Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pineda

Send An E-mail To Hugo Chavez

Recommended Posts

Reuters reports Citgo boycott

The Venezuela government, run by the dictator Chavez, is the sole owner of Citgo gas company. Sales of products at Citgo stations send money back to Chavez to help him in his vow to bring down our government.

Take Action

Send an email to Chavez and to Citgo that you will not be shopping at a Citgo station. Why should U.S. citizens who love freedom be financing a dictator who has vowed to take down our government?

send an e-mail to Hugo Chavez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reuters reports Citgo boycott

The Venezuela government, run by the dictator Chavez, is the sole owner of Citgo gas company. Sales of products at Citgo stations send money back to Chavez to help him in his vow to bring down our government.

Take Action

Send an email to Chavez and to Citgo that you will not be shopping at a Citgo station. Why should U.S. citizens who love freedom be financing a dictator who has vowed to take down our government?

send an e-mail to Hugo Chavez

I think it's fine to send emails to leaders and companies we may have beefs with. God knows I burn up the internet with mine. It is, however, important to keep our facts straight. Chavez-unlike Musharraf Of Pakistan or the Saudis, home of most of the 9.11 hijackers-is not a dictator. Like it or not [see Hamas in Palestine] he was elected president in a free and open election condoned by the United States, no less. He also survived a re-call election in 2004. It's important to keep our eye on the ball. The far right American Family Association is as adept at skewing the facts as any far left organization.

So here I am, a Liberal defending an oil company-go figure. All I can say is investigate the facts. Find out who Donald Wildmon and his American Family Association is. Then decide if you want to email Chavez or Wildmon. Besides, does anyone really think a Chavez is going to topple the most powerful nation the world has ever known? I'm thinking not.

God! I love freedom of expression! :D

B)

Where is Pat Robertson and his Black-Ops commandos when you need them !

trouble maker!!!!!! >:)

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's fine to send emails to leaders and companies we may have beefs with. God knows I burn up the internet with mine. It is, however, important to keep our facts straight. Chavez-unlike Musharraf Of Pakistan or the Saudis, home of most of the 9.11 hijackers-is not a dictator. Like it or not [see Hamas in Palestine] he was elected president in a free and open election condoned by the United States, no less. He also survived a re-call election in 2004. It's important to keep our eye on the ball. The far right American Family Association is as adept at skewing the facts as any far left organization.

thanks for keeping the facts straight. i was readiing that 'dictator' comment and was wondering what facts they were reading.

like it or not, we push 'democracy' around the world. we cannot pick and choose the KIND of democracy the people in those places choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, guys! My entire post was actually a copy and paste of an e-mailed story I received yesterday. I thought it was interesting, but kinda figured that there might be another side to the story. I really don't know enough about either side, so I appreciated your comments. HAIF to the rescue again! :D

Edited by pineda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is not a dictator

True. He's a Deomcratically elected offical who has taken measures in the legislature to ensure his longevity. He has worked against the free press, NGOs and other instituions, and whiped the poor into a Robinhood frenzy.

You don't have to follow the Stalin model to be a dictator.

And like other dictators, he is surronding himself in a cult of personality, and exihibts extreme paranoia. Funny he severd time in jail for his involvement in leading a coup. To him, changing the constitution is like updaing a Word document.

Last year he though Bush tried to take him out. Yesterday, he expelled a US Navy offical for spying along side his own military.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4675572.stm

Things are not right in Venezuela. Take oil out of the equation and see how popular he is.

Chavez Profile:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3517106.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner is Venezuelan. He HATES Chavez. Then again, he is from the upper middle class there. Chavez has done some questionable things with the press, the state oil company, and others, but he has also done some wonderful things for the poor. The poor are the majority in Venezuela and that's why he wins elections. It's really that simple.

Additionally, Chavez has done some great things for the poor in the United States. He is offering discounted heating oil to the poor in a handful of Northeastern states this winter at a time that our own federal government is slashing programs to help with home heating oil prices. It's amazing that the oil giants are turning billion dollar QUARTERLY profits but we have to turn to Venezuela to provide assistance to the poor and elderly in our own country!

Additionally, it's kinda laughable that we'd condemn another country for not respecting their constitution at a time when our own regime is violating the U.S. Constitution at an alarming rate

Edited by KinkaidAlum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks for keeping the facts straight. i was readiing that 'dictator' comment and was wondering what facts they were reading.

like it or not, we push 'democracy' around the world. we cannot pick and choose the KIND of democracy the people in those places choose.

Exactly I tried to keep this in mind when Delay kept getting elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Additionally, it's kinda laughable that we'd condemn another country for not respecting their constitution at a time when our own regime is violating the U.S. Constitution at an alarming rate

Good post, Kinkaid. If Venezuela needs a new constitution, maybe we can give them ours since we're not using it anymore.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My partner is Venezuelan. He HATES Chavez. Then again, he is from the upper middle class there. Chavez has done some questionable things with the press, the state oil company, and others, but he has also done some wonderful things for the poor. The poor are the majority in Venezuela and that's why he wins elections. It's really that simple.

Additionally, Chavez has done some great things for the poor in the United States. He is offering discounted heating oil to the poor in a handful of Northeastern states this winter at a time that our own federal government is slashing programs to help with home heating oil prices. It's amazing that the oil giants are turning billion dollar QUARTERLY profits but we have to turn to Venezuela to provide assistance to the poor and elderly in our own country!

Additionally, it's kinda laughable that we'd condemn another country for not respecting their constitution at a time when our own regime is violating the U.S. Constitution at an alarming rate

damn bro! you laid it out there! thanks for keeping it real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't actually think Chavez is giving away heating oil because he actually cares about the poor in this or any other country? In Maine, the deal was for heating oil in exchange for having the state governor meet with him for photo ops. Those photos were then used against the U.S. in leftist propaganda around the world ( http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?he...27-77f03bfdb521 ). This is all about maintaining his power as dictator by trying to embarrass the U.S. and by feeding bread and circuses to the mob at home. Just wait until oil prices come down and he becomes just another two-bit dictator, and then we'll see the real face of Hugo Chavez.

Domestically, it amazes me that people on the left can take the side of every anti-U.S. dictator and thug from Hamas to Fidel Castro to Chavez, and then wonder with a straight face why most Americans don't trust them with foreign policy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't actually think Chavez is giving away heating oil because he actually cares about the poor in this or any other country? In Maine, the deal was for heating oil in exchange for having the state governor meet with him for photo ops. Those photos were then used against the U.S. in leftist propaganda around the world ( http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?he...27-77f03bfdb521 ). This is all about maintaining his power as dictator by trying to embarrass the U.S. and by feeding bread and circuses to the mob at home. Just wait until oil prices come down and he becomes just another two-bit dictator, and then we'll see the real face of Hugo Chavez.

Domestically, it amazes me that people on the left can take the side of every anti-U.S. dictator and thug from Hamas to Fidel Castro to Chavez, and then wonder with a straight face why most Americans don't trust them with foreign policy!

Uh...actually he is the democraticly elected president of Venezuela. (I guess you haven't read the previous posts.) It also appears that most people in this thread don't back anti-US dictators and thugs. Most of us do, however, back democracy.

As far as helping out folks on fixed incomes-mostly elderly-and four Native American tribes and homeless shelters in the state of Maine get a little break from rising oil costs, Maine Gov. John Baldacci did have his picture taken with the company president-not Chavez. You couldn't even copy that right.

You sound like you get alot of your talking points and "facts" from far right-wing radio talk show hosts and "newspapers" like the Union Leader.

To repeat a line from my first post in this thread: Besides, does anyone really think a Chavez is going to topple the most powerful nation the world has ever known? I'm thinking not.

You seem more concerned with spinning your radical right wing talking points than with helping out a few folks stay warm this winter.

Your "compassionate conservatism" is absolutly smothering me.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem more concerned with spinning your radical right wing talking points than with helping out a few folks stay warm this winter.

Let them eat ice cubes.

U.S. orders Venezuelan envoy out

By GEORGE GEDDA

Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

WASHINGTON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't actually think Chavez is giving away heating oil because he actually cares about the poor in this or any other country? In Maine, the deal was for heating oil in exchange for having the state governor meet with him for photo ops. Those photos were then used against the U.S. in leftist propaganda around the world ( http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?he...27-77f03bfdb521 ). This is all about maintaining his power as dictator by trying to embarrass the U.S. and by feeding bread and circuses to the mob at home. Just wait until oil prices come down and he becomes just another two-bit dictator, and then we'll see the real face of Hugo Chavez.

Domestically, it amazes me that people on the left can take the side of every anti-U.S. dictator and thug from Hamas to Fidel Castro to Chavez, and then wonder with a straight face why most Americans don't trust them with foreign policy!

sorry to misinform you, but the price of oil ain't gonna be dropping any time soon.

and since when does telling the truth about american policies make one a leftist or a right-winger? i think this some folks in this country has trouble dealing with Truth (and that is capital T).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and since when does telling the truth about american policies make one a leftist or a right-winger? i think this some folks in this country has trouble dealing with Truth (and that is capital T).

Speaking of telling the truth:

Bush 1-31-6

And to keep America competitive, one commitment is necessary above all: We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity. Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hardworking, ambitious people, and we are going to keep that edge.

Comments on Budget passed 2-1-6

Student groups charged the bill harmed college student through $11.9 billion in cuts to the student loan program, including higher fees on student and higher interest

Talk about double speak.

Note: Sorry about slipping off topic with this. This blatant say one thing and doing another from the State of the Union address has just really ticked me off.

Edited by west20th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talk about a predictable response. Bash Bush.

to be perfectly honest (and i am no bush-lover) he presented very well. in fact, it was the best i heard him SOUNDING in a long time. he was clear, articulate, funny, engaging.

but the rhetoric was about the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talk about a predictable response. Bash Bush.

Correct. That post didn't really belong here. Just had to get it off my chest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's OK. I understand ;-)

Chavez is a trouble maker. And he just hosted Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte Jr and a slew of other Hollwood left-wingers.

They played right into this hands, hapilly bashing the USA.

It's one thing to protest in DC. Quite another to do it in Caracas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's OK. I understand ;-)

Chavez is a trouble maker. And he just hosted Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte Jr and a slew of other Hollwood left-wingers.

They played right into this hands, hapilly bashing the USA.

It's one thing to protest in DC. Quite another to do it in Caracas.

Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belafonte did nothing to further their cause or their reputations but we are not at war with Venezuela. If they want to take their protest to Caracas, so be it. Keep in mind they are the far-left fringe. They no more represent progressives, liberals if you wish, than Pat Robertson represents you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They said oil would never drop in the '70's either. Markets always fluctuate as demand adjusts to the level of supply. Never say never.

As for the truth--shrill-sounding rhetoric ala nmainguy hardly constitutes the truth. As a point in fact, I'm hardly a right-winger and I'm more likely to support democrats than republicans on many domestic issues. However, when it comes to foreign policy, the left wing in this country can hardly seem to tolerate any dissent without resorting to ad hominem attacks and the same retread rhetoric that they've been spouting since the 1960's. (I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They said oil would never drop in the '70's either. Markets always fluctuate as demand adjusts to the level of supply. Never say never.

As for the truth--shrill-sounding rhetoric ala nmainguy hardly constitutes the truth. As a point in fact, I'm hardly a right-winger and I'm more likely to support democrats than republicans on many domestic issues. However, when it comes to foreign policy, the left wing in this country can hardly seem to tolerate any dissent without resorting to ad hominem attacks and the same retread rhetoric that they've been spouting since the 1960's. (I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
our president was 'elected' too, that doesn't mean that he does what's right by most people either. don't think for one minute that bush has the interest of the common american in mind when making his policies.

I never said he did, but neither do the democrats either. Besides, if you're going to argue that Chavez has a right to rule because he was democratically elected, then so does Bush. Thanks for making my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said he did, but neither do the democrats either. Besides, if you're going to argue that Chavez has a right to rule because he was democratically elected, then so does Bush. Thanks for making my point.

i'm just saying that we cannot go around telling the world that their democratically elected leaders are ____. so what if they are?

so are most of ours. they're owned by big business (democrats and republicans alike in both the presidency, the senate, the house of representatives, and local and state government --although locally they tend to be a little more responsive to people because they are closer to the noise) and they generally do whatever they please once elected. if that is not something close to dictatorship, i do not know what is.

i got something for you to read: what pat buchanan had to say about your president's state of the union speech.

looks like the cracks in the right are starting to widen. this should be fun to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm just saying that we cannot go around telling the world that their democratically elected leaders are ____. so what if they are?

so are most of ours. they're owned by big business (democrats and republicans alike in both the presidency, the senate, the house of representatives, and local and state government --although locally they tend to be a little more responsive to people because they are closer to the noise) and they generally do whatever they please once elected. if that is not something close to dictatorship, i do not know what is.

i got something for you to read: what pat buchanan had to say about your president's state of the union speech.

looks like the cracks in the right are starting to widen. this should be fun to watch.

Again, I'm not a fan of the President, but I think it would be really sad to see the right totally melt down the same way the left has. You know, the framers of the Constitution were fearful that one party or faction would be able to gain control of the entire mechanism of government and thus form a tyranny. They developed a system divided government and of checks and balances in order to prevent this from happening, but checks and balances are not fail safe if there exists no effective opposition to the governing party. Ideally, it would be nice to see two strong parties debating opposing visions and working towards some kind of governing consensus. Unfortunately, we now seem to have party hacks who spout talking points, call each other names, and line their own pockets. As far as the two existing parties are concerned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They said oil would never drop in the '70's either. Markets always fluctuate as demand adjusts to the level of supply. Never say never.

As for the truth--shrill-sounding rhetoric ala nmainguy hardly constitutes the truth. As a point in fact, I'm hardly a right-winger and I'm more likely to support democrats than republicans on many domestic issues. However, when it comes to foreign policy, the left wing in this country can hardly seem to tolerate any dissent without resorting to ad hominem attacks and the same retread rhetoric that they've been spouting since the 1960's. (I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a fight between Bush and Chavez, and not the American public. We all know that Bush had Chavez kidnapped during the coup a couple of years ago, and now Chavez is pulling out all stops to embarrass Bush. His replacement - who the Bush administration immediately endorsed - was NOT democratically elected, but installed by the Venezuelan military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cindy Sheehan and Harry Belafonte did nothing to further their cause or their reputations but we are not at war with Venezuela. If they want to take their protest to Caracas, so be it. Keep in mind they are the far-left fringe. They no more represent progressives, liberals if you wish, than Pat Robertson represents you.

Venenzuela apparently wants a piece of the good 'ol U.S. of A. Allbeit, Chavez is a little yapping mutt at our heels, but eventually you get tired of that little yapper and you give him a swift kick with your size 14 boot and "voila" no more yapping. We can't afford to be a "bully" though, so we sluff him off, as we have bigger fish to fry, I have to get these cliches out of my head. Of course people like Sheehan and her "ILK" jump at every opportunity to bash her Pres. not thinking clearly about what consequences it may have down the road, as long as it fits their agenda at the time, not to worry though, Sheehan will have some hack lefty spindoctors to help clarify what she was doing there when Chavez over steps his bounds and the poop hits the fan. :closedeyes:

Oh Yeah, MACBRO, you had a good point, we shouldn't go around saying that other countries' "elected" officials are ____. Shouldn't that road go bothways though ? Go tell that to your boy Chavez would ya ?

Nmain, WTH are you talking about, same rights ? You have healthcare benefits, you can leave your wealth to anyone you want, go make a will, and it will be automatic, what is it that YOU are missing out on, by not being able to marry, and you don't even want to, to begin with. Ok, this is my opinion of what "marriage" is supposed to stand for. IMO marriage is a foundation for which a man and a woman in love can form a singular union for the SOLE PURPOSE of PROCREATION (sp), so that you DO NOT have bastardized children. Yes, I understand it is very "biblical" in fact, that is exactly what it is, and that is why most marriages are performed by a preist or rabbi, and that is how the government has recognized a civil union since, hmmmmm, someone help me out here, oh yeah, the beginning of friggin time ! If you want to have children out of wedlock, by all means, go for it. I will not judge, You want to be homosexual in your relationship, by all means, you go get that house together profess your love for that special guy from the roof top,and live your life like there is no tomorrow, I could care less, and I will be happy for you, I will not judge. I understand that most "gay" relationships become lifelong couplings, and are much more likely to last longer than a "straight" relationship. It is just old fire and brimstone stuff. It just all boils down to a belief system, and I am sorry that the union of man/man woman/woman is not recognized, maybe we as a culture should come up with another name for it other than "marriage" and it be recognized and have the same general meaning, because it is indeed something different than a union between a man and a woman. So sorry for the rant, JMO.

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shrill? No. I was just pointing out facts. What part of my "rhetoric" do you discount? Point by point? So "democratically elected" only applies when it suits your definition?

However, I just can

Edited by mike1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nmain, WTH are you talking about, same rights ? You have healthcare benefits, you can leave your wealth to anyone you want, go make a will, and it will be automatic, what is it that YOU are missing out on, by not being able to marry, and you don't even want to, to begin with.

Teej, Teej, Teej...[that's how I've come to affectionatly refer to you in my mind-seriously]

You've read what I've said about this before but I'll repeat it again.

I don't think government should interfere with marriage. It's a spiritual-religious-whatever you want to call it-relationship between 2 people. I don't need or want the validation. We have the will thing in place and I'm really not worried about which of us goes first-baring nuclear holochaust or an invasion by those mean old Venezuelans-I do, however want the same rights you have under the law. I would like to be able to leave and/or have left to me veteran, SS, and any other government sponsored benefits. In other words, I want the same civil rights you enjoy-not "special"-just the same. So that's WTH I'm talking about.

In any event, I always enjoy your rants so feel free to rant all you want. :wub: OPPS!!!...I meant :P

:lol:

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the whole thing amusing on many fronts. If the AFA is supporting a boycott, that is my first clue that maybe Chavez isn't as bad as he is depicted in US based media. True, Chavez is selling low-cost heating fuel to the US poor to embarrass Bush. My question is, how does Chavez even get that chance? It is because Bush gave him that chance by slashing heating oil subsidies.

I also wonder just how many oil producing countries the US must piss off before it figures it out. It always seems that the same hard-line supporters are the ones driving inefficient vehicles and complaining of high gas prices. They disdain diplomacy as a sign of weakness. But, the tough stance merely exposes our weaknesses, such as a technologically advanced military with too few troops to invade more than one country at a time.

Consider this: The US is currently opposed to or occupying Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela. We are wary of Russia, India, and China. We SHOULD be opposed to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The Pentagon has proposed raising troop levels, even though recruiting targets cannot be met now, due to general opposition to the war and the knowledge that enlisting guarantees a trip to Iraq.

Tough talk is all well and good if one is willing to fight. Americans are not willing to fight, and the government is not asking them to. In fact, the gov't. is not even asking for sacrifice. Every war must be paid for. This gov't. lowered taxes on the wealthy. In his State of the Union Address, Bush proposed lowering foreign oil imports by 75%, but did not even suggest the easiest way to lower oil consumption, raising vehicle gas mileage standards. The reason, we all know, is that American manufacturers say it is too expensive, even though Japenese mfcrs. already do it, and GM and Ford are selling $40,000 SUVs with DVD players in the roof.

In the final analysis, one must look at who the enemy is. Saudi Arabia claims to be an ally of the US, and is protected by the Bush administration. Our "friends", the Saudis, provided 15 of the 19 hijackers. Hugo Chavez is considered an enemy of the State. The US aided the coup that temporarily took him out of office. He has responded by "attacking" the US with cheap heating oil for our poor and lower priced gas for motorists.

Would you rather have Bush's "friends" or his "enemies"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teej, Teej, Teej...[that's how I've come to affectionatly refer to you in my mind-seriously]

You've read what I've said about this before but I'll repeat it again.

I don't think government should interfere with marriage. It's a spiritual-religious-whatever you want to call it-relationship between 2 people. I don't need or want the validation. We have the will thing in place and I'm really not worried about which of us goes first-baring nuclear holochaust or an invasion by those mean old Venezuelans-I do, however want the same rights you have under the law. I would like to be able to leave and/or have left to me veteran, SS, and any other government sponsored benefits. In other words, I want the same civil rights you enjoy-not "special"-just the same. So that's WTH I'm talking about.

In any event, I always enjoy your rants so feel free to rant all you want. :wub: OPPS!!!...I meant :P

:lol:

B)

I do see your point on SS benefits and such, somehow we just gotta seperate the whole marriage issue, like I said I believe you should have the right to a civil union, but marriage has been defined, by both government and God's law, depending on how you interpret the bible. I hate this issue, because I can argue for both sides on this. In my mind, I have it all worked out, explaining it and having people see it the same way is a much different thing.

Back to the issue at hand, if you back any other government , no matter how puny and insignificant they might seem to a world power, be they a dictatorship or democratically elected, if you back their view, then you are treasonist, and should be brought up on charges of sedition, you DO NOT go to another country and protest YOUR government, then expect to get back into the country. You can delicate flower all you want here at home. It's like being married, you can talk about YOUR wife as bad as you want to your buddies at home, but you don't go to her girlfriends house down the street and start talking trash in front of them about her. And, you never let another man talk bad about your wife,even if it's the same thing you just said, because thems fightin words. :angry2::D

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to the issue at hand, if you back any other government , no matter how puny and insignificant they might seem to a world power, be they a dictatorship or democratically elected, if you back their view, then you are treasonist, and should be brought up on charges of sedition, you DO NOT go to another country and protest YOUR government, then expect to get back into the country. You can delicate flower all you want here at home.

I disagree that to support another style of government is treasonous. Treason is clearly defined in the Constitution as waging war against the US, or giving aid or comfort to its enemies. It requires an overt act to be a crime. Advocating the overthrow of the government is also a crime. Therefore, the actions of the Socialist and Communist Parties of the US for a change in the style of US governance is not treasonous. A plot to achieve those goals by overthrow of the elected government would be.

Cindy Sheehan's statement, "Down with the US empire", without overt actions to achieve that goal through force, is protected speech, especially since "Down with" can be achieved any number of ways, most notably, by voting out the offensive party (Bush).

However, it is important to see Cindy Sheehan for what she is...an anti-war protester run amok. 60% of Americans oppose the war. Virtually none of them want Hugo Chavez' help in ending it. Just as Pat Robertson's senility and far right-wing views cause strange and objectionable comments to leave his lips, Sheehan's 15 minutes of fame seem to have caused her mouth to overload her brain as well. Some conservatives will try to install Sheehan as the mouthpiece of the 60% opposed to the war, just as some liberals try to do with Robertson, or even Donald Wildmon with the AFA. Reasonable people, though, will see all of them for what they are...fringe players with unhinged jaws.

With Sheehan, it is sad to see, since her original actions came from the heart. But, however true her original intentions were, now she's just nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To your immediate point, I don't think that Bush resonates all that much with the American people ether, but I believe Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean resonate even less. And, yes, much of what they say in public comes off as bashing their own country, and it plays right into the hands of the other side.

Overthrowing foreign governments, killing or kidnapping foreign leaders, invading countries without provocation, detaining people without due process or access to legal advice, violating the rules of the Geneva Convention, illegal wiretapping, rigging elections, restraining freedom of speech...these seem like un-American activities to me. During the Cold War, we were told that this is what the bad guys did.

It troubles me that any questioning of, or opposition to, this administration or its policies is construed as "bashing America". It's our duty to protest when the very qualities that made this country great are under attack - by our own politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hugo is something of a radical. I neither hate nor love him. I was definately suprised when he was able to recover control of his government a few years back. I thought they had really got him.

Carter's group put their stamp of approval on the last election saying it was above board and fair and that is enough for me.

If Hugo really wanted to screw the US he should just build up a competing airline with domestic flights in the US, with his fuel costs he would sink all the american airlines in no time. (actually I'm sure there are safeguards against such a thing.. right??)

Edited by Lowbrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are strict limitations to foreign ownership of domestic carriers. That's why Sir Richard's Virgin America has had such a hard time getting off the ground.

Don't get me wrong, I am no huge Chavez supporter. I stood in the rain in Boston for 4 hours on Boylston St to wait with my partner so he could vote against him.

That said, I do not think it a crime to HELP the poor to get some good press. I certainly wish more of our pols would do the same. I would think we'd be a much healthier nation if pols gladhandled the poor in photo ops at pre-kindegarten classes, free day care centers for the working poor, a national health care program, or even a habitat for humanity building blitz. Instead, they're too busy taking bribes from Indian Casino mafia types and fighting for Super Bowl tickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red, that is why she said "U.S. Empire", not down with Pres. George W. Bush, as thinnly veiled an attempt as it is, without using the actual words, she protects herself from harm. C'mon though, I would venture to say that 99.99% of The American People that are able to pick up a newspaper, could tell you exactly who the statement was aimed towards. It is just not right, and surely you would agree with that. This woman has a CULT following, that has a mob mentality, they prop her up as a "better you than me" mouthpiece, cause none of her supporters are gonna try it.

I respect her feelings about the war, I understand that things change for you once you lose a loved one in it. Cindy's son has to be rolling in his grave though, over the whole thing. He made the ultimate sacrifice for you and me, and people in the world that can't do for themselves. So, Cindy thinks Bush is a moron, well, he's OUR moron, no sense joining up with another moron, that can do absolutely NOTHING for your cause, and only aid in his own agenda. Let me ask this, is what Cindy is doing in Venenzuela making any sense whatsoever ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Red, that is why she said "U.S. Empire", not down with Pres. George W. Bush, as thinnly veiled an attempt as it is, without using the actual words, she protects herself from harm. C'mon though, I would venture to say that 99.99% of The American People that are able to pick up a newspaper, could tell you exactly who the statement was aimed towards. It is just not right, and surely you would agree with that. This woman has a CULT following, that has a mob mentality, they prop her up as a "better you than me" mouthpiece, cause none of her supporters are gonna try it.

I respect her feelings about the war, I understand that things change for you once you lose a loved one in it. Cindy's son has to be rolling in his grave though, over the whole thing. He made the ultimate sacrifice for you and me, and people in the world that can't do for themselves. So, Cindy thinks Bush is a moron, well, he's OUR moron, no sense joining up with another moron, that can do absolutely NOTHING for your cause, and only aid in his own agenda. Let me ask this, is what Cindy is doing in Venenzuela making any sense whatsoever ?

TJ,

To repeat once more from my first post: Besides, does anyone really think a Chavez is going to topple the most powerful nation the world has ever known? I'm thinking not.

Take out Chavez and insert Sheehan, Robertson, Jackson, or any other fringer.

It's all about perspective.

[i'm sorry she lost her son as well, but it's time to move it along.]

B)

Edited by nmainguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those worried about the Bush Administration and the U.S. Constitution, AG Alberto Gonzalez is due to testify today on the legality of the wiretaps.

You'll never see a Congressional Hearing in Venezuela about Chavez' flights of fancy on their constitution.

And yesterday, the IAEA members voted 29-3 to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for violation of their agreements.

The countries voting no were Cuba, Syria and Venezuela. The Axis of weasels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For those worried about the Bush Administration and the U.S. Constitution, AG Alberto Gonzalez is due to testify today on the legality of the wiretaps.

You mean, the Bush appointee AG?

We don't need a neutered lap-dog to investigate the wiretaps. It's time to bring in an independent counsel (special prosecutor). Unfortunately, since Gonzalez has already determined that Bush is not guilty, and only he can appoint an IC, we're screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TJ,

To repeat once more from my first post: Besides, does anyone really think a Chavez is going to topple the most powerful nation the world has ever known? I'm thinking not.

Take out Chavez and insert Sheehan, Robertson, Jackson, or any other fringer.

It's all about perspective.

[i'm sorry she lost her son as well, but it's time to move it along.]

B)

You need to tell the rest of your liberal buddies the same thing. PUHLEEEEEEEEZZZZZE ! :blink:

Coog: "Axis of Weasels" CLASSIC!

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean, the Bush appointee AG?

Earth to dbigtex56. The AG is an apointed position by the President. So are many others.

The AG will testitfy. Congress will determine if a special investigation is required.

The system is working. Perhaps you'd like to try and exercise your freedoms in Iran, Syria or Cuba.

Typical lefty "the sky is falling" mentality. Maybe Hillary Clinton can save you.

Edited by MidtownCoog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean, the Bush appointee AG?

We don't need a neutered lap-dog to investigate the wiretaps. It's time to bring in an independent counsel (special prosecutor). Unfortunately, since Gonzalez has already determined that Bush is not guilty, and only he can appoint an IC, we're screwed.

Talked about your paranoid, The attorney general is gonna lie UNDER OATH to protect the President ? Well, I guess it could happen. I have seen a President himself lie UNDER OATH in the past decade so why not an appointee. I don't think Gonzalez is gonna risk career suicide for Pres. Bush though. <_<

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earth to dbigtex56. The AG is an apointed position by the President. So are many others.

The AG will testitfy. Congress will determine if a special investigation is required.

The system is working. Perhaps you'd like to try and exercise your freedoms in Iran, Syria or Cuba.

Typical lefty "the sky is falling" mentality. Maybe Hillary Clinton can save you.

um...Earth to Midtown Coog. Yes, the AG is appointed by the President. That's what my post said, dear.

And no, Congress will not determine if a speical investigation is required. If you had clicked in the link I provided you would have learned:

In 1999, following prosecutor Kenneth Starr 's confrontations with President Bill Clinton and the impeachment of the president, the law again expired and was not renewed. The attorney general now has sole responsibility for appointing outside prosecutors.

For now, I feel my responsibility is to exercise my freedoms in the US - while we still have some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to tell the rest of your liberal buddies the same thing. PUHLEEEEEEEEZZZZZE ! :blink:

Play nice, TJ...I don't want to have to rearrange your sock drawer...

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talked about your paranoid, The attorney general is gonna lie UNDER OATH to protect the President ? Well, I guess it could happen. I have seen a President himself lie UNDER OATH in the past decade so why not an appointee. I don't think Gonzalez is gonna risk career suicide for Pres. Bush though. <_<

He may or may not lie...he just won't be the first one to be indicted for it:

On February 21, 1975, Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury and sentenced to two and a half to eight years in prison for his role in the Watergate break-in and cover-up, which he dubbed the White House horrors. Tape recordings made by President Nixon and the testimony of others involved confirmed that Mitchell had participated in meetings to plan the break-in of the Democratic party's national headquarters in the Watergate Hotel. In addition, he had met, on at least three occasions, with the president in an effort to cover up White House involvement after the burglars were discovered and arrested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Mitchell

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Play nice, TJ...I don't want to have to rearrange your sock drawer...

B)

Your mafioso threats will not affect me, I will stand strong, I will know how to "quit" you ! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...