DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on September 21, 2006, 01:21:58 AM

Title: The Devil made him do it
Post by: sirs on September 21, 2006, 01:21:58 AM
(http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/opinion/Devil92106.jpg)
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: sirs on September 21, 2006, 01:31:51 AM
BY JAMES TARANTO
Wednesday, September 20, 2006


He Who Smelt It . . .
"It smells of sulfur still today," said Venezuela's screwball strongman, Hugo Chavez, in a speech before the U.N. General Assembly. "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."

Oh, it's just too rich. Here's how he began:

Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it. Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, "Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States." [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.] . . .

The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples--to the peoples of the world. He came to say--I brought some documents with me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.

And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?

And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the oppressed people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home."

Here's a photo of Chavez holding up the Chomsky book. We missed the speech but watched some of the cable-TV commentary, in which it seemed that liberals were forced to say things along the lines of, Well, whatever you think of Bush, this guy is really awful.

As Churchill once said, "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." But the Angry Left won't be happy about having to take Bush's side. How long before they start claiming that Karl Rove wrote Chavez's America-hating diatribe?


http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008969
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Amianthus on September 21, 2006, 08:21:23 AM
How long before they start claiming that Karl Rove wrote Chavez's America-hating diatribe?

That's what I'm waiting for.

Brass, Terra, Lanya, where are you now that we need you?
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: _JS on September 21, 2006, 09:24:53 AM
Actually, I thought it was funny.

Got to hand it to Chavez, the man has a sense of humour.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on September 21, 2006, 10:54:56 AM
Chavez is funny. He's a great speaker.

He was talking to Venezuelans and others in South America. Juniorbush has already tried to stage a coup to oust Chavez, and part of this is payback, as in "look here, you bully, you are not only a bully but an incompetent one to boot. I am still here, and everyone hates you, so go suck an egg!'"
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: sirs on September 21, 2006, 01:28:05 PM
Well of course.  As long as he's ridiculing Bush and America, he's a riot.  One can only imagine the outrage directed at Bush if he were to ridicule any other Foreign leader, while addressing the UN or some other large international gathering.  Oh wait, already happening.  My bad
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: _JS on September 21, 2006, 01:59:07 PM
Quite frankly, when you attempt to remove a duly elected leader of a nation through dubious means, then your president can stand to be the butt of a few jokes.

Moreover, given the United States history with Latin America and our less than sterling record to which Bush has so generously added his own name, be grateful that Chavez and others have such a good sense of humour as opposed to the long memory that other areas of the world have.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: sirs on September 21, 2006, 02:11:52 PM
As i said...I don't even have to imagine the outrage leveled at Bush when he attempts or even indirectly demeans the leader of another foreign country.  Stuff along the lines of how thoroughly disrespectful and unpresidential, when not being labeled idiot
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: _JS on September 21, 2006, 02:15:21 PM
Yes, yes

President Bush is such a victim of double standards.

Let's all join together and whinge some more for the difficulties faced by President Bush.

Maybe Laura will bake him some cookies and make him feel better since that mean ol' Chavez hurt his feelings.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: sirs on September 21, 2006, 02:54:11 PM
President Bush is such a victim of double standards

Bingo....though obviously not relegated to Bush alone.  Pretty much applies to anything Bush/Conservative.  But since when is pointing out the obvious tantamount to whining?  When the left doesn't have a good rebuttal perhaps?
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Michael Tee on September 21, 2006, 03:15:35 PM
My assistant walked in this morning and the first thing she said was, hey, did you hear what this guy from Venezuela called Bush yesterday in the UN?  She was kind of elated, almost gleeful, and she's not at all political.  I personally thought it was funny as hell. 

A lot of people are talking about this and all the comment is favourable.  I haven't heard a negative word yet, but admittedly did not watch the TV commentary this morning or last night.  The general feeling seems to be that it's about time this low-life got his public comeuppance, and Chavez deserves a big vote of thanks for finally saying it in such a setting.

If further evidence were needed as to how low the U.S. has sunk in world public opinion under Bush, this latest would be very much to the point.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: hnumpah on September 21, 2006, 03:58:49 PM
Quote
If further evidence were needed as to how low the U.S. has sunk in world public opinion under Bush, this latest would be very much to the point.

And that's really sad, considering how much goodwill we had coming our way after 9-11. Even when we went into Afghanistan, it was seen as going after the ones who had attacked us and the regime that was sheltering them. Bush squandered it on Iraq, though.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: sirs on September 21, 2006, 04:27:08 PM
More accurately, it demonstrates the level of irrelevence and how uncredible the UN has become globally.  Much like what the NAACP has become nationally.  Not even a shell of what their original good intentions were.  Now just a mutation of once great organizations.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Michael Tee on September 21, 2006, 07:08:50 PM
The UN as such had nothing to do with Chavez' remarks, other than providing him with a forum, a "bully pulpit" from which his comments would obtain maximum publicity.

What demonstrates the low esteem into which America has fallen under Bush is the almost universal sense of glee with which (apart from the usual MSM whores) the world seems to have greeted these remarks.  Even people like my young assistant, who normally don't give a shit, were totally pumped by the idea that this lying little bastard was finally being given the disrespect he was entitled to in a very public way, by people who even five years ago wouldn't have dared.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: sirs on September 21, 2006, 07:30:39 PM
The UN had everything to do with the forum it provided.  Once an organization focused on dealing with global conflicts and sincere attempts at dealing with such, now simply caters to American Bashing, anti-semetic tripe, and calls it diplomacy.  One big International Elitist debating society, where their word means nothing, and their enforcement of their own resolutions means even less
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: hnumpah on September 21, 2006, 08:20:48 PM
(http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060920/wright.gif)
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Michael Tee on September 21, 2006, 08:36:33 PM
<<now simply caters to American Bashing, anti-semetic tripe, and calls it diplomacy. >>

I think you're just repeating the standard Zionist/neo-con/rightwing venomous nonsense without even understanding it.  For example, what do you mean, "caters to" American Bashing or "caters to" anti-Semitism?  

The UN was conceived as a forum where nations would meet to attempt to resolve disputes peacefully as an alternative to war.  Collective action was to replace unilateral war-making.  

Of course, if debate were to replace warfare, there would be some verbal harshness - - that's inevitable.  How does the UN "cater to" anti-Americanism or anti-Semitism, other than by permitting free debate between adversaries and in the larger General Assembly or Security Council without censorship or preconditions, as an alternative to war?  

"Catering to" a particular POV would imply that some favouritism is shown to it, or that it is sought out and invited in, in preference to other POVs.   Show me where or how the UN "caters to" anti-Semitism or America Bashing.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: sirs on September 21, 2006, 09:16:18 PM
And I think you're just repeating the same pathetic Anti-American anti-Israel dren, you've honed to such a specialty.  Yes, the UN was conceived in the attempt to deal with global crisis, with hopefully now military intervention.  Problem is, in some cases such intervention is required, and in those cases where you mandate resolution after resolution, with not a wit of enforcing such, subsequently produces a noncredible voice & agency behind those resolutions.  In other words, the current form of the UN

And catering to is precisely what the UN has become.  An organization that indeed finds favoritism in anything anti-American or anti-Israel.  Heaven forbid if Lieberman ever became President

Robin Williams had a great routine when he brought up the UN, during one of his video stand ups at the Met.  It's like an organization on valium.  S t o p............o r   w e l l   h a v e   t o   s a y   s t o p   a g a i n
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Plane on September 21, 2006, 09:54:22 PM
    If asked many in this world would indeed say "Yankee go Home" is what they want , but do not forget that most of these will also add " and take me with you !".
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Amianthus on September 21, 2006, 11:48:40 PM
And that's really sad, considering how much goodwill we had coming our way after 9-11.

ROFL

As I pointed out already, a British friend was in Italy watching a soccer game on 9/11. They showed the towers collapsing on the stadium's big screen and the crowds cheered.

Not much goodwill there on 9/11.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Michael Tee on September 22, 2006, 12:19:23 AM
sirs:  I asked you a pretty specific question:  Show me how the UN "caters to" anti-Semitism and "America Bashing."

Here was your response:
1.  I am just repeating myself
2.  I am repeating "pathetic" anti-American anti-Israel "dren" (whatever "dren" may represent in your childish lexicon, I will assume for the purposes of this discussion it is not well-reasoned, impeccably sourced, irrefutable argument.)
3.  I have honed my "pathetic" anti-American anti-Israel "dren" to a specialty . . .

Aww, geeze, I am getting kind of tired waiting for an answer to what SEEMED to be a fairly simple and straightforward question.  Maybe the guy is just incapable of formulating a cogent response to a simple question.  Maybe he thinks an ad hominem attack IS a cogent response to a simple question . . .And then,

well, not an answer to my simple question, but what seems to be a subject at least worthy of some kind of intelligent debate:  the UN's seeming ineffectiveness, the resolutions it passes and passes again and again only to see them broken, defied and scoffed at.  Well that's not too bad, we could debate it sometime in the future, why IS the UN so wimpy?  Maybe we should have a more muscular UN, a NUCULER-ARMED UN, you know, defy our Resolution once, shame on you, defy it twice, MUSHROOM CLOUD TIME, RAGHEAD FAGGOTS, you were only polluting this fucking planet anyway and now you're history.  Maybe THAT'S what the founders of the UN really had in mind, but their cowardly successors were too politically correct to execute until one day a man named John with a walrus mustache strode into their sissified halls and set them straight.  Taught 'em the AMERICAN way of problem-solving.  Yeah, but still.  What about MY  question . . . is it not WORTHY of an answer?

Onward I plunged.  

And then suddenly:  <<And catering to is precisely what the UN has become.  >>  Was this it?  Was this sirs' long-awaited answer to my question?  At first glance, it didn't SEEM to be.  Wasn't he just repeating himself again?  Ah, but I had failed to appreciate the subtlety of sirs' thought processes - - not only is the UN catering, sirs tells us, but catering is PRECISELY what it is doing.  Yet still those nagging doubts . . .  is he not just repeating himself more emphatically??  And if he is, how does THAT answer my question?

I didn't have to wait long for the mystery to clear up, however.  There it was, in the very next sentence:  <<An organization [the UN] that indeed finds favour in anything anti-American or anti-Israel. >>   (OK, that's not the exact quote, I had to clean up a little malapropism here to make some sense out of it, but it's pretty damn close.  I didn't alter the SENSE of what sirs was saying.)  That was sirs' answer to my question.  Show me how the UN "caters to" anti-Semitism and "America Bashing" and the answer (albeit buried under about 16 tons of irrelevant drivel) is that it "finds favour in" (i.e., loves to hear) "anything anti-American or anti-Israel."

But isn't saying that the UN has been "finding favour in anything anti-American or anti-Israel" pretty much the same thing as saying that it "caters to anti-Semitism or "America Bashing?"  Wasn't sirs just cleverly repeating his original falsehood in a different way?  And is repeating a statement the same thing as proving its truth?  This is really important now.  Haphazardly, we have stumbled upon the key "reasoning" process of the conservative Republican mind.

You see, to a conservative, things aren't true because they can be objectively verified.  To a Republican, to a conservative, things are true BECAUSE A CONSERVATIVE TELLS YOU THEY ARE TRUE.  If sirs makes an absolutely ridiculous and completely unverifiable statement about the UN and he is asked to prove it - - he doesn't worry, like a normal, sane, rational human being would worry, "Omigod, how can I PROVE it, it's totally false and absolutely absurd and I just made it up because it sounded good and THERE IS NO FUCKING PROOF, I'm busted!!!"  No, the conservative doesn't worry about stupid little trifles like that because there is no such thing as reality anyway, or more accurately there IS, but it's whatever they SAY it is.  Reality?  FUCK reality, reality is whatever's in my fucking head or comes out of my fucking mouth at the present moment.

But then I guess what I'm describing is not conservatism but prejudices, unexamined beliefs that are not grounded in reality but that we don't challenge in ourselves because we believe they ARE reality.  And then it's not just conservatives or Christians or Muslims who are guilty of that kind of thinking, it's a way of thought that can affect any of us.  Except for yours truly.  

Hey sirs, I might have taken a few shots at you while I was writing this, but I sincerely appreciate your willingness to step up to the plate and speak your mind, knowing that smug liberal assholes like myself are just waiting to rip into you.  I might not agree with much of what you say or think but I don't disrespect it, which I wanted to say here because I felt that it might not have been all that apparent from the general tone of what I was writing.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: sirs on September 22, 2006, 02:07:06 AM
You asked, I answered.  My apologies if my answers don't meet your alternate reality requirements.  The level of of anti-American & Anti-Israel rhetoric that passes thru the assembly speeches, that get not a whiff of condemnation, the frequent crticisms, when not condemning Isreal & America for supposed massive Human Rights violations, while behadings and burning alive by islamic terrorists and rogue regimes get a virtual pass from criticism, folks like Syria & Lybia (or was it Sudan) given prominent positions on the UN Human Rights board, while Isreal is kept off, the continued placating of Arab nations to demands regarding the Israeli flag, garbage like that, that goes on and on and on and on.  Chavez and his garbage was just more of the same

Glad you had fun with your monologue though
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Plane on September 22, 2006, 04:59:20 AM
Actually, I thought it was funny.

Got to hand it to Chavez, the man has a sense of humour.


"World figures must be wise enough to understand that their words can ignite a tinderbox if they aren't careful. "
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: _JS on September 22, 2006, 09:45:19 AM
Has Chavez ignited a tinderbox of violence through his words?
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Michael Tee on September 22, 2006, 12:11:02 PM
<<The level of of anti-American & Anti-Israel rhetoric that passes thru the assembly speeches, that get not a whiff of condemnation, >>

Well, first of all I don't even know if that's true, the "not a whiff" thing.   How do you know there's "not a whiff" of criticism for anti-American or anti-Israel rhetoric in the UN?  Do you actually read through all the speeches that follow every outburst of objectionable rhetoric, looking for whiffs?  I don't think so.

But even if there is very little criticism of anti-American or anti-Israel rhetoric, what does that tell you?  Sounds to me like a lot of people all over the world are mightily pissed off about what the U.S. and Israel are doing and those opinions are virtually unanimous.   If you were the parent of a juvenile delinquent and many teachers in the school were complaining about your son, and few if any defending him, would you write them off as a bunch of whiners or complainers or would you start to think, hey, maybe there is something objectionable in what this kid is up to?

<< the frequent crticisms, when not condemning Isreal & America for supposed massive Human Rights violations, >>

WHOA, what do you mean "supposed" massive human rights violations?  How massive does the violation have to be, before it loses the "supposed" charges?  The State of Israel, in its 39-year-old military occupation of the West Bank is a massive violation of the human rights of over three million Arabs who live there, what is "supposed" about that?  It's also a repeated violation of long-standing UN resolutions, which you seem to be upset about (when others violate them.)  The bombing of Beirut, that was petty? 

Secret prisons and torture chambers, Abu Ghraib, Falluja, the invasion of Iraq, the occupation of Iraq, the needless deaths of 40,000 Iraqi civilians, they're supposed to pass un-noticed in the UN while they endlessly occupy themselves with who beheaded Daniel Pearl?

<<while behadings and burning alive by islamic terrorists and rogue regimes get a virtual pass from criticism,>>

Yeah.  Right.  NOBODY, not the U.S., not Israel, not Great Britain or France or Italy, EVER denounced "terrorism" in the UN.  They're ruled out of order as soon as they raise the subject.  Terrorism is a forbidden subject in the proceedings of the United Nations.  Never been MENTIONED there, let alone criticized.  And you're from WHAT planet, again?

<<folks like Syria & Lybia (or was it Sudan) given prominent positions on the UN Human Rights board, while Isreal is kept off,>>

Well, WHICH of those countries (Syria, Libya, Sudan) has been massively violating the human rights of THREE MILLION PEOPLE for THIRTY-NINE YEARS as Israel has?  It would be absolutely outrageous for Israel, which is in flagrant continuous violation of specific UN resolutions regarding the West Bank and its 3 million inhabitants, to be given a seat on the Human Rights Commission.

<<the continued placating of Arab nations to demands regarding the Israeli flag, garbage like that,>>

Sorry, you got me there - - what demands?

<<Chavez and his garbage was just more of the same>>

I'm still waiting for one negative response from real people in the real world.  One person who was not delighted by what Chavez said.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Plane on September 22, 2006, 02:21:33 PM
Has Chavez ignited a tinderbox of violence through his words?


Of Course not, he was criticiseing mature adults ,responsible people who can tell the diffrence between form and substance.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: _JS on September 22, 2006, 03:24:35 PM
No, he was making a joke in a situation where the butt of the joke is not a part of a an unstable or violent region.

Note that there have been some on the right wing in the United States who have called for violence against President Chavez. I'd hardly call them responsible, mature adults.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Plane on September 22, 2006, 07:48:44 PM
No, he was making a joke in a situation where the butt of the joke is not a part of a an unstable or violent region.

Note that there have been some on the right wing in the United States who have called for violence against President Chavez. I'd hardly call them responsible, mature adults.


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


So responsible people do not make jokes at the expense of the unstable?


I see this as giveing credit for sanityand matureity to President Bush and his supporters.


Or by  " unstable and violent" were you refering to a region being earthquake prone?
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: sirs on September 23, 2006, 03:25:47 AM
JAY AMBROSE: The devil made him do it
Scripps Howard News Service
Published Thursday, September 21, 2006
Comments (0) Add Comment
(SH) - Until reading about Hugo Chavez's U.N. speech the other day, the craziest reference to the devil I had ever seen was on the front page of a supermarket tab. "DEVIL ESCAPES HELL," it said in all-caps, super-large type. Under the headline was a picture of smoke pouring out of a great, big hole in the ground. I couldn't help laughing.

It's hard to laugh at Chavez's speech saying President Bush was the devil, though, because this clown-in-chief of Venezuela is in a position to inflict a whole lot of pain on people - he has been busily doing that very thing - and it's hard to grasp why U.N. delegates applauded him. Are they of the same ilk as the ignorant, gullible souls who would buy that supermarket tab to get the real goods on satanic doings? Maybe so, maybe so.

Large numbers of these delegates, after all, represent tyrannies chiefly notable for abusing their own people - sometimes slaughtering them, usually impoverishing them, always ensuring they don't get uppity about their rights - and all the time blaming their national misery on those other lands that have found prosperity through constitutional order, liberty and free markets. They may hold their tongues when genocide is afoot in some desperate country much like their own, but loudly curse the wealthy and powerful United States.

When Chavez tells such an audience that the devil spoke from the same platform the previous day, makes the sign of the cross over his heart and says "this place still smells of sulfur," he is playing to this covetous spite, hoping his theatrics will win him a world standing that doesn't notice the horrendous mess he has made of things in Venezuela as its president.

"I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States," Chavez said. "As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the people of the world."

Was it exploitative or dominating for Bush to call for establishment of a Palestinian state that would exist democratically side by side with Israel? Was it a nostrum for him to call for strengthened peacekeeping forces in Darfur, where 200,000 have died from hate campaigns and some 2 million more rendered homeless? Did he have pillage in mind when he said Iran deserves democracy and a thriving economy instead of leadership that funds terrorists and seeks to construct nuclear weapons?

We know how Chavez stands on that last issue because, on a multi-country trip, he stopped over in Iran and out-ranted that country's clown-in-chief, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In still another instance of using the word "devil," he said that's what resided inside the people of Israel. Self-revealed as an anti-Semite from utterances spoken elsewhere, he characterized the Israelis as "cowards" and "murderers" and called for God to throw "lightning bolts" at them. A nuclear bomb or two would probably suit him fine, as well.

Chavez has one thing going for him back home. High oil prices. In oil-rich Venezuela, they have kept the economy humming, although Chavez's socialist enthusiasms have increased poverty. He operates in extraordinary, undemocratic secrecy, presides over an outlandishly corrupt government, doesn't allow the press to say unpleasant things about him, has essentially made the courts and legislature his playthings, has wrecked the lives of ordinary people opposed to his rule and buttresses his populism with threats as necessary, various reports tell us. Those reports also tell us that he has a considerable following and came to power through an election, while reminding us that he once tried to come to power through a military coup.

You might think Chavez is just one more harmless fool, but Venezuelans are suffering, and if he grows in global stature - if, for instance, Venezuela gets Latin America's seat on the U.N. Security Council as he wishes - he could expand that suffering to others. The hope has to be that mature, rational judgments will catch up with him and squash his career, causing him to look for excuses. Someone might then tell this lover of devil references about the line used by the late comedian Flip Wilson to escape blame in sketches about his mistakes being found out.

"The devil made me do it," dear, old Flip would say.


http://www.islandpacket.com/24hour/opinions/story/3378518p-12428135c.html

(http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/opinion/Shutup92206.jpg)
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Plane on September 23, 2006, 04:08:12 AM
    If he is all that bad , why should the US be so lonely in opposeing him?


     Is all the rest of the world depending on us to point out things like these or they will be un noticed?



         I wonder if it isn't so.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: sirs on September 23, 2006, 05:19:06 AM
If he is all that bad , why should the US be so lonely in opposeing him?  Is all the rest of the world depending on us to point out things like these or they will be un noticed?

I'm speculating it's because we're the "big boys on the block".  We're (the U.S) is the boogeyman to all these other regimes.  If they can get the rest of the world to focus on that and not eye their own miserable state of affairs, the easier they can maintain their power base.  I think it's analogus to the Dem's party platform of whatever Bush is for, they're against, and vice versa, instead of campaigning on what specifically they'd do, or in dealing with their specific shortcomings.  That'd be my guess
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Michael Tee on September 23, 2006, 08:20:49 PM
If he is all that bad , why should the US be so lonely in opposeing him?  Is all the rest of the world depending on us to point out things like these or they will be un noticed?
sirs: 
<<I'm speculating it's because we're the "big boys on the block".  We're (the U.S) is the boogeyman to all these other regimes.  If they can get the rest of the world to focus on that and not eye their own miserable state of affairs, the easier they can maintain their power base. >>

See how easily your question is answered?  The USA is a nation of mature adults, the others are all children scared of the boogeyman and easily distracted.  Look!  Look at the bad Uncle Sam!  And they all forget their own "miserable state of affairs" as their attention focuses on the bad American.

This is exactly what I mean when I say the right wing lives in a world of fantasy and fiction, that they have no grasp of reality, of the real world.   They create myths of a fictitious state of the world, of nations of childish minds opposed to the one nation of serious, mature minds. 

Sirs is not lying, nor is he consciously fabricating anything, when he explains the general refusal of other nations to join the American condemnation of Hugo Chavez - - he sincerely believes the outrageous bullshit that the failure to condemn Chavez is because they are incapable of simultaneously condemning Chavez and focusing on their own problems; that, presumably, by NOT condemning Chavez, they are either better able to deal with their own problems or perhaps relieved of the need to deal with them;  and of course it's contrary to anything that any of us have ever experienced in the real world.  Most of us would know, if we have any dealings at all with people from other countries, that we are dealing with serious, intelligent people who will send as ambassadors to the U.N. serious men and women, most of whom can speak at least four or five languages, have various university degrees and are usually capable of discoursing intelligently on a great number of topics.  IF they did feel the need to condemn Chavez they would be perfectly capable of doing so AND dealing with their own problems at the same time, or even of avoiding their own problems. 

In short there is no relationship whatsoever between the rest of the world condemning or not condemning Chavez on the one hand and dealing or not dealing with their own problems on the other. 
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Michael Tee on September 23, 2006, 08:29:30 PM
JS:  Is all the rest of the world depending on us to point out things like these [the awfulness of Hugo Chavez] or they will be un noticed?


 plane:       << I wonder if it isn't so.>>


Yeah, me too.  What I don't get, though, is . . . Is the rest of the world so stupid that they just can't recognize the smell of shit?  Or is it that they are all so filthy and depraved that they actually like it?

Must be nice to be an American.  So superior to all the rest of the world, eh?
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: BT on September 23, 2006, 08:59:00 PM
Note that there have been some on the right wing in the United States who have called for violence against President Chavez. I'd hardly call them responsible, mature adults.

Also note that the US Govt through the Ambassador to Venezuela has notified him of assassination plots as well as potential coups.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: sirs on September 23, 2006, 09:46:57 PM
Must be exceedingly blissful where you are, Tee
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Michael Tee on September 23, 2006, 10:10:29 PM
JAY AMBROSE: The devil made him do it
Scripps Howard News Service
Published Thursday, September 21, 2006
Comments (0) Add Comment
(SH) - Until reading about Hugo Chavez's U.N. speech the other day, the craziest reference to the devil I had ever seen was on the front page of a supermarket tab. "DEVIL ESCAPES HELL," it said in all-caps, super-large type. Under the headline was a picture of smoke pouring out of a great, big hole in the ground. I couldn't help laughing.

OK.  So we know the guy reads supermarket tabs.  I guess in Bushworld, that qualifies him a a Jen You Wine innalekshual.

It's hard to laugh at Chavez's speech saying President Bush was the devil, though, because this clown-in-chief of Venezuela is in a position to inflict a whole lot of pain on people -

Yeah?  like killing 40,000 of them in an illegal invasion of their country?

he has been busily doing that very thing -

Really?  Care to specify how?  I thought not.

and it's hard to grasp why U.N. delegates applauded him.

Right.  NOBODY on earth can figure that one out.  It is a real mystery.  An enigma.  Great political scientists and psychologists will puzzle for years over it, but in my opinion, will never be able to get to the bottom of it.

Are they of the same ilk as the ignorant, gullible souls who would buy that supermarket tab to get the real goods on satanic doings? Maybe so, maybe so.

Well, OF COURSE, they are ignorant, gullible souls, they are UN DELEGATES, what can you expect of them?  No educational qualifications, working for minimum wage, barely able to mumble a few basic words and phrases in their own primitive jungle babble, let alone to speak English or any of the other four official UN languages, unable even to hold down simple jobs as agricultural labourers or sweepers, they were given their UN jobs out of pity, through the sheer benevolence of their home countries.

Large numbers of these delegates, after all, represent tyrannies chiefly notable for abusing their own people - sometimes slaughtering them, usually impoverishing them, always ensuring they don't get uppity about their rights - and all the time blaming their national misery on those other lands that have found prosperity through constitutional order, liberty and free markets. They may hold their tongues when genocide is afoot in some desperate country much like their own, but loudly curse the wealthy and powerful United States.

Gee, I wonder which US allies this guy is talking about?  Are these the countries that allow CIA torture chambers to operate secretly within their borders or are they the ones who allow the US to outsource the torture to them directly so the CIA doesn't have to dirty its hands?

<<When Chavez tells such an audience . . . >>

"Such an audience"  This guy is hilarious.  Suddenly Chavez is no longer speaking to the General Assembly of the United Nations, he is speaking to an audience of the representatives of tyrannies that abuse their own people, sometimes slaughter them, blah blah blah . . .   An audience of American puppet dictatorships, some would say, although I'm not sure that was this author's intention.

<<When Chavez tells such an audience that the devil spoke from the same platform the previous day, makes the sign of the cross over his heart and says "this place still smells of sulfur," he is playing to this covetous spite . . . >>

Well that's one tortured interpretation from one MSM whore, unwilling or unable to face simple truths when told straight to his face.  The far more logical and realistic interpretation is that Chavez simply told it like it is, and the world, sick of America's hypocritical, self-laudatory bullshit, burst into spontaneous applause.

<< . . .  hoping his theatrics will win him a world standing that doesn't notice the horrendous mess he has made of things in Venezuela as its president.>>

Which would only be possible if the diplomatic representatives of the rest of the world were so fucking stupid that a simple crude joke about the devil and the "President" of the United States could distract them from seeing a blatant and obvious truth.  In the real world (as opposed to the bullshit world of MSM lies) the delegates are not stupid and there is no "horrendous mess" in Venezuela, rather there is a situation which pleases most of the Venezuelan people, and for that very reason displeases the corrupt and venal Bush administration and its media whores.

<<"I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States," Chavez said. "As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the people of the world.">>

Why bother ushing a shrink on Bush?  A lie detector is what you really need.

<<Was it exploitative or dominating for Bush to call for establishment of a Palestinian state that would exist democratically side by side with Israel? >>

No, I think "hypocritical" and "duplicitous" are what it really was.

<<Was it a nostrum for him to call for strengthened peacekeeping forces in Darfur, where 200,000 have died from hate campaigns and some 2 million more rendered homeless? >>

No, I don't think so.  More like more hypocritical bullshit to take the focus off his own crimes in Iraq and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.  He has no intention of intervening in Darfur, where there is no oil to be found, but words are cheap and American consumers of articles like this are dumb.

<<Did he have pillage in mind when he said Iran deserves democracy and a thriving economy instead of leadership that funds terrorists and seeks to construct nuclear weapons?>>

Actually, whenever he has Iran in mind, he IS thinking of pillage.  That's very true.  Also mass murder and more illegal invasions.  And - - of course - - OIL.  

We know how Chavez stands on that last issue because, on a multi-country trip, he stopped over in Iran and out-ranted that country's clown-in-chief, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In still another instance of using the word "devil," he said that's what resided inside the people of Israel.

That's not nice.  Good thing he didn't say they were an axis of evil too.  Don't you hate it when politicians call other countries evil?    

Self-revealed as an anti-Semite from utterances spoken elsewhere . . .
No examples given.  Naturally.

<< . . .  he [Chavez] characterized the Israelis as "cowards" and "murderers" and called for God to throw "lightning bolts" at them. >>

WHAT????  Just because they bombed the defenceless city of Beirut and killed thousands of Lebanese women and children?  For shame, Hugo.  For shame!!!

<<A nuclear bomb or two would probably suit him fine, as well.>>

Gee, I missed where he said that.  I'm sure it's true though.  This journalist really seems to know what he's talking about.

<<Chavez has one thing going for him back home. High oil prices. In oil-rich Venezuela, they have kept the economy humming, although Chavez's socialist enthusiasms have increased poverty.>>

And here I kinda thought Chavez was using the high oil prices to build homes for the poor and provide them with free medical care. I guess that must be the very definition of poverty.  When you provide the poor with medical care and housing you are "increasing poverty."  I'm glad I read the occasional right-wing article.  They are SO educational.

<<He operates in extraordinary, undemocratic secrecy . . . >>

That's impossible!  You seem to know everything about him.

<< . . .  presides over an outlandishly corrupt government . . . >>

CORRUPTION???????   In Latin America?????   Get outta here!!!


 << . . . doesn't allow the press to say unpleasant things about him . . . >>

STOP.  STOP.  I can't take this any more.  Is there no God??????  Why doesn't the US invade his ass tomorrow??  by no later than noon!!!   This is absolutely the last straw!!!!  Can't he just pay the press to write NICE things about him?  Where the fuck is Judith Miller when you need her?

<<. . . has essentially made the courts and legislature his playthings . . . >>

Wow, THAT sucks.  What happened, did Clarence Thomas move to Venezuela?  Is Karl Rove advising the guy on judicial appointments?

 << . . .has wrecked the lives of ordinary people opposed to his rule >>

Which particular multimillionaire business crooks are you referring to now?

<<and buttresses his populism with threats as necessary, various reports tell us. >>

You mean like threats to arrest people and ship them off to secret torture chambers in other countries?  Aww, he wouldn't do anything like that, would he?   Nobody does that anymore.  It's forbidden under international law.  BTW, don't suppose you'd care to tell us where those "various reports" originated from, wouldja?  Nah, didn't think so.  But I'm sure they're reliable.  (From the folks who brought you "weapons of mass destruction," The Hugo Chavez Story!!!)

<<Those reports also tell us that he has a considerable following and came to power through an election . . . >>

Now if THAT doesn't tell you why you can't trust the people to elect their own leadership, why you must be just another terrorist-loving America-hating Islamofascist violator of the Patriot Act which thank God has given us just the right remedy for people of your ilk.

<< . . .while reminding us that he once tried to come to power through a military coup.>>

Yeah and that's EXACTLY why Uncle Sam tried to remove him through another military coup.  Uncle Sam has a huge hard-on for guys who come to power through military coups.  It ain't right, unless you live in some Latin American country that is NOT Cuba or Venezuela.

<<You might think Chavez is just one more harmless fool, but Venezuelans are suffering, and if he grows in global stature - if, for instance, Venezuela gets Latin America's seat on the U.N. Security Council as he wishes - he could expand that suffering to others. >>

The United States hates expanding suffering to others.  That's why they came to Iraq.  That's why they overthrew the democratically elected Allende government in Chile and the democratically elected Arbenz government in Guatemala.  Always looking for ways to prevent the expansion of suffering to others.  What a wonderful country.  So concerned about the suffering of others.  Loved all over the world because of it.

<<The hope has to be that mature, rational judgments will catch up with him and squash his career, causing him to look for excuses. >>

Yes, like those mature, rational judgments that caught up with Saddam Hussein and squashed his career, unfortunately with some unavoidable collateral damage and some spoilsport "dead-enders" and "Islamofascists" who just HATE mature, rational judgments.  Doesn't that Islamofascist Chavez realize that there are plenty of mature rational judgments just aching to come down there and smash his miserable shit-hole of a country to bits, rape and murder some a those cute little Venezuelan teenagers and their families and torture and murder anyone who objects to the whole exercise?  Oh, yeah, and take over those oil wells too?  Just when is this clown going to wise up?

<<Someone might then tell this lover of devil references about the line used by the late comedian Flip Wilson to escape blame in sketches about his mistakes being found out.

<<"The devil made me do it," dear, old Flip would say.>>

Bush, of course, has the better line.  He's just following God's will.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: sirs on September 24, 2006, 02:44:02 AM
Feel better?
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Michael Tee on September 24, 2006, 09:57:12 AM
<<Feel better?>>

YESSSSS!  I just LOVE deconstructing bullshit.  And I thank you for providing an endless supply.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Amianthus on September 24, 2006, 11:02:59 AM
OK.  So we know the guy reads supermarket tabs.  I guess in Bushworld, that qualifies him a a Jen You Wine innalekshual.

Care to point out where he said he read supermarket tabloids?

Or do you have reading comprehension problems?
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: sirs on September 24, 2006, 11:30:17 AM
LOL....actually we all got a chance to witness a BS brigade on your part, with that latest rant.  But as long as it made you feel better.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Michael Tee on September 24, 2006, 12:23:15 PM

<<Care to point out where he said he read supermarket tabloids?>>

Sure, right here:

 <<the craziest reference to the devil I had ever seen was on the front page of a supermarket tab. "DEVIL ESCAPES HELL," it said  in all-caps, super-large type. Under the headline was a picture of smoke pouring out of a great, big hole  in the ground. I couldn't help laughing.

"Tab" is short for tabloid.  That's where he read the headline and saw the picture.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Amianthus on September 24, 2006, 12:28:44 PM
"Tab" is short for tabloid.  That's where he read the headline and saw the picture.

You know, unless you're totally oblivious to your surroundings, you notice the headlines and front page pictures while standing in line. Even I noticed that picture and headline, and you seem to think I'm pretty oblivious. You must be even more oblivious to your surroundings if you did not. Either that, or you think you're too good to stand in line at the grocery store?

Now, perhaps you'd like to demonstrate where he said he reads the tabloid, as you claim he did ("So we know the guy reads supermarket tabs.")
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Michael Tee on September 24, 2006, 12:30:59 PM
<<LOL....actually we all got a chance to witness a BS brigade on your part, with that latest rant.  But as long as it made you feel better.>>

Actually, you all got a chance to witness a typically moronic piece by a "conservative" media whore taken apart line-by-line to expose its ludicrous essence and total divorce from reason and reality.  I'm sorry but not particularly surprised that it went right over your head.  I'm confident there were some members of this group who were able to get it.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Amianthus on September 24, 2006, 12:35:21 PM
Actually, you all got a chance to witness a typically moronic piece by a "conservative" media whore taken apart line-by-line to expose its ludicrous essence and total divorce from reason and reality.

Actually, your piece was pretty much a strawman argument - insert into his words stuff he never said, then shoot down what you inserted.

Your claim that he reads supermarket tabloids was but an example of your attempts to sway arguments with propaganda.

And I'm confident there were some members of this group who were able to get it.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Michael Tee on September 24, 2006, 12:41:36 PM
<<You know, unless you're totally oblivious to your surroundings, you notice the headlines and front page pictures while standing in line. Even I noticed that picture and headline, and you seem to think I'm pretty oblivious. You must be even more oblivious to your surroundings if you did not. Either that, or you think you're too good to stand in line at the grocery store?

<<Now, perhaps you'd like to demonstrate where he said he reads the tabloid, as you claim he did ("So we know the guy reads supermarket tabs.")>>

?  ?  ?  The guy QUOTED from a supermarket tab headline and he DESCRIBED the picture described by the headline.  IMHO, the headline and the picture are part of the tabloid.  They are NOT sold separately.  If you know of any other source by which he acquired knowledge of the tabloid headline and photo, please let me know.  Is there a digest of tabloid front pages that one can subscribe to?  I honestly don't know.  I would assume in the absence of evidence of alternative means of acquiring knowledge of tabloid headlines and photos that one acquires this knowledge in the simplest way possible, by reading the tabs, in line at the supermarket or staring at them on the washroom floor in a toilet stall or taking them home to read at bed-time, it does not matter.  I would venture that 99% of the people who claim to know about the contents of tabloid headlines acquired that knowledge by reading the headline on the tab.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Amianthus on September 24, 2006, 01:02:24 PM
I would assume in the absence of evidence of alternative means of acquiring knowledge of tabloid headlines and photos that one acquires this knowledge in the simplest way possible, by reading the tabs, in line at the supermarket or staring at them on the washroom floor in a toilet stall or taking them home to read at bed-time, it does not matter.  I would venture that 99% of the people who claim to know about the contents of tabloid headlines acquired that knowledge by reading the headline on the tab.

I saw the cover of Canadian Federal and Provincial Case Law once.

Guess that means I read Canadian law books, huh?

I must be an expert on the subject?

Glancing at the cover of a tabloid and reading the headline above is not something that requires any concentration on my part - indeed it's pretty much automatic and I cannot even control it. Perhaps my reading skills are so much above yours - I didn't realize that it took so much concentration on your part to read.

Do you need to stop on the road to concentrate and read each road sign as well?
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Michael Tee on September 24, 2006, 01:03:17 PM
<<Actually, your piece was pretty much a strawman argument - insert into his words stuff he never said, then shoot down what you inserted.>>

Actually I don't recall cutting out a single word of what the guy wrote before I rebutted it.  That's why MY piece was so long.  That kept whatever I inserted in context.  Whatever I inserted was meant to extend the buffoon's argument to show where it would lead to if taken seriously, the classic reductio ad absurdum, which is nothing at all like a strawman argument.

<<Your claim that he reads supermarket tabloids was but an example of your attempts to sway arguments with propaganda.>>

The guy was actually quoting what he read in supermarket tabs as part of his argument against Chavez.  I stand in line all the time at supermarkets (IF that's where he acquired his familiarity with the headline and picture, and we don't realy know that) and I tell ya, I can't think of one headline to quote.  Maybe a word or two at most.  "Brad" "Angelina."  But a photo?  With a whole headline?  This guy sounds like an aficionado to me.  Some writers choose to quote Socrates in their writings. Aeschylus.   Nietzsche. Winston Churchill.  Tom Clancy.  Seinfeld.  This guy chooses to quote from supermarket tabloids.  Hey, it's a free country.  Why should I deny him his right to quote freely from any source?

<<And I'm confident there were some members of this group who were able to get it.>>

Undoubtedly
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Amianthus on September 24, 2006, 01:07:33 PM
The guy was actually quoting what he read in supermarket tabs as part of his argument against Chavez.  I stand in line all the time at supermarkets (IF that's where he acquired his familiarity with the headline and picture, and we don't realy know that) and I tell ya, I can't think of one headline to quote.  Maybe a word or two at most.  "Brad" "Angelina."  But a photo?  With a whole headline?  This guy sounds like an aficionado to me.  Some writers choose to quote Socrates in their writings. Aeschylus.   Nietzsche. Winston Churchill.  Tom Clancy.  Seinfeld.  This guy chooses to quote from supermarket tabloids.  Hey, it's a free country.  Why should I deny him his right to quote freely from any source?

That one was so funny, it had me practically rolling in the aisle.

But then maybe it's not my reading skills that are better than yours. Maybe it's just my memory. I remember what I read and see.

And besides - he quoted it wrong anyway, so he must not be such an aficionado.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Michael Tee on September 24, 2006, 01:11:49 PM
<<I saw the cover of Canadian Federal and Provincial Case Law once.

<<Guess that means I read Canadian law books, huh?

<<I must be an expert on the subject?>>

Let me know when you start quoting from them to buttress your arguments

<<Glancing at the cover of a tabloid and reading the headline above is not something that requires any concentration on my part - indeed it's pretty much automatic and I cannot even control it. Perhaps my reading skills are so much above yours - I didn't realize that it took so much concentration on your part to read.>>

Alternatively, perhaps I find more interesting things to glance at when standing in line at the supermarket.  But hey!  don't let me stop you from looking over whatever catches your fancy.  It's a free world.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Amianthus on September 24, 2006, 01:20:19 PM
Let me know when you start quoting from them to buttress your arguments

I just did. The title from the cover. Equivalent to a headline from a tabloid. That makes me an expert, doesn't it? Or at least an aficionado?

Alternatively, perhaps I find more interesting things to glance at when standing in line at the supermarket.  But hey!  don't let me stop you from looking over whatever catches your fancy.  It's a free world.

Gum and candy wrappers? Sorry, I look around me and notice everything. So sorry that you're too slow to notice things immediately in front of you.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Michael Tee on September 24, 2006, 01:22:15 PM
<<And besides - he quoted it wrong anyway, so he must not be such an aficionado.>>

Jesus.  My faith in the media is shaken to the roots.  The guy couldn't even quote straight from a tabloid headline??  Maybe that's not ALL he got wrong.  He could've fucked up on the picture too.  How do we know it was really a smoking hole in the ground?  What if it was a bombed-out building?  I think you should enter into a serious intellectual debate with him at once, which could be expanded as needed to include other tabloid headlines as well.  How else can the integrity of tabloid headlines be preserved?
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Michael Tee on September 24, 2006, 01:30:14 PM
<<Gum and candy wrappers? Sorry, I look around me and notice everything. So sorry that you're too slow to notice things immediately in front of you.>>

Some things a little more intently than others, apparently.  And remembered longer.  No matter how trivial.   Must be nice to have so little on your mind.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Amianthus on September 24, 2006, 01:33:27 PM
Must be nice to have so little on your mind.

Must be nice to easily forget things.

ADD or Alzheimers?
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Amianthus on September 24, 2006, 01:39:25 PM
Jesus.  My faith in the media is shaken to the roots.  The guy couldn't even quote straight from a tabloid headline??  Maybe that's not ALL he got wrong.  He could've fucked up on the picture too.  How do we know it was really a smoking hole in the ground?  What if it was a bombed-out building?  I think you should enter into a serious intellectual debate with him at once, which could be expanded as needed to include other tabloid headlines as well.  How else can the integrity of tabloid headlines be preserved?

If it's the tabloid headline I remember seeing, the smoke was rising from a factory's smokestacks (not a hole in the ground) and the headline was in the form of a question ("Has the Devil escaped from Hell?").

However, there are so many "Devil" tabloid headlines, it's entirely possible he saw a different one.

Of course, I don't take someone's factual errors and use that to make fun of them. If I did, I would be a liberal. And I'd be making fun of their dress and physical features as well.

And I don't want to get a lobotomy just to become liberal.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Michael Tee on September 24, 2006, 01:44:04 PM
<<ADD or Alzheimers?>>

Prioritizing is closer.  So is focusing.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Amianthus on September 24, 2006, 01:46:00 PM
Prioritizing is closer.  So is focusing.

Focusing to point of ignoring your surroundings is obsessive behaviour. And not normal.
Title: Re: The Devil made him do it
Post by: Plane on September 24, 2006, 05:22:56 PM
Is Hugo Chavez fair to reduce the political diffrences of his country and our to an ad hominum attack on our president?