Ray

Chavez was interrupting in between and so the only way left was telling him to shut up and allow the speaker have some space.

At least that is what I saw on TV.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Silent Hunter

Chavez was interrupting? Well, that changes a lot.

Feanor

Yes, yes and Stalin stood by Hitler in the division of Poland. That doesn't make Hitler a communist, or Stalin an ariyan Nazi.

He got told to shut up, not told others to shut up.

I do think the powerful interest groups controlling Congress are a pretty small group, yet they have far more power then any Soviet gen. sec.

I'm having a hard time understanding what that paragraph means. Because Chavez is stupid, and Communism is opposite of Capitalism, you call Chavez communist because all leftists are stupid?

Oh snap. I just noticed. ''Leftists''switch the l and e and you get elftists. Awesome. Now I know why I'm a leftist. It's my arrogant Noldor blood calling to me. ''Kill the impure humans, kill them all for the glory of Noldor.''

TopHatter

"Indulge" socialism

I have a mental image of socialism needed to be indulged like a small child that wants to get it's way but doesn't have a f--king clue about reality.

Yep, sounds like socialism and socialists all right

HistoricalDavid

The fact that he did that exposes him as a PR blowhard. He didn't help the American poor for their own sake, but purely to score points. He could have chosen any of the far, far poorer people in the world, but he must score points against the devils.

__________________
HD Ready?

smilingassassin

..and rightly so too, he was arrogantly interupting someone who's veiw contradicted his own and wouldn't stop after getting a few subtle hints. Chavez has no understanding of the concept of tact or respect and got a little dose of his own medicine.

__________________
Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

-- Larry Elder

Canmoore

He does not have nukes, nor does he have a sizable army.. he is harmless. His people seem to like him, so all I can say is "whatever".

Bigfella

I agree.

Chavez has no interest in democracy, but that is hardly new for Latin America. Americans only seem to get worked up into a lather when the thug de jure claims an interest in helping the poor.

Had generations of right wing Latin American strongmen not entrenched widespread poverty in their nations (ofen with US help) then left wing strongmen like Chavez would not have a prayer. Hugo is popular at home for a reason.

If you want some dictators to REALLY worry about, I give you Putin, Saud, Musharraf & Kim Jong Il. The best thing you can do to Hugo is just ignore him. Every time an American takes a swing at him his popularity at home & in the region goes up.

Dreadnought

"I do think the powerful interest groups controlling Congress are a pretty small group, yet they have far more power then any Soviet gen. sec."

They do? Funny that every single one of those men and women in our Congress are voted there. Can you say the very same about the Duma or other? I did not think so. Remember pending on where you live or your ethnic origin dictates your right to vote even by your own words.

"Yes, yes and Stalin stood by Hitler in the division of Poland. That doesn't make Hitler a communist, or Stalin an ariyan Nazi"

And your point 60 years later? Bad example.

Lets try this one. Pointing missles at the U.S. for the Soviets makes you a red as in Catro's case. Using Soviet pilots stationed in China to fly migs for NK against the U.S. makes you a red and there are more examples easily found.

So lets see

China- communist nation
North Korea- Dictatorship/Communist
Soviet Union- Communist
Cuba and Castro. Dictator/Castro was almost certainly a communist although he never stated so.

Do we notice something about the above listed. Yes thats correct NONE give the people their rights nor hold open and free elections and a few of the above re-write the rules of their country so they may remain in power indefinate.

Sound like our friend Chavez? You bet it does.

I call Chavez a communist because he follows the trends set by the countries listed above. Basically no rights for the people no freedom and certainly no democracy for its people nor open elections without fear of reprisal. I did not state all leftists are stupid. Where you get that from i am unsure of.

One thing is for certain..His people could do far better if they were given the chance.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Kansas Bear

I believe someone else said that about an island dictator back in the '60s....

smilingassassin

Sniped from Wikipedia...

Now if this doesn't make you a red blooded Commie I don't know what will.

astralis

smilingassassin, dreadnought,

while it may seem academic (and it probably is), chavez's policies are heavily socialist in nature, and not communist. he has badly restricted the free market, but has not altogether torn it down- the reason why his regime is still afloat is because venezuela's making mucho $$ off oil exports, which shows some small integration into the world economy.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Feanor

My point is that supporting something for whatever reasons, does not make you a part of it unless you truly are.

No it does not.

Out of those listed, China was never communist, NK was communist shortly during the late 60's and early 70's, when it was under significant Soviet influence, Soviet Union was communist for about half of it's existence. Starting in the mid 50's it moved away from communist policies. Cuba was and remains a more or less communist nation. It's not naming yourself a communist that makes you one.

Communism is economic and sociological not political. Politics are only a means to an end. You can have a democratic, or even a monarchical, communism.

Another Latin American dictator. You didn't call them communists when they supported the U.S., but neither did you call them democratic. You saw them for what they were. Why does it now, when he decides he needs an attractive leftist label, obstruct your vision preventing you from seeing him for what he is.

When the political opportunity and leadership is there we can debate this, but currently show me a viable alternative?


Then you know nothing, or very little, about communism. Being influenced by leftist revolutionaries does not make you communist. Once more, the word is being used in a simple derogatory fashion to label anyone leftist that you don't like.

astralis

feanor,

with the development of the mass commune system and huge state-owned industries, i'd say it was pretty darn close. Maoist communism at its best.

it did not follow Marxist communism, which argued that revolution must come from and be sustained by the urban proletariat- but then again, neither did the USSR, which had Lenin-style communism (partial free market in the late 20s), Trotsky-style communism (pressure for immediate world-wide revolution), and Stalinist communism (USSR-centric, with the global revolution taking marching orders from Moscow).

Silent Hunter

The Soviet Union and its ilk were not communist in the Marx sense, since they jumped a stage in his view of history. The October Revolution was not the rising of the proletariat, but a popular coup.

The correct term for that would be Marxism-Leninism.