Chavez gov. I knew that our admin. did not much care for Chavez. Why is that so? Is it another neocon plot for oil? Perhaps then I do not have a clue--I'll gladly admit that I can be a doofus! But I stand by my statement that anti-American statements must not go unchallenged. The same goes with Ahmanutjob in Iran, who apparently is not popular with his mostly pro-American citizens.

Why do you hate all Iranians?

then you hate Iranians. Your own argument here turned on you. Stupid argument isn't it? Ahmadinejad is an idiot. That does not make me anti-Iranian, it makes me anti-Ahmadinejad.

saying that if the American people think that Chavez is "bad" (which I was under the impression he was, just from watching the news, ignoramus that I am) then our candidates are going to get slaughtered if all they say is, "Can't we all just get along here?" The repugs will paint them as soft, or Appeasers, as is currently the in-vogue phrase for those who wish, like I do, for a diplomatic solution to keep Iran from developing nukes. And no, I don't think that toppling regimes is a good idea--that's certainly not the kind of engagement I was talking about. But, we do have to stand up for our image and our interests via diplomacy--that is a matter of survival, and that's what I mean by engagement.

You watch the "news". The brand on television I assume. It is surprising to me, but you are apparently unaware that these "news" programs routinely lie, spin, and obfuscate. I assume this is why you are unaware that there was a coup attempt against Chavez, or that the US backed that attempt. It was almost successful, and would have been except for the extreme outpouring of support for Chavez from the people of Venezuela.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

There's a link for you. It's a video documentary that was put together by some journalists that were there at the time. It's called The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. You might learn a thing or two there that you never saw on CNN.

Also, you seem to view DU and DU'ers much like some others do, especially those who post at websites who are, shall we say, ideologically different than we are. You seem to believe we are ignorant of world leaders and events, excessively PC, and not quite realists. I assure you that while such people can be found at any web site, here at DU you will find some of the most educated and informed people on any topic you'd care to name, anywhere in the world. If a DU'er suggests that you may be wrong about something, it's possible that they are just another fool on the internet, but it is also VERY possible that they know about 1000% more than you do on the topic at hand. Check your facts and keep an open mind and you will do well here.

If, on the other hand, you form opinions and deride others based loosely on things you heard on the news, you are gonna get spanked. Things "everyone knows" don't apply here. You are amongst a group that will actually checks facts, and increasingly here in the United States things "everyone knows" turn out to be nothing more than propaganda furthering somebody's agenda.

Keep this in mind. EVERY televised news source and the vast majority of other sources in MSM are pro-corporate, by their very nature. They ARE corporations. Chavez is implementing reforms that corporate America does not like. Are you really so surprised that they would demonize him? Keep that idea in mind when viewing ANY news on television. The corporations who are reporting said news to you ALL have agendas. All of them. Once you truly realize this you will be amazed how often you can spot the inaccuracies and spin being beamed at us as if it were Truth.

I've already acknowledged that I'm sure there are many on this forum that know WAYYY more than I do--I never thought for a second that DU'ers were anything but educated/informed people. That's why I come here--to learn from like-minded people. I don't mind being wrong. It's happened a few times ;). My viewpoint, though, remains essentially the same, which is that I can understand Hillary's need to talk smack about an unpopular figure--it may be a transparent move, but it may be necessary for her to take potshots like that to look tough on the world stage. She simply has a lot to prove. And I'm not sure Chavez is a friend to the US (despite the heating oil thing) or to the people he governs (changing the constitution to support his plans). I don't excuse our gov's tendency to piss other countries off. I won't, however, support inflammatory and degrading comments directed either at the Pres (as godawful as he is) or to our country by other leaders. That's not extreme or blind patriotism--that's an insistence on diplomatic discourse. But you have given me food for thought about Chavez and the media--I appreciate your thoughtful reply and your link.

Anybody that knows anything about Latin America knows that the USA has stepped on their democracies time and time again. Saying they want them to have one, but choosing their leaders who have usually turned out to be dictators that did our biding. bush and the bushettes have tried to continue with that tradition with Chavez, but he has been too strong for them. And yes they want their oil. I had a friend from Venzuela and when the war in Afhanistan and then Iraq began, she said "They will come after us next. I have to go home." I didn't know much about Chavez then, but now I understand what she meant when she said. "We have a leader who will not take bush's BS." That is all I have to say, nothing about any candidate.

ALWAYS get a different story from the 30 second, 60 second, at the most, "newsstories" available on even the national, conventional news show.

It takes us all a long time to gather the information we've studied, and it just can't be learned from some beanbag at cable news. They are not inclined to spend money on doing research, and they are especially not inclined to speak a word which would impugn the hype about any right-wing pResident, no matter how much damage they do.

Richard Nixon told Richard Helms, during their planning period to get rid of Salvador Allende, plotting the breakdown of their economy with a crippling transportation strike which backed up trucks of of food and other supplies at the docks, etc.: "Make their economy bleed."

The assassinations prior to the coup, the bombing of the Presidential Palace, the reign of terror by the U.S. puppet dictator Pinochet, the 11 torture centers in Chile, the 3 torture ships sailing the waters off the coast, the suspected "leftist" dissidents tortured, then thrown out of airplanes into the sea, the lakes, the rivers, dropped onto the mountain tops year after year after year all can be laid at the feet of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger who is in jeopardy to this day if he travels with publicity as there are people who want to sue him for the murder of their father, a military general who wanted to block the coup against Allende.

Ronald Reagan supporting the death squads in Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, wiping out entire villages of Native citizens, hacking and stabbing and shooting and bludgeoning ALL the inhabitants to death, sending any survivors screaming into the forests to hide, and his side-kick _{George H. W. Bush} created a living hell for Central Americans which has had no equal, and were celebrated by the right-wing Republicans, as well as right-wing monster "ministers" like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc.

If ONLY these people would get off their butts and start trying to find out what has been happening all this time, instead of making asses of themselves arguing from a position of astonishing ignorance on message boards where everyone ELSE keeps up, THEN maybe we could get somewhere.

As it is, they merely get in the road, and slow everything down to a crawl while people try to explain something complex to people who see the world in comic book form. Christ Almighty!

Thank you for having paid attention to what has been happening in US right-wing policy vs. the Western Hemisphere.

and I'll say it again: I want us to win in 2008. I want us to stop the war and not enter another one. I want to put the brakes on the Repug/neocon freight train. If Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and whoever else has to claim a tough and hawkish (for Dems) angle to win voters' confidence that we will not be weak on foreign policy and overrun with terrorists, then that's OK with me. I harbor NO fear that any of them will take us into war unless absolutely necessary.

he's leading the way against their lending....by not playing their game.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/01/business/imf.php

Hugo Chávez exploits oil wealth to push IMF aside
By Christopher Swann Bloomberg News
Published: March 1, 2007


WASHINGTON: President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela is using his country's oil wealth to squeeze the International Monetary Fund out of Latin America, the region that once accounted for most of its business.

IMF lending in the region has fallen to $50 million, or less than 1 percent of its global portfolio, compared with 80 percent in 2005. Meanwhile, Chávez has used his oil wealth to lend $2.5 billion to Argentina, offer $1.5 billion to Bolivia and $500 million to Ecuador.

Chávez is promoting what he calls a "socialist" alternative to the Fund and its biggest shareholder, the U.S. Treasury. The timing could not be worse for the IMF, whose global clout is diminishing as countries from Uruguay to the Philippines pay their debts.

"Chávez is the No. 1 enemy of the IMF in the region," said José Guerra, a former head of economic research at Venezuela's central bank and now a professor at Universidad Central de Venezuela in Caracas. "He views the IMF as an agent in the service of the U.S."

MORE

Neo-liberal status quo.

VIVA CHAVEZ!!!

predatory policy that made SA leaders wealthy and the poor poorer. Finally, finally. And Hillary doesn't care for Chavez.

Her "blast" against Chevez is not in the least bit surprising, I would never have expected otherwise. She is wholly owned by the Ruling Class -- Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution is to the Ruling Class as garlic is to vampires.

If she is the Dem nominee, I simply will not vote. I refuse to participate in a sham "democracy".

sw

can we draft bernie Sanders yet?

Look, this is NO surprise, Hillary is bourgeois to the bone. Anyone who tries to take control over what belongs to them is an enemy in their eyes.

Seriously.

that bad man called him el diablo.

what he is doing can kiss my *&%.

that the same sense of entitlement that Lieberman thought he had. She thinks the presidency is hers and I'm afraid that when she loses the primary she will run as an independent and fuck the whole thing up.

yeah, riiiight.

HRC is going to run as an independent...


------------


just when I thought DU couldn't get any stupider.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

H.L. Mencken.

shillary has that DOWN.

Color me SHOCKED!

If the Congress and the President can't help them then they will be glad to go to someone who can, even if they don't like what he says about the President.

My question is, why do our poor have to get energy assistance from Venezuela?

boogieman? :)

don't you love it when the Chavez bashers come on with their clueless, emotion-laden rants, never providing any substance for their loathing?

wait a minute! somebody on another thread supported his/her nonsensical ravings, when challenged, with a story from NEWSMAX!

no kidding!

that was about as funny as it ever gets

Still ROFLing on that one.

ha


now here's one for the corpo-fascist progressives here at DU. they can spread it around to their liberty loving pals:



click 'properties' to see its origin...one of my very favorite fascist orgs

Cause he's strawboogieman? :)

of your posts

can't remember which one it is, though.

touch of PSD hitting, I'm afraid.

gotta go, anyway

cheers!

PS you're so nice, I'm doing it twice





don't tell anybody...he's FRENCH!

http://www.michelcollon.info/humour.php

http://www.michelcollon.info

<snip>
The former First Lady largely kept her focus on the energy issue during her address to several hundred employees of the company, a DuPont subsidiary that develops and supplies hybrid seed corn.

Ahh yes, corn futures good.

does not have to be my friend.

There are more than two sides to every issue you know.

Chavez is just as crazy as Bush.

with our oil consumption?

I guess because they keep their mouths shut in public and don't threaten US business interests.

No matter what people think of Chavez, you can't help but be puzzled by the undue attention he's been getting - especially considering how we are toward other oil-producing nations. Including the eerie silence re: Saudi Arabia. Ya know, where the hijackers came from.

Yes, turn off thelights so we don't send more money to Chavez!

Gosh, couldn't we come up with a more grown up reason to conserve energy? Like save the earth maybe? Now, let us show how tough we are by boogey-manning the guy who disparaged our dear leader.

Ugh. Playing to the ditto-heads.

Julie

For every one authoritarian far-left vote she loses, she gains two moderate democratic ones!

"uggghhhhh...idiots!"

We're gonna have to send ya back to scoolin.' <tease! sort of>

We are just pretending to be anti-authoritarian leftists. Once we get into power: off with their heads! (Although I can't support the death penalty even for the DLC robots here, so perhaps it will just be 'off with their toes'.)

We do actually have a coven of unrepentant stalinists on DU, but they number about five or six total.

Could this be further evidence of the
ongoing buyout of the Clintons
by the Imperial U.S. Vulture Corporations...?

and they all will, just like Kerry did in 04.

chavez is a tin horn dictator. threatening to shut down TV stations (ie take away their licenses) because they dare to show opposing viewpoints. he cozies up to that nut in Iran, the dictator in Cuba.

he is currently ruling by decree ie a dictatorship. he is practically unopposed in the legislature. he is planning on rewriting the constitution to eliminate term limits so he can run again when his current term is up.

he may do some good things like providing low cost heating oil, but over all Chavez is not a good person.

no i did not. but jsut because someone is against the nutball we have as president, doesnt mean he is a good guy.

hells even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Chavez has limited authority to rule by decree within certain areas for a specific time. His authority can be revoked at any time by the legislature, and Chavez's tenure as president can be revoked at any time by recall election. He is not a dictator. The TV station has not yet lost its license, but given the fact that it participated in the aborted CIA sponsored coup against Chavez and in the failed CIA sponsored attempt to destabilize Venezuela by a Chileanb style 'middle class economic revolt', it is not surprising that this stations license to broadcast would be in question. Amending the constitution to revoke term limits does not make Chavez a dictator. Abolishing elections would. You let me know when that happens, okay?

by chavez's party. theoretically the nazi party could have revoked hitlers right to rule thru decree while they controlled the german legislature, but they didnt.


additionally his authority is fairly broad to rule by decree, chances are it wont be revoke, in fact probably will be extented.


he is ruling by decree, sounds like a dictator to me. just because he is claiming to do it for social reforms does not make it right.

ruling by decree makes one a dictator.

In addition to legislative oversight, any laws enacted, and the presidency itself, are subject to revocation by referundum. The enabling act is limited in time and scope. You can compare Chavez to Hitler and Venezuela to nazi Germany all you like, but you will continue to be wrong on the facts.

"President Chavez, as you acknowledge, is not the only Venezuelan president to be granted the power to pass laws by decree, referred to in Venezuela as the 'enabling law.' This constitutional power, granted in both the 1961 and 1999 constitutions, was also granted in 1974 to President Carlos Andres Perez, in 1984 to President Jaime Lusinchi, and to interim President Ramon Jose Velasquez in 1993. European constitutions also include clauses for ruling by decree in their constitutions. Thomas Shannon, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs even acknowledges that, "It's something valid under the constitution... At the end of the day, it's not a question for the United States or for other countries, but for Venezuela."

President Chavez has this power for only 18 months and can pass laws in key areas aimed at weeding out corruption, increasing government efficiency, and bringing more equality to our poorest citizens. These laws can be modified or rescinded by the National Assembly at any time and the population has the guaranteed right under our constitution to nullify any of these laws through a national referendum.

Unfortunately, your editorial reflects a misunderstanding that is common place in Washington today. Instead of viewing the dynamic social changes underway in Venezuela as authoritarian simply because they do not fit into the neoliberal model of development touted by the World Bank as the savior to all of our ills, I invite you to take a more realistic approach when analyzing Venezuela. The alternative economic and political model that we have embarked upon, and which is supported by the overwhelming majority of the population, is addressing for the first time in our history the disparity between the rich and the poor and articulating an alternative that creates a space for the social, economic, and political empowerment of those who have been historically excluded.

This is not the mark of dictatorial rule but rather a new way of envisioning popular participation and democracy. Rather than deciding the terms of development for the poor, we are working alongside them to jointly create public services, social programs, and public institutions that best serve our collective needs."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-alvarez17feb17,0,7094124.story?coll=la-opinion-center

in ruling by decree (which is a dictatorship) is ok. interesting. if you really think that the venezualan (sp) congress will override anything that chavez does you are deluding yourself.

just because it is allowed in Venuzuala's constitution and has been done before doesnt make it right.

if chavez really believed in freedom and democracy, then he would not rule by decree nor would he be trying to revoke the license of a TV station that opposes him.

screwing.

She should have a campaign poster pulling the fillings out of dead Indians, or holding their bloody scalps in one hand and have an oil barrel hoisted over the other shoulder.

I'm sick of the pandering to right wing dinosaurs that are still stuck in the cold war era. The times they are a changing and this type of posturing has to stop.

Fuck Chavez!

:eyes:

Everyone take a chill pill.

:(

The Neo-liberal democrats are substantively no different than the Neo-liberal repukes.

The people on this topic opposed to Chavez are a reactionaries saying things like "Fuck Chavez" or "He's a dictator". With nothing to back it up.

one that was started regarding a quote Rice made about Chavez was almost immediately locked?

remember that one?

it didn't even have any flames in it, IIRC.

let me see if I have it bookmarked; I'll check

as a bad source, biased, etc and so on.

so it is kind of hard to convince someone of something (or discuss it) when both sides of the issue reject everything out of hand if it does not fit their view.

:eyes:

and state on this DEMOCRATIC forum that I'm not going to let my vote for or against a viable DEMOCRATIC candidate depend on his or her statements regarding a third world authoritarian leader.

What in the world should my vote or anyone's vote for a Democratic nominee for POTUS have to do with that clownfart? He is irrelevant.

Do you want more aggressive american imperialism, or have you had enough? I've had enough, and I will not vote for a candidate that does not clearly indicate that he or she has also had enough. Ms. Clinton has failed to convince me that she will not simply carry on with our arrogant militant foreign adventurism. She will not get my vote and Chavez bashing is the type of stupid posturing she does that convinces me to not vote for her.

If they don't like Chavez well-enough to your standards? Personally, I think that would be one of the most assinine reasons in existence on which to vote. Basing one's vote on the nominee's opinion of a third world leader! LOL! To each his own!