NationStates Jolt Archive

For those who still thought Pat Robertson was a Christian--and I guess there might be a couple out there--his recent remarks (August 22) on the 700 Club ought to put to rest that little fable. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200508220006)
ROBERTSON: There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.
You can watch the video of him saying those very words at the link above.

So tell me--who would Jesus suggest assassinating, if anyone? And would he do it for oil?

This chump still thinks we're running under the "Munroe Doctrine"? And assasination? Unless he's working under the "Assassin Judas" ideal, he has nothing.

Pat Robertson pisses me off more and more each day. He's a rich motherfucker who has no problem with curtailing the rights of half the US population, has a university, a TV show and a tax shelter...and he says that Mother Teressa isn't a real Christian?

I know the word is thrown around alot...but I think many would agree with me when I say that Pat Robertson is a hippocrite.

Can you name even one instance at which Jesus even hinted that he would support the killing of someone? (That whole 'let he who has not sinned cast the first stone' reading doesn't count because Jesus knew that there wouldn't be anyone throwing a stone.)

Can you name even one instance at which Jesus even hinted that he would support the killing of someone? (That whole 'let he who has not sinned cast the first stone' reading doesn't count because Jesus knew that there wouldn't be anyone throwing a stone.)
I can't, but hey, I'm not a televangelist either. Of course, I can also look at myself in the mirror and not be ashamed.

Erm, doesn't the Monroe Doctrine only apply to European countries? Namely Britain, France, and Spain?

Erm, doesn't the Monroe Doctrine only apply to European countries? Namely Britain, France, and Spain?

It was the doctrine under President Munroe for the US to spread its influence to other "less developed" nations...i.e, try to make 'em more like us. It was during the hight of the Imperialist era.

It was the doctrine under President Munroe for the US to spread its influence to other "less developed" nations...i.e, try to make 'em more like us. It was during the hight of the Imperialist era.
Yes, and that the stupid Europeans couldn't bother us in our backyard.

It was the doctrine under President Munroe for the US to spread its influence to other "less developed" nations...i.e, try to make 'em more like us. It was during the hight of the Imperialist era.
No no, I meant that wasn't the Doctrine meant to keep European nations from colonizing the new republics that won their soveirgnity and threaten them with war in case they invaded the Americas?

Jesus would say kill the motherfkr and kill him hard. :sniper:
He has a lot of stock in Halliburton.

As an Australian Hat once boldly stated on The Simpsons"

Pobody's Nerfect

Christ never condoned assassination - and while the Murder/Kill translation in the Commandments allows us some leeway in what is and isn't sinful killing, Christ certainly would not approve. It's a difficult matter - it might not be *technically* a sin, but it goes against Christ's imperative to love God totally, and to love your neighbor (aka, everyone) as yourself.

In Robertson's defense, isn't he saying that the assassination is better than an actual war?

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.

It seems to me as if he is expressing some doubt as to whether assassination is the best solution, and whether it is a Christian solution, but he is convinced it is in some way a better solution than a war.

Again, assassination is far from a truly Christian solution to bringing down a dictatorship - Jesus was an advocate of passive resistance.

As an Australian Hat once boldly stated on The Simpsons"

Pobody's Nerfect

Christ never condoned assassination - and while the Murder/Kill translation in the Commandments allows us some leeway in what is and isn't sinful killing, Christ certainly would not approve. It's a difficult matter - it might not be *technically* a sin, but it goes against Christ's imperative to love God totally, and to love your neighbor (aka, everyone) as yourself.

In Robertson's defense, isn't he saying that the assassination is better than an actual war?



It seems to me as if he is expressing some doubt as to whether assassination is the best solution, and whether it is a Christian solution, but he is convinced it is in some way a better solution than a war.
Which is a proper argument if a war was likely to happen...

No no, I meant that wasn't the Doctrine meant to keep European nations from colonizing the new republics that won their soveirgnity and threaten them with war in case they invaded the Americas?

Frankly I am uncertain. Nevertheless it is out of date now, so what is this idiot, Robertson babbling about?

A quote from the Doctrine, as it seems.

"We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security."
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/50.htm

Google is my friend.

The problem is Christianity got involved in politics. Pat did, and it corrupted him and his message. I doubt he even realizes he's drifted that far.

Sad, really.

As an Australian Hat once boldly stated on The Simpsons"

Pobody's Nerfect

Christ never condoned assassination - and while the Murder/Kill translation in the Commandments allows us some leeway in what is and isn't sinful killing, Christ certainly would not approve. It's a difficult matter - it might not be *technically* a sin, but it goes against Christ's imperative to love God totally, and to love your neighbor (aka, everyone) as yourself.

In Robertson's defense, isn't he saying that the assassination is better than an actual war?

It seems to me as if he is expressing some doubt as to whether assassination is the best solution, and whether it is a Christian solution, but he is convinced it is in some way a better solution than a war.
Even if he is, and I am by no means conceding that, it's still not a Christian thing to say. Jesus condoned neither war nor murder, and neither should those who claim to follow his teachings.

In Robertson's defense, isn't he saying that the assassination is better than an actual war?

It seems to me as if he is expressing some doubt as to whether assassination is the best solution, and whether it is a Christian solution, but he is convinced it is in some way a better solution than a war.

Praising an assassination for not being a war is like praising Genital Herpes for not being AIDS.

Even if he is, and I am by no means conceding that, it's still not a Christian thing to say. Jesus condoned neither war nor murder, and neither should those who claim to follow his teachings.

Amen...

Even if he is, and I am by no means conceding that, it's still not a Christian thing to say. Jesus condoned neither war nor murder, and neither should those who claim to follow his teachings.

No argument there.

Good going Colodia :D
The Monroe doctrine was about keeping Europe from establishing any new colonies in America, and placing fellow American nations under our protection, against Europe.

Praising an assassination for not being a war is like praising Genital Herpes for not being AIDS.
What a… colorful simile.

Praising an assassination for not being a war is like praising Genital Herpes for not being AIDS.

That has to be the single greatest comparison I've seen in a long...long time...

We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

Strong-arm dictator? Hugo Chavez was democratically elected twice, and survived a recall, all three times winning more than 56% of the vote. How the hell can you call him a dictator?

As to the rest of what this idiot is rambling on about, it sounds like 9/11/1973 all over again.

This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen.

Hmm, I thought Venezuela was in Venezuela's sphere of influence.

It's official, Pat Robertson is an idiot.

Erm, doesn't the Monroe Doctrine only apply to European countries? Namely Britain, France, and Spain?

The Monroe Doctrine was a delcaration by President Monroe saying that the US would intervene to prevent European powers from recolonizing the New World nations.

What the televasshole *might* be refferencing is the "Roosevelt Corrollary," from Teddy Roosevelt, which stated that basically the US could intervente in Latin America to protect US commercial interests. It became the "justification" for rampant US imperialism in Latin America.

Less known is that the other Roosevelt reversed this essentially with his "Good Neighbour policy." He said we wouldn't mess around except to protect Latin America from Europe.

That doesn't mean the tradition was broken. The US dicked around in Latin America all during the cold war, assassinating democratically elected left wing leaders, sponsoring and supporting mindnumbingly brutal right wing rebels and revolutionaries, mining harbours, supporting Fascist governments, and aiding and supporting bloody coups against both dicatatorial and democratic left wing governments.

And this televasshole wants to continue that. I'm not christian, but apparently I know more about the Bible and the message of Jesus than this guy. I'd recommend he reference Matthew 23. Woe unto this hypocrite.

And this televasshole wants to continue that. I'm not christian, but apparently I know more about the Bible and the message of Jesus than this guy. I'd recommend he reference Matthew 23.

*Googles*

Oh...that's a burn...

Would I be going too far if I noted that Pat Robertson is a Republican and was a candidate for the Presidential nomination in 1988? Dare I ask the Republicans and Christians (not mutually exclusive, of course) on this board to repudiate such inane and un-Christian talk?

Probably a bit too far, but what the hell--I'm in a mood tonight.

I can't, but hey, I'm not a televangelist either. Of course, I can also look at myself in the mirror and not be ashamed.

Really? No ignominy at all?

Really? No ignominy at all?
Nope. Laughter sometimes, a grimace at my lack of hair, but no ignominy.

Would I be going too far if I noted that Pat Robertson is a Republican and was a candidate for the Presidential nomination in 1988? Dare I ask the Republicans and Christians (not mutually exclusive, of course) on this board to repudiate such inane and un-Christian talk?


You mean there are people who wouldn't?

Would I be going too far if I noted that Pat Robertson is a Republican and was a candidate for the Presidential nomination in 1988? Dare I ask the Republicans and Christians (not mutually exclusive, of course) on this board to repudiate such inane and un-Christian talk?

Probably a bit too far, but what the hell--I'm in a mood tonight.

Fine... Clinton never tried to kill anyone :rolleyes:

We would have been much better off letting people like Idi Amin continue on their merry way without worry that we might knock them off...

We would have been much better off letting people like Idi Amin continue on their merry way without worry that we might knock them off...

Are you comparing Chavez to Idi Amin?

Nope. Laughter sometimes, a grimace at my lack of hair, but no ignominy.

You know, the Ancient Egyptians believed that the Dog (and not the monkey nor ape) was man's closest relative, because the Dog, like man, could feel and display 'shame' when it had done something wrong. An exclusive trait and mark of humanity in their book.

I wonder what they would make of you? Saying that you feel no shame at all, even after talking so badly about so many other people who were trying to help so many other people... I wonder what that would qualify for in their book, displaying and feeling no shame at all?

You mean that Iscariot isn't already on it? Better call Maxwell...

For dogma we would kill even our founder!
-Father Enrico Maxwell

Are you comparing Chavez to Idi Amin?

Sure... http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200508221614



EDIT: And Momar Kadafi too, Reagan's pot shots at him back in the eighties shut him up too... Now he's learned his lesson and is coming around to a reasonable position in world politics. That wouldn't have happened if he didn't think he himself could be 'knocked' out.

My main problem with Pat Robertson, and pretty much all televangelists I've seen, is that they are so loud at proclaiming they are "true" christians, and yet they don't seem to follow two Biblical points. The first "judge not, lest ye be judged" they sling judgments against everyone, especially people who won't give them money. The second is this verse "When you pray do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men." Matthew chapter 6 verse 5. And I'm not saying I can judge them, but it does cross my mind that their behavior and words don't seem to match what they preach.

You know, the Ancient Egyptians believed that the Dog (and not the monkey nor ape) was man's closest relative, because the Dog, like man, could feel and display 'shame' when it had done something wrong. An exclusive trait and mark of humanity in their book.

I wonder what they would make of you? Saying that you feel no shame at all, even after talking so badly about so many other people who were trying to help so many other people... I wonder what that would qualify for in their book, displaying and feeling no shame at all?
Do you have something particular in mind that I should feel ashamed for? I do feel shame at some of my individual actions, but not for the way I live my life or what I do as a whole. I would not be able to say that if I were a televangelist.

You know, the Ancient Egyptians believed that the Dog (and not the monkey nor ape) was man's closest relative, because the Dog, like man, could feel and display 'shame' when it had done something wrong. An exclusive trait and mark of humanity in their book.

I wonder what they would make of you? Saying that you feel no shame at all, even after talking so badly about so many other people who were trying to help so many other people... I wonder what that would qualify for in their book, displaying and feeling no shame at all?
Um, what?

My main problem with Pat Robertson, and pretty much all televangelists I've seen, is that they are so loud at proclaiming they are "true" christians, and yet they don't seem to follow two Biblical points. The first "judge not, lest ye be judged" they sling judgments against everyone, especially people who won't give them money. The second is this verse "When you pray do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men." Matthew chapter 6 verse 5. And I'm not saying I can judge them, but it does cross my mind that their behavior and words don't seem to match what they preach.

I agree and I think a majority of Christians do not agree with the message of televangelists because, for the most part they have fallen into the Heresy of Health and Wealth Theology. Which basically says that if you are a Christian you should be rich and wealthy all the time. Which is not what the Bible says:
Acts 9:15-16
"But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”
Phillipians 1:27-28
"Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel, and not in any way terrified by your adversaries, which is to them a proof of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that from God."

Pat Robertson is a Christian like I am an elf.

What a… colorful simile.

Thanx, learnt from me English teacher. :D

Pat Robertson is a Christian like I am an elf.What kind of elf, because if it's a Keebler Elf, I could use a cookie. :D

1) Chavez isn't a communist. Not even close.

2) Chavez was democratically elected twice and has survived a dozen referenda on his policies and rule, winning a majority each time. Let Bush face a referendum on Iraq, then we can discuss standards of democracy.

3) Islamic extremism? Excuse me? In a country full of Spanish-speaking Catholics? Is he smoking crack?

4) Venezuela in America's spehere of influence? Since when? It is in Venezuela's sphere of influence. National sovereignty, dumbass. :rolleyes:

All this proves is that Pat Robertson is a nutjob. Not even a politician, just a novelty speaker for fascists.

I think the biggest reason Chavez gets so many people in power in the US twisted is because he plays the class card effectively, and that scares the hell out of them. He goes to the poor people, tells them, "Your government has been giving away your natural resources and profiting from them. They live in huge mansions and you starve, but the source of their money is the resources of the country we all live in. Why should they benefit but not you?" And they vote for him--in droves.

My biggest gripe about American politics is that we don't have anyone in either of the major parties who will make that argument, who will stand up when the Republicans accuse them of class warfare and say "you're damn right this is class warfare, and so far, we haven't been putting up much of a fight." The problem is, of course, that the Demmocratic leadership is as protective of their class as the Republican leadership is, and so they'll never do it, not on a national level anyway. The Democrats do it effectively on the local level at times, but it never makes the leap to the larger stage.

Just thought I'd highlight this little bit of Robertson's speech:And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator.
So let's get this straight. Chavez deserves to be executed, according to Robertson, not because he's violating human rights, not because he's persecuting people for their religious views or beliefs, but because he's got oil and could potentially cut the US off.

Robertson's a douchebag.

For those who still thought Pat Robertson was a Christian--and I guess there might be a couple out there--his recent remarks (August 22) on the 700 Club ought to put to rest that little fable. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200508220006)

You can watch the video of him saying those very words at the link above.

So tell me--who would Jesus suggest assassinating, if anyone? And would he do it for oil?

ahh, yes, everything is done for oil. (sigh)

Fact is, God commanded (and allowed) the Israelites to slay rival nations and their rulers... so taking out rival rulers is not foreign to the Bible.

That said, I doubt highly that Jesus, if He wanted the guy dead, would say it in those words. He might have said, "And an angel of the Lord shall smight the Venezuelan king and tear his kingdom asunder, and it shall be so."

Seeing as how Jesus was more or less assassinated, I don't think so. Furthermore, Chavez (although I personally wouldn't be torn up if he was knocked off) isn't really doing anything wrong and killing him would be tantamount to murder.

Assassination should be reserved for those who have done real wrongs (Amin, Kim Jong Il, etc.).

All I can say is that if Jesus died to redeem Pat Robertson, he sure did a piss-poor job of it.

did y'all miss the times when pat robertson had his followers pray for the deaths of US supreme court justices? he redoubled his efforts after o'connor resigned.

:rolleyes: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9047102/

Need I say more?

I think while it is not too bad of an idea for someone to assasinate the venezuelan president, it is probably not that great for a "respected" Christian speaker to call for it..

I utterly hate Hugo Chavez and I think he screwed over his country, wiping out the entire middle class that existed. However, I would never call for his assassination or the assassination of any foreign leader. I find Robertson's comments ill-advised and a bit immature.

Let the Venezuelans take out their unpopular leader (opinion polls suggest he would lose an election).

Televangelist wants Chavez killed; White House calls idea ‘inappropriate’ That's something at least... :)

Hmmm.... What would Jesus do?

*Jesus approaches Chavez with assault rifle*

"Normally I'd turn the other cheek, Hugo... but you're messing with America, the new Holy Land."

*Jesus lifts rifle*

"Hugo.... Say hello to my little friend"

*in matrix-like slow-mo, Jesus unloads a full clip into Chavez. Christ then turns slowly and looks into the camera and snarls*

"Whose next? Bring it on!"

I think while it is not too bad of an idea for someone to assasinate the venezuelan president, it is probably not that great for a "respected" Christian speaker to call for it..

Shouldn't it be the word "Christian" that's in quotation marks? There is no question that some people "respect" him; the question is: How can he claim to be a "Christian" after making remarks like these.

Here is comments from the US gov:

"I would say that Pat Robertson is a private citizen and that his views do not represent the policy of the United States," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters, describing the TV preacher's comments as "inappropriate."

"As we have said before, any allegations that we are planning to take hostile action against the Venezuelan government are completely baseless and without fact," McCormack added.

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld denied that the Pentagon has considered assassinating the leftist president.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, appearing at a Pentagon news conference, said when asked: "Our department doesn't do that kind of thing. It's against the law.

I haven’t read anything. We haven’t heard anything about him. I don’t even know who that person is.
Oh, this is just too funny :D

That's something at least... :)

Not wrong or unthinkable, just "inappropriate"; probably pissed at him blowing their cover! :p

But anyways, we have to stop Chavez before he becomes another SA dictator who runs his country in to the ground and loots it of its wealth. We need to step in and demand fair, free elections and a legitimate opposition. That will get him out of power and allow democracy to revitalize itself in the nation. Then, on to Belarus to get rid of their dictator.

*Check watch to see how long the merger will take*

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, appearing at a Pentagon news conference, said when asked: "Our department doesn't do that kind of thing. It's against the law.Curr... it would help if you took that out. Things being against the law haven't stopped the DoD from ANYTHING except maybe the Bay of Pigs... (And I don't mean the Iraq war)

But anyways, we have to stop Chavez before he becomes another SA dictator who runs his country in to the ground and loots it of its wealth. We need to step in and demand fair, free elections and a legitimate opposition. That will get him out of power and allow democracy to revitalize itself in the nation. Then, on to Belarus to get rid of their dictator.

Too late.

He's already done it. 65% of the country lives below the poverty line.. and the sizable middle class that one existed in 2000 is totally gone. His people are now even more poor. That's the cuban styled socialist way of doing things... if there is some wealth, wipe it out and steal it. There needs to be a more unified opposition in Venezuela.

That Belarus dictator is a nutcase... from what I heard.. he's like the guy in Turkmenistan... who just banned lip syncing.

*Check watch to see how long the merger will take*

Huh?

Curr... it would help if you took that out. Things being against the law haven't stopped the DoD from ANYTHING except maybe the Bay of Pigs... (And I don't mean the Iraq war)

We live in 2005, not the 1960s. Listen up, we are not going to take action against Chavez. He'll self destruct.

Not wrong or unthinkable, just "inappropriate"; probably pissed at him blowing their cover! :p

But anyways, we have to stop Chavez before he becomes another SA dictator who runs his country in to the ground and loots it of its wealth. We need to step in and demand fair, free elections and a legitimate opposition. That will get him out of power and allow democracy to revitalize itself in the nation. Then, on to Belarus to get rid of their dictator.

Do you read about anything that goes on outside your country?

Did Pat Robertson go too far by calling for the assassination of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez? * 104334 responses

No
16%

Yes
81%

Not sure
4% Note that this is not a valid scientific survey, but it does say a bit... :D

He's already done it. 65% of the country lives below the poverty line.. and the sizable middle class that one existed in 2000 is totally gone. His people are now even more poor. That's the cuban styled socialist way of doing things... if there is some wealth, wipe it out and steal it. There needs to be a more unified opposition in Venezuela.

That Belarus dictator is a nutcase... from what I heard.. he's like the guy in Turkmenistan... who just banned lip syncing.

Don't forget the 10% unemployment, dangerously imbalanced economy, corrupt state-run companies, and the overly large amounts of money in the central bank.

Their middle class is gone, and the money Chavez is spending is really just to win over the people long enough to not notice what he's doing and then they're back under another dictatorship with him lining his pockets. He's just another "socialist" profiting off the country.

The US and the EU need to take action on this, and force democracy back in to Venezuela by the most peaceful means first, and if that doesn't work then begin planning for the worst. We can't lose Venezuela because it will destabilize the region severely.

We live in 2005, not the 1960s. Listen up, we are not going to take action against Chavez. He'll self destruct.I doubt the guy I talked to was around in the 1960s... ;)

Do you read about anything that goes on outside your country?

Absolutely, and I know full well what Chavez is doing. I don't trust him, because he's following the same path as every other dictator during the past 50 years. The bait and switch; give the people money and pull wool over their eyes, and when you're in power, cut off the cash and begin looting their wealth.

Huh?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9504175#post9504175

Don't forget the 10% unemployment, dangerously imbalanced economy, corrupt state-run companies, and the overly large amounts of money in the central bank.

Their middle class is gone, and the money Chavez is spending is really just to win over the people long enough to not notice what he's doing and then they're back under another dictatorship with him lining his pockets. He's just another "socialist" profiting off the country.

The US and the EU need to take action on this, and force democracy back in to Venezuela by the most peaceful means first, and if that doesn't work then begin planning for the worst. We can't lose Venezuela because it will destabilize the region severely.

The economy is in serious trouble, and hyper-inflation will soon be a facotr in the country. People will begin to notice their money is not worth anything.

We need to be careful. We need the Venezuelan opposition to materialize better then it has in the past, and do it in a more efficient manner. They need a good opposition leader that is more charsmatic. We won't lose Venezuela, and the Chavez era will be over sooner rather then later.

Unfortunately with the right to free speech comes the right to air propaganda, bigotry, and one's own personal opinion, no matter how skewed it is (unless it is it strongly anti-US). The white house may be "distancing" itself from Pat Robertson, but considering he is friends with Dubya, I'm sure he will continue to keep on spreading his fundamentalist rhetoric.

How anyone can take seriously a man who claims that gender equality will cause women to “kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians” is beyond me anyway...

I'm curious to know if he actually believes that, and more importantly, if his considerable large following of Christians actually do as well?

Don't forget the 10% unemployment, dangerously imbalanced economy, corrupt state-run companies, and the overly large amounts of money in the central bank.

Their middle class is gone, and the money Chavez is spending is really just to win over the people long enough to not notice what he's doing and then they're back under another dictatorship with him lining his pockets. He's just another "socialist" profiting off the country.

The US and the EU need to take action on this, and force democracy back in to Venezuela by the most peaceful means first, and if that doesn't work then begin planning for the worst. We can't lose Venezuela because it will destabilize the region severely.

The US did take action on this.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/elections/venezuela/

Those who advocate assassination are just demonstrating their true fascist nature.

The economy is in serious trouble, and hyper-inflation will soon be a facotr in the country. People will begin to notice their money is not worth anything.

We need to be careful. We need the Venezuelan opposition to materialize better then it has in the past, and do it in a more efficient manner. They need a good opposition leader that is more charsmatic. We won't lose Venezuela, and the Chavez era will be over sooner rather then later.

Their economy swings by as much as 20-40% of GDP in a given year because of the volatility of the oil sector and the massive public debt he's building up. Chavez will do what it takes to keep oil prices high because he knows he's sitting on an economic time bomb, and when it explodes his regime will be gone. However, we cannot allow that to happen either. We need, as you said, a real opposition to take him on and restore democracy. Otherwise, he'll run that country in to the ground.

The US and the EU need to take action on this, and force democracy back in to Venezuela by the most peaceful means first, and if that doesn't work then begin planning for the worst. We can't lose Venezuela because it will destabilize the region severely.

Since when has the US been successful at promoting or enforcing democracy? Leaving Chavez in power till an opposition leader can be voted in his place has got to be better than having some US-backed puppets who the people do not respect or acknowledge, or a situation such as in Iraq. Do not forget that every time the US has interfered in South American politics, they have caused more harm than good (Nicaragua anyone?).

The economy is in serious trouble, and hyper-inflation will soon be a facotr in the country. People will begin to notice their money is not worth anything.

We need to be careful. We need the Venezuelan opposition to materialize better then it has in the past, and do it in a more efficient manner. They need a good opposition leader that is more charsmatic. We won't lose Venezuela, and the Chavez era will be over sooner rather then later.

You've already lost Venezuela, because the disenfranchised poor majority have had a taste of what it is like to have a say in politics. Assassinating Chavez won't change that.

Their economy swings by as much as 20-40% of GDP in a given year because of the volatility of the oil sector and the massive public debt he's building up. Chavez will do what it takes to keep oil prices high because he knows he's sitting on an economic time bomb, and when it explodes his regime will be gone. However, we cannot allow that to happen either. We need, as you said, a real opposition to take him on and restore democracy. Otherwise, he'll run that country in to the ground.

There needs to be a leader that will oppose him, and who is better then him.. and who is centerist and can really capture the attention of the people. Argentina for example has a decent leader that has brought some pretty good reforms to the country. Kirchner isn't very charsmatic.. but has a decent plan. Venezuela needs something like that.

I suggest reading this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/156833236X/qid=1124844102/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-6807621-8548705?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

It shows the stupidity of many politicans in Latin America.

You've already lost Venezuela, because the disenfranchised poor majority have had a taste of what it is like to have a say in politics. Assassinating Chavez won't change that.

You sir don't know what you're talking about. You know what? I thought Chavez would of been decent when he won his election. I thought he would bring change. But he disenfranchised the same people he was claiming to support, the poor and middle class. He destroyed the middle class, and made the poor even more poor.

The US did take action on this.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/elections/venezuela/

Those who advocate assassination are just demonstrating their true fascist nature.

Chavez's UN Ambassador resigned because of his regime's actions, Amnesty International was threatened with violence for trying to document abuses, and is engaging in censorship of the media, threatening of opposition, and rigging elections. He needs to be removed, but by the people and not by a Western-backed coup or anything else.

Assassination of him would be wrong, and against what the US stands for. I would not support any action like that. Change has to come from within.

Absolutely, and I know full well what Chavez is doing. I don't trust him, because he's following the same path as every other dictator during the past 50 years. The bait and switch; give the people money and pull wool over their eyes, and when you're in power, cut off the cash and begin looting their wealth.

Chavez is a democratically elected leader, therefore he is not a dictator. He has support of the working class and is implementing much needed reforms. There is no legitimate opposition in Venezuela that can challenge him in an election and if the U.S. does decide to remove him, they will have to occupy Venezuela in order to ensure that a puppet, who will provide the U.S. with preferential petroleum prices, remains in power.

You've already lost Venezuela, because the disenfranchised poor majority have had a taste of what it is like to have a say in politics. Assassinating Chavez won't change that.

The poor were screwed over, there's no denying that. However, what is happening now is that Chavez is spending money to cover up his more deplorable actions, and by the time he turns of the tap, he'll be firmly cemented in power.

How anyone can take seriously a man who claims that gender equality will cause women to “kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians” is beyond me anyway...

Its simple, Pat Robertson and his large misguided flock are simply insane.

I'm curious to know if he actually believes that, and more importantly, if his considerable large following of Christians actually do as well?

You must understand that these people represent the far-far-right of the Christian faith. And when I say these people are Christians im using the word in the most liberal sense. Anyone who advocates killing ones enemy is not a true Christian. (if you dont believe me pick up a bible... you know turn the other cheek and all that jazz)

Chavez is a democratically elected leader, therefore he is not a dictator. He has support of the working class and is implementing much needed reforms. There is no legitimate opposition in Venezuela that can challenge him in an election and if the U.S. does decide to remove him, they will have to occupy Venezuela in order to ensure that a puppet, who will provide the U.S. with preferential petroleum prices, remains in power.

Democratically elected leaders can become dictators. He is screwing over the working class, and building up a lot of debt. He is not implementing "much needed" reforms, he's implementing "reforms" that are driving the country towards bankruptcy. He has made the working class even more poor under his rule. There is an opposition that is legitimate, but it remains under constant attack by his supporters. The change must come within.

You sir don't know what you're talking about. You know what? I thought Chavez would of been decent when he won his election. I thought he would bring change. But he disenfranchised the same people he was claiming to support, the poor and middle class. He destroyed the middle class, and made the poor even more poor.

How can you make people who have nothing more poor?

How can you make people who have nothing more poor?

By piling debt on them that they will eventually have to repay in the future, by driving jobs out of the country.. by lowering wages... :rolleyes:

Personally, I enjoy Chavez. I just wish he'd take more action with regards to cutting off oil to the US. That would rank him high on my list.

Chavez is a democratically elected leader, therefore he is not a dictator.

You know.... Adolph(sp?) Hitler was democratically elected and look how that turned out...

Unfortunately with the right to free speech comes the right to air propaganda, bigotry, and one's own personal opinion, no matter how skewed it is (unless it is it strongly anti-US). The white house may be "distancing" itself from Pat Robertson, but considering he is friends with Dubya, I'm sure he will continue to keep on spreading his fundamentalist rhetoric.

How anyone can take seriously a man who claims that gender equality will cause women to “kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians” is beyond me anyway...

I'm curious to know if he actually believes that, and more importantly, if his considerable large following of Christians actually do as well?
Like I said in the other thread on the topic, you can't just stand up and call for the murder of someone in Germany at least. You can get charged with "Calling for Murder" (Aufruf zum Mord).

[QUOTE]Chavez's UN Ambassador resigned because of his regime's actions, Amnesty International was threatened with violence for trying to document abuses, and is engaging in censorship of the media, threatening of opposition, and rigging elections. He needs to be removed, but by the people and not by a Western-backed coup or anything else.

Assassination of him would be wrong, and against what the US stands for. I would not support any action like that. Change has to come from within.

I'm glad you think that it is up to the Venezuelan people to decide who they are governed by. I agree and so does Chavez. ;)

Personally, I enjoy Chavez. I just wish he'd take more action with regards to cutting off oil to the US. That would rank him high on my list.

:rolleyes:

By driving people out of work and giving us higher gas prices? To hell with you.

Chavez is a democratically elected leader, therefore he is not a dictator. He has support of the working class and is implementing much needed reforms. There is no legitimate opposition in Venezuela that can challenge him in an election and if the U.S. does decide to remove him, they will have to occupy Venezuela in order to ensure that a puppet, who will provide the U.S. with preferential petroleum prices, remains in power.

He's repressing the opposition, blacking out the media, using all means in his power to stop elections, and is violently crushing protest:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR530082004?open&of=ENG-VEN

More on Chavez, three pages of Amnesty International citations:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-ven/index

Here's some more from Human Rights Watch:
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu

It's clear something very wrong is happening in Venezuela, and we can't allow that to happen for fear of losing yet another young democracy in the Americas.

How can you make people who have nothing more poor?

I believe there is a chinese proverb about, 'When you rob a man of everything he is free once more from your power.' I may have paraphrased it wrong, but if they lose EVERYTHING, they have nothing to lose. This is a downfall of many tyrants who get too greedy. The lower classes revolt and cause reform in a bloody civil war cause they have nothing left to lose.

The poor were screwed over, there's no denying that. However, what is happening now is that Chavez is spending money to cover up his more deplorable actions, and by the time he turns of the tap, he'll be firmly cemented in power.

What are these "deplorable" actions? Can you provide links to back up your claims?

You know.... Adolph(sp?) Hitler was democratically elected and look how that turned out...It's "Adolf". Funny anectdote:
A guy did a thread on typing in names in google and comparing how many entries he got and was surprised that Adolph Hitler got less than a lot of others until he was told that that's not how his name was spelled :D
Yeah, but look how Pinochet came to power on 9/11 1973...

What are these "deplorable" actions? Can you provide links to back up your claims?

See my post a few back. I'll bring up more links in the next few.

By piling debt on them that they will eventually have to repay in the future, by driving jobs out of the country.. by lowering wages... :rolleyes:

You mean like the debt that is being incured by Colombians with the U.S. initiative "Plan Colombia"?

He's repressing the opposition, blacking out the media, using all means in his power to stop elections, and is violently crushing protest:I can name another jerk that blacks out the media: Silvio Berlusconi...
It's clear something very wrong is happening in Venezuela, and we can't allow that to happen for fear of losing yet another young democracy in the Americas.Check out all the other countries that have wrong things going on. Chile still has the Scendero Luminoso going about. West Africa is about to go up in flames again, and none of this really compares to human rights abuses in Egypt or Saudi Arabia...
As pleased as I am that you seem to respect ai's opinion, human rights is rarely something that intervention is based on, and usually only when it reaches the ethnic cleansing level...

You mean like the debt that is being incured by Colombians with the U.S. initiative "Plan Colombia"?

What a irrelevant, ridiculous and incorrect response.

http://poorbuthappy.com/colombia/node/8539

March 30 (Bloomberg) -- Colombia's economy expanded more than expected in the fourth quarter as a reduction in kidnappings and murders bolstered consumer confidence, helping fuel a surge in retail sales.

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of a country's output of goods and services, grew 4.28 percent from the year- earlier period, up from third quarter growth of 2.46 percent and above the 4 percent median forecast in a Bloomberg survey of 13 economists.

``Private domestic consumption led the significant acceleration from the third to the fourth quarter,'' Alberto Bernal, head of Latin America research at IDEAglobal.com, said in a telephone interview from New York. He said he expects consumer demand to keep leading the expansion in 2005 after investment led growth for much of 2003 and 2004.

Colombian bonds and currency rallied after the GDP report. The government's benchmark 10 percent bond due in 2012 gained 2.25 cents on the dollar to 107.75, cutting its yield to 8.47 percent at 4 p.m. in New York, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co. The peso advanced 1.4 percent to 2367 pesos to the dollar. It has surged 26 percent since January 2003 as the expansion lured capital to the South American country.

Retail sales rose 6.1 percent in 2004, their fastest pace in five years, as shopping centers such as Andino Commercial and Business Center in Bogota benefited from President Alvaro Uribe's success in combating guerillas and drug traffickers. Homicides and kidnappings have fallen by one-third since Uribe, 52, took office in August 2002. Colombia's 1,440 kidnappings last year were still the most in the world.

`More Secure'

Colombians worry less now about bombings that used to keep them away from shopping malls, said Carolina Gonzalez, communications director at Andino Commercial and Business Center, one of Bogota's biggest malls.

``People feel more secure when they visit shopping malls now and this also leads to a greater willingness to spend,'' Gonzalez said.

Sales at Andino rose 68 percent in December from the year- earlier period. Over the whole year, customers spent on average 120,000 pesos ($50.74) per visit to the mall, 50 percent more than in 2003.

The economy grew 3.96 percent for all of 2004, following growth of 4.02 percent in 2003, the highest back-to-back annual rates since 1994 and 1995 and more than double 2002's pace of 1.93 percent. A separate government report today showed Colombia's urban jobless rate fell to 16.1 percent in February from 17.1 percent in the year-earlier period.


Plan Colombia is securing Colombia.

You know.... Adolph(sp?) Hitler was democratically elected and look how that turned out...

Then, by this rational, George Bush has the potential to become a dictator. He's already invaded two countries during his terms in office, and has a right winged Christian following. Between Bush and Chavez I'd say that Dubya bares more of a resemblance to Adolf.

It's "Adolf". Funny anectdote:
A guy did a thread on typing in names in google and comparing how many entries he got and was surprised that Adolph Hitler got less than a lot of others until he was told that that's not how his name was spelled :D
Yeah, but look how Pinochet came to power on 9/11 1973...

Thanks. I'm a very bad speller... although I should have remembered that everything is spelled the way it sounds in the German language...

Actually in Italy there is a lot of opposition media... and papers... my parents are living there right now.

I believe there is a chinese proverb about, 'When you rob a man of everything he is free once more from your power.' I may have paraphrased it wrong, but if they lose EVERYTHING, they have nothing to lose. This is a downfall of many tyrants who get too greedy. The lower classes revolt and cause reform in a bloody civil war cause they have nothing left to lose.

And it was exactly this kind of political/ economic climate that brought Chavez to power.

Then, by this rational, George Bush has the potential to become a dictator. He's already invaded two countries during his terms in office, and has a right winged Christian following. Between Bush and Chavez I'd say that Dubya bares more of a resemblance to Adolf.

Frankly, anyone has the "ability" to become a dictator. But in countries that have strong democratic traditions (US, EU, Austrailia, etc.) this is much less likely to happen since the populace would revolt and overthrow the offending government.

Then, by this rational, George Bush has the potential to become a dictator. He's already invaded two countries during his terms in office, and has a right winged Christian following. Between Bush and Chavez I'd say that Dubya bares more of a resemblance to Adolf.

Really now? Please point me to the death camps. Also if he is like Hitler, how come I don't see people from Afganistan and Iraq being forced to come to America to work in factories?

P.S. LEARN SOME SHIT ABOUT HISTORY.

Bush....Hitler....I see the problem, but the difference is we didn't take land and didn't have as many restrictions. Things are for sure his butt is NOT getting reelected.

If I was elected I'd make a formal apology for my 'Shrub of a predessor' and fix Bush's crap, then start on my own things.

Thanks. I'm a very bad speller... although I should have remembered that everything is spelled the way it sounds in the German language...Not true. We have words like "Balkon" which are pronounced similar to the original French.

Then, by this rational, George Bush has the potential to become a dictator. He's already invaded two countries during his terms in office, and has a right winged Christian following. Between Bush and Chavez I'd say that Dubya bares more of a resemblance to Adolf.

No. Bush is not even close to a dictator. In fact he allows protesters close to his ranch, and they have all the media coverage they want. Doesn't sound like a dictator to me? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were proper, and comparing Bush to Hitler.. or any dictator for that matter is immature, and childish.

I can name another jerk that blacks out the media: Silvio Berlusconi...

That's terrible...especially since he's part of the EU. Wouldn't that be illegal?

Check out all the other countries that have wrong things going on. Chile still has the Scendero Luminoso going about. West Africa is about to go up in flames again, and none of this really compares to human rights abuses in Egypt or Saudi Arabia...

These are all terrible. The inaction in these places is absolutely abhorrent and I would support stopping them through any means necessary, as long as they don't violate the rights of the people we are trying to help. The world can't abide these kinds of atrocities, especially when it has international organizations devoted to this very purpose. The sad thing is, nobody wants to do anything if there's profit involved.

As pleased as I am that you seem to respect ai's opinion, human rights is rarely something that intervention is based on, and usually only when it reaches the ethnic cleansing level...

I really admire and respect AI and the other human rights organizations. They aren't afraid to look in to these problems and bring them to light, and aren't afraid to take the powerful nations to task for their abuses as well. However, I feel that human rights abuses merit intervention only when they cannot be fixed internally with international help.

We can't pull a Pinochet or a Noriega on these people. This has to be international, and it has to have real backing behind it. The last thing (the US especially) we need is for it to look like another move to protect our profits and resources. These violations have to be stopped wherever we possibly can, for the sake of the people and not the profit.

I utterly hate Hugo Chavez and I think he screwed over his country, wiping out the entire middle class that existed. However, I would never call for his assassination or the assassination of any foreign leader. I find Robertson's comments ill-advised and a bit immature.

Let the Venezuelans take out their unpopular leader (opinion polls suggest he would lose an election).
that's why he always ends up winning? As long as Chavez is in office, there won't be any free elections in Colombia.

Really now? Please point me to the death camps. Also if he is like Hitler, how come I don't see people from Afganistan and Iraq being forced to come to America to work in factories?

P.S. LEARN SOME SHIT ABOUT HISTORY.He's got a point, though. As a German who knows his history, there's a creeping feeling of fascism taking hold in the US. It would never be the same as in Germany, but I see a lot of potential.

Edit:This does not mean he's a dictator or anything. It means that America as a whole is vulnerable to some form of Authoritarian Government...

that's why he always ends up winning? As long as Chavez is in office, there won't be any free elections in Colombia.

Chavez has something to do with Colombia? No.. Uribe has to do with Colombia.. and he was elected overwhelmingly. He's also extremely popular. Chavez is not.

And, the suggestions that the US is creeping towards fascism are immature and hideous.

:rolleyes: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9047102/

Need I say more?

Yeah. How about..."Mr. Robertson, what part of 'Thou shalt not kill' do you not understand?"
This is the same Pat Robertson, by the way, who, in his 1988 book, advocated the summary rounding up and execution of all gays.

Christian, my ass!

Yeah. How about..."Mr. Robertson, what part of 'Thou shalt not kill' do you not understand?"
This is the same Pat Robertson, by the way, who, in his 1988 book, advocated the summary rounding up and execution of all gays.

Christian, my ass!

We may not agree on really anything, but we can both agree on the fact that Robertson is a fascist, not a christian.

He's got a point, though. As a German who knows his history, there's a creeping feeling of fascism taking hold in the US. It would never be the same as in Germany, but I see a lot of potential.

Edit:This does not mean he's a dictator or anything. It means that America as a whole is vulnerable to some form of Authoritarian Government...

You forget like 65% of America hates his ass. 10% don't care. 25% like him. He won't do much. It's going to be liberal after this mess.

Hugo Chavez is not good for Venezuela, and I hate what he's done. That doesn't mean he should die. I mean, Chavez is probably a nice person once you get to know him. And a man of God calling for his death. The way he said that, you'd think Pat Robertson attended a madrassa.

You forget like 65% of America hates his ass. 10% don't care. 25% like him. He won't do much. It's going to be liberal after this mess.

Congrats on making up numbers. :rolleyes:

What a irrelevant, ridiculous and incorrect response.

http://poorbuthappy.com/colombia/node/8539



Plan Colombia is securing Colombia.

Hardly.

The President and Congress of Colombia recently adopted a law to guide the demobilization of armed groups, beginning with the paramilitary forces. Amnesty International is deeply concerned that this law will result in greater impunity and de facto amnesties for horrific human rights violations committed by Colombia's paramilitary forces. Urge Secretary of State Rice to not use U.S. assistance for the current demobilization process and to insist on truth, justice, and reparations for victims of human rights abuses in Colombia.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/colombia/actions.do

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) -- Five U.S Army soldiers are under investigation for allegedly trying to smuggle 32 pounds of cocaine out of Colombia aboard a U.S. military aircraft, American officials said Thursday.

http://www.poorbuthappy.com/colombia/node/8573

The U.S. Drug War in Colombia has barely wounded the cartels, but it's positively killing hundreds of peasants, union members, political dissidents, and now street children. And we, the American taxpayers, are funding the carnage.

http://pangaea.org/street_children/latin/spin1.htm

Chavez has something to do with Colombia? No.. Uribe has to do with Colombia.. and he was elected overwhelmingly. He's also extremely popular. Chavez is not.

And, the suggestions that the US is creeping towards fascism are immature and hideous.
I meant Venezuela.

got this off the web.

Its from an article called "South American Stalin"


The following is based on an article in a February issue of US News and World Report.


While the US fights terrorism abroad there is a huge threat to growing just to the south.

Particularly from the alliance between Cuba and Venezuela's bloodthirsty dictator, Hugo Chavez.
Since achieving power in Venezuela, Chavez has left no stone unturned in his declarations that he seeks the destruction of the United States. In one speech this deluded madman demanded that the US give the southwest back to Mexico.

He changed his nation's constitution to give himself absolute power. Any verbal statement that criticizes his regime is punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

And as if persecuting his people weren't enough, President Chavez is openly supporting the terrorist group FARC, a group known for abducting and beheading Americans. Several international organizations have reported that FARC has recieved arms and money from the Chavez regime which gives them refuge inside Venezuela, from which they launch terrorist attacks against civilians in Colombia. At times, Venezuelan agents were seen in Colombia assisting FARC in its attacks on Colombian forces. Not only is Chavez supporting FARC, but he openly declares his support for such groups as Al Qaeda and is suspected of being part of a group that has been smuggling cash to insurgents in Iraq.
Madman Chavez's illegal interference in Colombian internal affairs and his support of the world's worst international terrorist organizations is all part of his self declared jihad against the evil American capitalist empire.

More troubling news is that he has made alliance with Cuba's Castro. In a treaty signed by the two men, Chavez granted Cuban judicial and security officials extensive police powers inside Venezuela. Thousands of Venezuelans have already been forced at gun point into reeducation camps and the military is being reindoctrinated. And the treaty allows the cubans to bypass the Venezuelan judiciary and seize any one inside Venezuela both cuban and venezuelan, and they even have to power to take them to Cuba for trial.
Tens of thousands of Venezuelan youth were forcibly taken to Cuba for indoctrination. At least 2 or 3 Americans aid workers are sitting in Venezuelan prisons. Their only crime having been that they are Americans.

Just recently Chavez announced he was going to build 1.5 million man army to attack US allies in the region. And the Europeans are helping him. Certain European nations recently sold him state of the art attack aircraft. The White House has protested the sales but the Europeans went ahead anyway. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has spoken out against Chavez's long list of human rights abuses and his attempts to overthrow governments throughout the western hemisphere.

Even the election that brought Chavez to power was a fraud. In the election that gave Chavez regime credibility, various elections monitors have alleged vote fraud.
Former President Carter's group observed less than 1% of the ballots counted when it endorsed Chavez's victory. Of the 192 ballots that were supposed to have been counted, only 76 actually were. And Chavez regime picked which ballots from which towns would be counted. So that not every Venezuelans vote counted. Professors from Harvard and MIT have issued reports revealing there is a 99% likelihood that the election was a fraud.

We must go beyond protesting arms sales and condemning Chavez human rights violations. We must take him to task for his violation Colombian soverignty. Further we must impose sanctions. While we get oil from Venezuela, this can be replaced by increasing our purchase of Russian oil or by allowing drilling in Alaska. We must also demand the release of all Americans being illegally held in Cuban and Venezuelan prisons. And we must be ready to back up our demands with force. If we don't, we will soon find ourselves confronting 1.5 million army just south of our own border.


Edit: This article is old. The date on it is May 17 2005.

That's terrible...especially since he's part of the EU. Wouldn't that be illegal?He basically owns all TV channels. Pity he's also the one that sent Italian soldiers to Iraq.


These are all terrible. The inaction in these places is absolutely abhorrent and I would support stopping them through any means necessary, as long as they don't violate the rights of the people we are trying to help. The world can't abide these kinds of atrocities, especially when it has international organizations devoted to this very purpose. The sad thing is, nobody wants to do anything if there's profit involved.Yeah, I know. There's activists in rainforests that get mutilated as badly by lumbering crews as the activists that try to go against Chavez and Patty wouldn't give a damn about them. We have a couple South Americans in our study course at my university and quite a lot more that are now spending a semester abroad there and they come back with information on this.
I really admire and respect AI and the other human rights organizations. They aren't afraid to look in to these problems and bring them to light, and aren't afraid to take the powerful nations to task for their abuses as well. However, I feel that human rights abuses merit intervention only when they cannot be fixed internally with international help.I'm amazed that someone here still likes ai. They've received such a bashing on NationStates...
We can't pull a Pinochet or a Noriega on these people. This has to be international, and it has to have real backing behind it. The last thing (the US especially) we need is for it to look like another move to protect our profits and resources. These violations have to be stopped wherever we possibly can, for the sake of the people and not the profit.That's the problem with Venezuela, isn't it? Kosovo had nothing for us to gain except respect and the warm feeling inside that the international community did something right for a change. But Venezuela is going to be finger pointing and it isn't really all that feasible. Unlike the ME, Venezuela is one of the places the US buys oil from. Any action is going to get the American public all whiney about gas prices...

Hardly.

The President and Congress of Colombia recently adopted a law to guide the demobilization of armed groups, beginning with the paramilitary forces. Amnesty International is deeply concerned that this law will result in greater impunity and de facto amnesties for horrific human rights violations committed by Colombia's paramilitary forces. Urge Secretary of State Rice to not use U.S. assistance for the current demobilization process and to insist on truth, justice, and reparations for victims of human rights abuses in Colombia.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/colombia/actions.do

http://www.poorbuthappy.com/colombia/node/8573

http://pangaea.org/street_children/latin/spin1.htm

Be relevant please. I was talking about the Colombian economic issues. There will be prosecutions where they need to be. Uribe understands this. All in all, Uribe is a way better leader for his country because he implements proper economic reforms.

You didn't even address what I was saying, which is typical of you. I haven't seen you address any of my points directly.

And, the suggestions that the US is creeping towards fascism are immature and hideous.Muahahaha... so speaks my prime example for the fascism debate... :D

Robertson is a buffoon ...but a buffoon with an audience . What makes the buffoon think an assasination is not only needed but justified ? I would say that God only knows ...but in this case I think god would like to be left out of it . scary friggin crazys out there in Robertson land .

Muahahaha... so speaks my prime example for the fascism debate... :D

I'm fascist? :mad: I think you should apologize for that comment.

Its from an article called "South American Stalin"
Are you being serious? The name isn't exactly indicative of any credibility...

I'm fascist? :mad: I think you should apologize for that comment.I didn't say you were a fascist. I want to get this out before I tell you why, I'll post that in a sec.

Really now? Please point me to the death camps. Also if he is like Hitler, how come I don't see people from Afganistan and Iraq being forced to come to America to work in factories?

P.S. LEARN SOME SHIT ABOUT HISTORY.

I can show you the concentration camps. ie. Guantanamo

P.S. Shit seems to be the only thing you know about history. ;)

Are you being serious? The name isn't exactly indicative of any credibility...
what does the name have to do with it?

Erm, doesn't the Monroe Doctrine only apply to European countries? Namely Britain, France, and Spain?

Yes it does...

Regarding Robertsons comments. They are dumb even if Chavez is a little creep. Assasinating foreign leaders whom the US is not at war with is not constitutional. Even if we were at war I believe there are still rules on assasination.

Frankly, anyone has the "ability" to become a dictator. But in countries that have strong democratic traditions (US, EU, Austrailia, etc.) this is much less likely to happen since the populace would revolt and overthrow the offending government.

As I have mentioned already, it was the need for a popular revolt that brought Chavez to power in the first place.

I once thought that Pat Robertson was just a bit of a joke, and more often a politician than a man of God. Now, he's turned creepy. Now I know what he means by saying that he wants to nuke Foggy Bottom.
Oh btw, Pat should move to Saudi Arabia. His language may be better appreciated there.

No. Bush is not even close to a dictator. In fact he allows protesters close to his ranch, and they have all the media coverage they want. Doesn't sound like a dictator to me? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were proper, and comparing Bush to Hitler.. or any dictator for that matter is immature, and childish.

Try to keep things in context.

Try to keep things in context.

You should do that yourself... be relevant.

Right. The US is creeping towards fascism. In a society in which a man that openly lied and misinformed the public manages to get reelected with a rather large margin something must be wrong.
The something wrong in this case is that there are too many people willing to support Bush for whatever he does. Too many people willing to accept that he lied. That on its own is quite scary. People are capable of building strong enough ties to someone that they ignore the truth when it hits them in the face (and this happens everywhere).
That's just Bush. There's rampant patriotism that runs amok in American society. What's wrong with patriotism? Nothing really, but if it becomes an excuse to consider anyone not patriotic a traitor, then it becomes dangerous. Anne Coulter may not be speaking for all of the American Right, but her books being best-sellers means something.
There's no indication that Bush is turning America into a fascist state, if you think that's what I'm getting at. America is slowly heading there on its own, and a lot of people would be horrified if it really happened.

Pat's a moron. Don't take his remarks as representative of anything more than the lunatic right fringe... and I'm sure a good portion of them would rather not be associated with Robertson.

Right. The US is creeping towards fascism. In a society in which a man that openly lied and misinformed the public manages to get reelected with a rather large margin something must be wrong.
The something wrong in this case is that there are too many people willing to support Bush for whatever he does. Too many people willing to accept that he lied. That on its own is quite scary. People are capable of building strong enough ties to someone that they ignore the truth when it hits them in the face (and this happens everywhere).
That's just Bush. There's rampant patriotism that runs amok in American society. What's wrong with patriotism? Nothing really, but if it becomes an excuse to consider anyone not patriotic a traitor, then it becomes dangerous. Anne Coulter may not be speaking for all of the American Right, but her books being best-sellers means something.
There's no indication that Bush is turning America into a fascist state, if you think that's what I'm getting at. America is slowly heading there on its own, and a lot of people would be horrified if it really happened.

blah blah blah :rolleyes: Your biased little reasons don't substantiate anything. You need to get over your biases, and realize Bush is out by 2008. He can't go for office again. So please get over your crap. And American is not heading in that direction. Immature.. very immature!

He's got a point, though. As a German who knows his history, there's a creeping feeling of fascism taking hold in the US. It would never be the same as in Germany, but I see a lot of potential.

Edit:This does not mean he's a dictator or anything. It means that America as a whole is vulnerable to some form of Authoritarian Government...

Couldnt agree more against the comment of the US vulnerable to an Authoritarian government. Americans are about individualism not nationalism. Now this could be said for nations such as China. But one thing about the two main political factions in the US. They keep each other in check. The US doesnt stray far from a centrist point. It may swing a bit left or right at times. But a full swing to facism or Communism is incomprehensible.

what does the name have to do with it?Well, "South American Stalin" contains the name "Stalin". No newspaper calls itself that unless its highly biased, either pro or anti communist. I honestly stopped reading when it openly referred to Chavez as a dictator, which a reliable newspaper wouldn't do... not openly.

That's terrible...especially since he's part of the EU. Wouldn't that be illegal?



These are all terrible. The inaction in these places is absolutely abhorrent and I would support stopping them through any means necessary, as long as they don't violate the rights of the people we are trying to help. The world can't abide these kinds of atrocities, especially when it has international organizations devoted to this very purpose. The sad thing is, nobody wants to do anything if there's profit involved.



I really admire and respect AI and the other human rights organizations. They aren't afraid to look in to these problems and bring them to light, and aren't afraid to take the powerful nations to task for their abuses as well. However, I feel that human rights abuses merit intervention only when they cannot be fixed internally with international help.

We can't pull a Pinochet or a Noriega on these people. This has to be international, and it has to have real backing behind it. The last thing (the US especially) we need is for it to look like another move to protect our profits and resources. These violations have to be stopped wherever we possibly can, for the sake of the people and not the profit.

You can't pull a Pinochet or a Noriega on these people because it wasn't you who put Chavez where he is in the first place. This, and the fact that he is a democratically elected leader, is what sets Chavez apart from U.S. puppets. He is a serious threat to U.S. interests in Latin America because he represents democracy, and in a democratic Latin America, U.S. exploitation will not be tolerated.

As I have mentioned already, it was the need for a popular revolt that brought Chavez to power in the first place.

Most likely will be a popular revolt that takes him out too.

You can't pull a Pinochet or a Noriega on these people because it wasn't you who put Chavez where he is in the first place. This, and the fact that he is a democratically elected leader, is what sets Chavez apart from U.S. puppets. He is a serious threat to U.S. interests in Latin America because he represents democracy, and in a democratic Latin America, U.S. exploitation will not be tolerated.

You are dead wrong. Chavez does not represent democracy in Latin America. He represents tyranny and he represents repression. He was democratically elected, but so was Fujimori. What other US puppets in Latin America? Can you name some? You're full of it.

In a democratic Latin America, foreign investment will be attracted.. economies will grow.. not collapse...

Couldnt agree more against the comment of the US vulnerable to an Authoritarian government. Americans are about individualism not nationalism. Now this could be said for nations such as China. But one thing about the two main political factions in the US. They keep each other in check. The US doesnt stray far from a centrist point. It may swing a bit left or right at times. But a full swing to facism or Communism is incomprehensible.Hm. You must not be aware of what fascism is about. A moderate fascist government is basically a repressive ultra conservative government. On most issues, Fascists and Conservatives agree (family, gay rights, immigration, etc.). Also, I'm not saying that the US would openly be a dictatorship. My idea of what could happen is polls being rigged so that one party wins all the time. Wouldn't bother too many people if things seem fishy with an election, as we've seen. In fact, I bet there will be plenty of people jumping up and voicing that the election was legitimate in the first place. That's where I see the danger.

But I'm really glad you are actually debating with me.

blah blah blah :rolleyes:Who's immature now? ;)

In a democratic Latin America, foreign investment will be attracted.. economies will grow.. not collapse...You mean in countries like Argentina?

that's why he always ends up winning? As long as Chavez is in office, there won't be any free elections in Colombia.

Are you saying Chavez is the cause of a politically corrupt system in which politicians who go against the wealthy have been gunned down for over fourty years?

Most likely will be a popular revolt that takes him out too.

Best we can hope for....

You mean in countries like Argentina?

Argentina has registered GDP growth in the last few quarters of about 8%.

I want to clear this up because it angers me. The common misconception is that Pinochet was an American puppet. He was not. The US had no control over what he did in Chile or elsewhere.
What happened was a classic case of Cold War paranoia. Salvadore Allende was, to date, the only democratically elected communist, save Modolva's. One of the first things he did was to nationalize the mining industries, representing a direct threat to US national security. Had he fully aligned with the Soviet Union, the OPEC of minerals would result. And please remember that this was during the oil embargo. So, the US supported anti-Allende factions, which eventually united under Pinochet. It was myopic, as Pinochet was also harmful for the US. But I could understand it in the context of the time.

Hm. You must not be aware of what fascism is about. A moderate fascist government is basically a repressive ultra conservative government. On most issues, Fascists and Conservatives agree (family, gay rights, immigration, etc.). Also, I'm not saying that the US would openly be a dictatorship. My idea of what could happen is polls being rigged so that one party wins all the time. Wouldn't bother too many people if things seem fishy with an election, as we've seen. In fact, I bet there will be plenty of people jumping up and voicing that the election was legitimate in the first place. That's where I see the danger.

You sir, are speaking very foolishly. I don't like many religious conservatives, but I would not call them fascists. That's immature, and disrespectful. That's like calling socialists... stalinists. I wouldn't even doing it. The US isn't going to be a dictatorship.

Your attacks are nothing more then juvenile.

Argentina has registered GDP growth in the last few quarters of about 8%.Wasn't doing so well a short while back, and it was a democratically elected government before and after.
Point is: Democratic -!-> Investment

Chavez has something to do with Colombia? No.. Uribe has to do with Colombia.. and he was elected overwhelmingly. He's also extremely popular. Chavez is not.

And, the suggestions that the US is creeping towards fascism are immature and hideous.

Uribe came to power because;

1. The traditional parties (Conservative and Liberal) had lost the faith of the people due to their inability to put an end to the civil war and allegations that they had connections to drug lords.

2. His only other independent rival, Ingrid Betancourt was kidnapped.

Uribe came to power because;

1. The traditional parties (Conservative and Liberal) had lost the faith of the people due to their inability to put an end to the civil war and allegations that they had connections to drug lords.

2. His only other independent rival, Ingrid Betancourt was kidnapped.

He won because he had a plan and he acted on this plan after taking power.

Additionally, Betancourt was one of many rivals. She wasn't as popular as Uribe.

Wasn't doing so well a short while back, and it was a democratically elected government before and after.
Point is: Democratic -!-> Investment

Please do research on Latin America before you make misinformed statements. Argentina only had an economic recession in 2001 because of gross government mismanagement. This moreso had to do with lack of efficiency. I did live in Argentina when this occurred, and it was all I heard about everyday.

You sir, are speaking very foolishly. I don't like many religious conservatives, but I would not call them fascists. That's immature, and disrespectful. That's like calling socialists... stalinists. I wouldn't even doing it. The US isn't going to be a dictatorship.

Your attacks are nothing more then juvenile.Maybe you should read my posts. Conservatives share a lot of political goals with Fascists. The main difference is what form of government they hope to achieve. I suggest you look up Franco and see what his policies were. You'll see that several of them match "values" that the religious right has.
In no way was I calling them fascists. I was saying the truth, that some importan issues are very much the same: Family unit, no gay rights, strict immigration, etc.

Hm. You must not be aware of what fascism is about. A moderate fascist government is basically a repressive ultra conservative government. On most issues, Fascists and Conservatives agree (family, gay rights, immigration, etc.). Also, I'm not saying that the US would openly be a dictatorship. My idea of what could happen is polls being rigged so that one party wins all the time. Wouldn't bother too many people if things seem fishy with an election, as we've seen. In fact, I bet there will be plenty of people jumping up and voicing that the election was legitimate in the first place. That's where I see the danger.

But I'm really glad you are actually debating with me.
;)

I see your point. But I do very well understand history and what facism is about. This is why I disagree with you about the realistic possibility of it happening in the US. One thing that Americans do is have a freedom of press. Many examples of that everyday. Where else can you denounce the president as a Nazi and not be thrown in jail. However ill advised or stupid to say.
Freedom of speech is what protects us from a swing to either extremes of the political spectrum. Now, if freedom of speech is taken out of the Constitution then I can see the danger. But when that happens the US will cease to exist anyway. Dont see a constitutional convention on the horizon. So I think we are safe.

You sir, are speaking very foolishly. I don't like many religious conservatives, but I would not call them fascists. That's immature, and disrespectful. That's like calling socialists... stalinists. I wouldn't even doing it. The US isn't going to be a dictatorship.

Your attacks are nothing more then juvenile.

Yes, but the whole idea of becoming a dictatorship is more crazy. The president has no real power with congress and the senate in his way. You'd have to convert two parties to you removing them from office and supporting you for that. Which of course the military and people, won't allow.

Please do research on Latin America before you make misinformed statements. Argentina only had an economic recession in 2001 because of gross government mismanagement. This moreso had to do with lack of efficiency. I did live in Argentina when this occurred, and it was all I heard about everyday.Here's a cookie. You got me once :)

He basically owns all TV channels. Pity he's also the one that sent Italian soldiers to Iraq.


Yeah, I know. There's activists in rainforests that get mutilated as badly by lumbering crews as the activists that try to go against Chavez and Patty wouldn't give a damn about them. We have a couple South Americans in our study course at my university and quite a lot more that are now spending a semester abroad there and they come back with information on this.
I'm amazed that someone here still likes ai. They've received such a bashing on NationStates...
That's the problem with Venezuela, isn't it? Kosovo had nothing for us to gain except respect and the warm feeling inside that the international community did something right for a change. But Venezuela is going to be finger pointing and it isn't really all that feasible. Unlike the ME, Venezuela is one of the places the US buys oil from. Any action is going to get the American public all whiney about gas prices...

Do you think anyone in the U.S. would care about what was going on in Venezuela if it wasn't for the oil?

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=507

[www.CapMag.com] In a CNN interview on April 16, 2001, [Pat] Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition and head of the Christian Broadcasting Network, was asked how he reconciles his support for close ties with China with Beijing's ruthless one-child policy, which has forced unwanted abortions on tens of millions of women.

"I don't agree with it," Robertson said. "But ... they've got 1.2 billion people, and they don't know what to do. If every family over there was allowed to have three or four children, the population would be completely unsustainable.... They're doing what they have to do."

It would be hard to overstate the moral bankruptcy of those words. China's population-control laws are a horror. Couples are forced to sign "one-child" agreements, and may not have that child until they are issued a government quota. Couples who evade the rule are heavily fined, publicly humiliated, and often sterilized. Women found to be pregnant without a permit are forced to undergo abortion. Often they are in their eighth or ninth month.

At times, the government does not even scruple at infanticide: In a widely reported case last year, officials seized a baby who was born alive despite an attempted abortion and drowned it before its parents' eyes.

Other hypocritical things about this idiot:

http://www.learnathome.com/1136864.html - He is against gambling, but he owns a race horse.

http://www.ktvu.com/irresistible/4879342/detail.html - Relevant or not, he owns and promotes a diet drink. He got criticized for promoting it on his show, 700 Club.

Maybe you should read my posts. Conservatives share a lot of political goals with Fascists. The main difference is what form of government they hope to achieve. I suggest you look up Franco and see what his policies were. You'll see that several of them match "values" that the religious right has.
In no way was I calling them fascists. I was saying the truth, that some importan issues are very much the same: Family unit, no gay rights, strict immigration, etc.

I don't agree and I don't even feel they share a lot of political goals with fascists at all. I feel they share some goals. But I also feel that socialists share some goals that Stalinists do (by using your logic, or lack of). And I suggest you not tell me on the history of my own country which I have been studying for years. I don't need your hideous lecturing. Truth? Things coming out of your mouth are biased.

Be relevant please. I was talking about the Colombian economic issues. There will be prosecutions where they need to be. Uribe understands this. All in all, Uribe is a way better leader for his country because he implements proper economic reforms.

Uribe is raining down lethal chemicals on the rainforests and his own people. He is attempting to rewrite the constitution so he can stay in power. If this fails he is starting his own party so he can place a puppet in the 2006 Presidential elections. Guerrilla activity has increased during Uribe's term in power and now, after declaring an all out war against the guerrillas, he is trying to use the former President, Pastrana, to try to convince the public that he is genuinely trying to seek a "peacefull" resolution to the civil war, now that his military strategy has failed.

You didn't even address what I was saying, which is typical of you. I haven't seen you address any of my points directly.

Yes, of course, attack the person when you can't attack the argument.

Yes it does...

Regarding Robertsons comments. They are dumb even if Chavez is a little creep. Assasinating foreign leaders whom the US is not at war with is not constitutional. Even if we were at war I believe there are still rules on assasination.

Rule # 1. Always say please and thankyou when buying your ammunition.

I see your point. But I do very well understand history and what facism is about. This is why I disagree with you about the realistic possibility of it happening in the US. One thing that Americans do is have a freedom of press. Many examples of that everyday. Where else can you denounce the president as a Nazi and not be thrown in jail. However ill advised or stupid to say. Actually, there's a lot of good evidence on that American press isn't free. On Bended Knee (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0374251975/qid=1124847990/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-4474531-9443106?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Mark Hertsgaard is about how Reagan dealt with the press and indicates how Bush is doing it today. The Shrub's policy is: You diss us, you get no interviews, no press conference, no cooperation. And this is for bringing anything that is against Bush and not necessarily untruthful news. Imagine how easy it will be to get embedded reporters in units in Iraq for a network that disses Bush...
Freedom of speech is what protects us from a swing to either extremes of the political spectrum. Now, if freedom of speech is taken out of the Constitution then I can see the danger. But when that happens the US will cease to exist anyway. Dont see a constitutional convention on the horizon. So I think we are safe.I don't know, there's ways to erode freedom of speech. I mean, what does it really afford? What do you think will happen if someone brings a story that tells the shocking truth about the ? We saw what happened in Florida in Bush's first election. There's people that don't [I]care that it might have been a wrong election. There's people now that don't care whether Bush lied about the WMDs in Iraq.
I'm not saying America will turn into a fascist dictatorship over night. In fact, I'm not saying it will turn into anything similar to Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy (Hitler's Germany is right out. There's no way people would put up with it). Fascism is always a process. The danger of it lies in the fact that even if the truth were made public, enough people from the other side would denounce it as a liberal or conservative lie, simply because it came from the other side... :(

I don't agree and I don't even feel they share a lot of political goals with fascists at all. I feel they share some goals. But I also feel that socialists share some goals that Stalinists do (by using your logic, or lack of). And I suggest you not tell me on the history of my own country which I have been studying for years. I don't need your hideous lecturing. Truth? Things coming out of your mouth are biased.

So right. O.O!

Call the government type by what it WANTS to do as a whole and not for what 'goals' which are part of it.

Conservative ideas and liberal ideas will fall under ANY government. Left and right wing ideals are part of EVERY government. Like it or not their is no perfect equal.

Laerod if you even look at NS you will see this is true.

Uribe is raining down lethal chemicals on the rainforests and his own people. He is attempting to rewrite the constitution so he can stay in power. If this fails he is starting his own party so he can place a puppet in the 2006 Presidential elections. Guerrilla activity has increased during Uribe's term in power and now, after declaring an all out war against the guerrillas, he is trying to use the former President, Pastrana, to try to convince the public that he is genuinely trying to seek a "peacefull" resolution to the civil war, now that his military strategy has failed.

This is from the mouth of someone who is biased. He wants to run a second time so he can continue with his plans. I feel there is nothing wrong with that, and I feel if he is popular enough he should run for a second term. He has reduced drug production in the country, and guerrilla activity has in fact decreased, and crime has been cut (don't lie about that please, I presented an article on that). Pastrana was an idiot. Please don't lie about the facts that Uribe has in fact reduced guerrilla activity. He has won against the rebels.

Yes, of course, attack the person when you can't attack the argument.

You've been doing plenty of that, and you've walked into irrelevancy after you failed to respond to the facts I posted, about Colombia's booming economy and reduction in crime and violence.

Truth? Things coming out of your mouth are biased.And this is exactly what I'm explaining. America is in such a danger because people will denounce what might be true simply because of the source.

blah blah blah :rolleyes: Your biased little reasons don't substantiate anything. You need to get over your biases, and realize Bush is out by 2008. He can't go for office again. So please get over your crap. And American is not heading in that direction. Immature.. very immature!

Wow, the facts and reasoning that went into formulating this post is, well... non existent.

:rolleyes: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9047102/

Need I say more?
Good article--and the Bush administration did exactly what they needed to do, the only thing they really could do, and I give them credit for it.

Wow, the facts and reasoning that went into formulating this post is, well... non existent.

Your argument is the one that is fucking non-existent. I'm sorry, but you didn't even bother responding to the facts and figures I posted about Colombia (its growing economy, and rapidly falling crime rate).

Couldnt agree more against the comment of the US vulnerable to an Authoritarian government. Americans are about individualism not nationalism. Now this could be said for nations such as China. But one thing about the two main political factions in the US. They keep each other in check. The US doesnt stray far from a centrist point. It may swing a bit left or right at times. But a full swing to facism or Communism is incomprehensible.

The theory of relativity is incomprehensible... to a two year old.

And this is exactly what I'm explaining. America is in such a danger because people will denounce what might be true simply because of the source.

You aren't a source. And you aren't speaking the truth either.

Mesatacela, if I were you, I'd stop arguing with these dimwits. I've been reading the posts for the last few pages, and all Laerod and Oye-Oye had to say were the ultra leftist remarks that are reminiscent of college idiots. I'd let these two go. They are peddling a bankrupt ideaology.

Here are the facts about Uribe and Colombia, don't believe the lies spread around here..

http://poorbuthappy.com/colombia/node/8539

March 30 (Bloomberg) -- Colombia's economy expanded more than expected in the fourth quarter as a reduction in kidnappings and murders bolstered consumer confidence, helping fuel a surge in retail sales.

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of a country's output of goods and services, grew 4.28 percent from the year- earlier period, up from third quarter growth of 2.46 percent and above the 4 percent median forecast in a Bloomberg survey of 13 economists.

``Private domestic consumption led the significant acceleration from the third to the fourth quarter,'' Alberto Bernal, head of Latin America research at IDEAglobal.com, said in a telephone interview from New York. He said he expects consumer demand to keep leading the expansion in 2005 after investment led growth for much of 2003 and 2004.

Colombian bonds and currency rallied after the GDP report. The government's benchmark 10 percent bond due in 2012 gained 2.25 cents on the dollar to 107.75, cutting its yield to 8.47 percent at 4 p.m. in New York, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co. The peso advanced 1.4 percent to 2367 pesos to the dollar. It has surged 26 percent since January 2003 as the expansion lured capital to the South American country.

Retail sales rose 6.1 percent in 2004, their fastest pace in five years, as shopping centers such as Andino Commercial and Business Center in Bogota benefited from President Alvaro Uribe's success in combating guerillas and drug traffickers. Homicides and kidnappings have fallen by one-third since Uribe, 52, took office in August 2002. Colombia's 1,440 kidnappings last year were still the most in the world.

`More Secure'

Colombians worry less now about bombings that used to keep them away from shopping malls, said Carolina Gonzalez, communications director at Andino Commercial and Business Center, one of Bogota's biggest malls.

``People feel more secure when they visit shopping malls now and this also leads to a greater willingness to spend,'' Gonzalez said.

Sales at Andino rose 68 percent in December from the year- earlier period. Over the whole year, customers spent on average 120,000 pesos ($50.74) per visit to the mall, 50 percent more than in 2003.

The economy grew 3.96 percent for all of 2004, following growth of 4.02 percent in 2003, the highest back-to-back annual rates since 1994 and 1995 and more than double 2002's pace of 1.93 percent. A separate government report today showed Colombia's urban jobless rate fell to 16.1 percent in February from 17.1 percent in the year-earlier period.

Mexico, Brazil

``The improved security conditions we've been seeing in Colombia and an overall confidence that the government is doing things well on the macroeconomic level are driving consumers to spend,'' Benito Berber, an analyst with HSBC Securities Plc, said in a telephone interview from New York.
IDEA's Bernal said he may boost his 2005 Colombian growth forecast from 4 percent after seeing the stronger-than-expected fourth-quarter report.

Colombia's 2004 growth rate was below that of the two biggest economies in Latin America. Mexico's economy expanded 4.4 percent last year while Brazil's economy grew 5.2 percent. Colombia has grown more consistently in recent years than Mexico and Brazil. Colombia's economy has expanded at least 1.5 percent a year over the past five years. Mexico has had three years of growth below 1.5 percent since 2000 and Brazil has had two.

Colombian ``growth has stabilized, but remains high,'' Berber said.

Interest Rates

Declining interest rates also bolstered consumer spending. Slowing inflation allowed the central bank to lower its overnight lending rate three times last year, bringing it to 6.5 percent in December from 7.25 percent at the beginning of the year. Colombia's inflation slowed to 5.5 percent in 2004 from 6.5 percent in 2003.

Colombia's benchmark index of 90-day deposit rates used by financial institutions as a peg for setting rates for loans, followed the central bank's benchmark rate lower, dropping to 7.71 percent in December from 7.92 percent a year earlier.

Banks such as Bancolombia SA, the country's biggest bank, are boosting lending to consumers and small and medium-sized companies to take advantage of the economic expansion. Bancolombia said it increased lending by 36 percent in the fourth quarter to consumers and small and medium-sized companies.

``Low interest rates and financing availability have led the surge in consumer spending,'' said Jose Cerritelli, an analyst with Bear, Sterns & Co. in a phone interview from New York.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Andrea Jaramillo in Bogota at ext. 230 or ajaramillo1@bloomberg.net

Most likely will be a popular revolt that takes him out too.

Personally I would prefer to let democracy take it's course as Venezuela is on course to hold elections.

Mesatacela, if I were you, I'd stop arguing with these dimwits. I've been reading the posts for the last few pages, and all Laerod and Oye-Oye had to say were the ultra leftist remarks that are reminiscent of college idiots. I'd let these two go. They are peddling a bankrupt ideaology.
I agree. bankrupt their ideology is.

You aren't a source. And you aren't speaking the truth either.
Every opinion is a source. And as for the truth, you're not even willing to question whether I might be saying it or not. It no longer matters to you whether what I'm saying is true or not, only if it fits your opinion.

Mesatacela, if I were you, I'd stop arguing with these dimwits. I've been reading the posts for the last few pages, and all Laerod and Oye-Oye had to say were the ultra leftist remarks that are reminiscent of college idiots. I'd let these two go. They are peddling a bankrupt ideaology.

Laerod is a bit... reasonable to talk to. I have to say that. And he even conceded to me on a point with Argentina.

Oye-oye is a stooge.. who doesn't recognize the facts.. he's not very smart and keeps rejecting my sources. He doesn't even bother reading them. I'm posting actual GDP growth figures and crime reduction figures.

Every opinion is a source. And as for the truth, you're not even willing to question whether I might be saying it or not. It no longer matters to you whether what I'm saying is true or not, only if it fits your opinion.

Sources need some corroboration, and evidence to them. Not just rantings..

You are dead wrong. Chavez does not represent democracy in Latin America. He represents tyranny and he represents repression. He was democratically elected, but so was Fujimori. What other US puppets in Latin America? Can you name some? You're full of it.

In a democratic Latin America, foreign investment will be attracted.. economies will grow.. not collapse...

As long as the U.S. doesn't try to do what they did in Nicaragua and Guatemala.

We should send Robertson off to Iran where he would be happy (murdering people for being gay and whatnot)

Chavez is kuhl - I like his policies. The poor people he is trying to help seem to like him too since they keep voting him (shows how unpopular he is eh?) in during every referendum which he is all for allowing (wow, quite the dictator!).

Screw the rich white majority of jackasses that were hording all the wealth for themselves. *laughs at them and their demise in Venezuela*

As for America having freedom of speech... well that may be partially true (there are examples to the contrary though), but lets not forget peace activists getting put on no-fly lists as flight risks merely for voicing their opinion against the Iraq war.


Laerod and Oye Oye, I applaud your calm demeanor and civil discourse in teh face of Mesatecala's flaming/flaimbaiting.

Mesatecala, I see you are using some harsh language there - after admonishing me for using the dreaded F word in another thread a while back. hypocrisy?

Laerod is a bit... reasonable to talk to. I have to say that. And he even conceded to me on a point with Argentina.

Oye-oye is a stooge.. who doesn't recognize the facts.. he's not very smart and keeps rejecting my sources. He doesn't even bother reading them. I'm posting actual GDP growth figures and crime reduction figures.
I see. Still, don't think Laerod will be an instant convert, because that won't happen. I've given up on it long ago.

Laerod and Oye Oye, I applaud your calm demeanor and civil discourse in teh face of Mesatecala's flaming/flaimbaiting.

Mesatecala, I see you are using some harsh language there - after admonishing me for using the dreaded F word in another thread a while back. hypocrisy?

Excuse me? Have you been reading this thread or not? These two have not been calm.. they have been ranting and ranting, and they have not been having reasonable discourse. They won't consider my sources. I posted links and plenty of them.

I will use strong language when needed.

[QUOTE]I want to clear this up because it angers me. The common misconception is that Pinochet was an American puppet. He was not. The US had no control over what he did in Chile or elsewhere.
What happened was a classic case of Cold War paranoia. Salvadore Allende was, to date, the only democratically elected communist, save Modolva's. One of the first things he did was to nationalize the mining industries, representing a direct threat to US national security.

Nationalizing the mining indutries is a direct threat to profiteering, not security.

Had he fully aligned with the Soviet Union, the OPEC of minerals would result. And please remember that this was during the oil embargo. So, the US supported anti-Allende factions, which eventually united under Pinochet. It was myopic, as Pinochet was also harmful for the US. But I could understand it in the context of the time.

The U.S. got rid of Allende, Arbenz, Ortega, tried to get rid of Castro and wants to be rid of Chavez for one reason and one reason only, they interfere with U.S. Imperialism.

Sources need some corroboration, and evidence to them. Not just rantings..Oh, come on. Lyric rants. The stuff you hear from me actually comes from hours of pondering.

The fact that you're willing to discredit what I'm saying simply because I'm "Leftist" is very scary.

(And thanks for the Argentina bit)

He won because he had a plan and he acted on this plan after taking power.

What plan would that be?

Additionally, Betancourt was one of many rivals. She wasn't as popular as Uribe.

It's difficult to be popular when you've been abducted.

Oh, come on. Lyric rants. The stuff you hear from me actually comes from hours of pondering.

The fact that you're willing to discredit what I'm saying simply because I'm "Leftist" is very scary.

(And thanks for the Argentina bit)

I don't consider Lyric a source. A source is something I can quote as having strong or direct relation with facts.

I naturally have more credibility because I happen to use sources.

Excuse me? Have you been reading this thread or not? These two have not been calm.. they have been ranting and ranting, and they have not been having reasonable discourse. They won't consider my sources. I posted links and plenty of them.

I will use strong language when needed.

So you are the only one who can use strong language when you wish?

Anyway, I gave up on giving you any facts that disagree with you long ago because you never consider my sources either. more often than not you come back with somethign to the effect of "You are wrong and don't know what you are talkign about." WITHOUT having anything to prove it wrong. I've gotten close to putting you on the ignore list but I hate missing parts of the conversation, even if I think those parts are useless/baseless/irritating.

What plan would that be?

His economic and security reforms mainly.... they improved economic conditions and reduced unemployment. How blind can you be? Can you recognize anything? Or are you going to continue to be ignorant?

I naturally have more credibility because I happen to use sources. :D
Damn. There I was thinking credibility was all about how willing you were to change your mind when you were proven wrong...

Anyway, I gave up on giving you any facts that disagree with you long ago because you never consider my sources either. more often than not you come back with somethign to the effect of "You are wrong and don't know what you are talkign about." I've gotten close to putting you on the ignore list but I hate missing parts of the conversation, even if I think those parts are useless/baseless/irritating.

Since you're being inflammatory and not recognizing the facts, I think I have more of a reason to put your name on my ignore list. For freaking sakes, what the hell is wrong with you guys? I posted some links, and then you say I don't? WTF? Go through the thread... this is starting to get very irritating. What is wrong with you?

Excuse me? Have you been reading this thread or not? These two have not been calm.. they have been ranting and ranting, and they have not been having reasonable discourse. They won't consider my sources. I posted links and plenty of them.

I will use strong language when needed.
You're hardly one to talk when it comes to "reasonable discourse." Everything that opposes your point of view you discard as biased or unreliable. You never concede the possibility that you might be incorrect on something, and you're rude to people who dare to challenge you.

And most importantly, you fall back on the worst argument of all--the "you're a leftist" red-baiting tactic, and then try to hide it with your argument that you voted for a Democrat a couple of times.

The experienced posters around here know your game, Mesatecala. I don't know if you do it deliberately or if it's just a product of your age and relative lack of experience, and personally, I don't care. I don't debate you anymore because it's never a debate--it's an episode of Crossfire where we talk past each other and it seems whoever screams louder wins--if that can indeed be called winning.

But I have little doubt that you'll take any of this to heart. You know all and see all after all, and I'm just a liberal who doesn't know how the world really works. :rolleyes:

Nationalizing the mining indutries is a direct threat to profiteering, not security.

Just like nationalizing oil industries?

The U.S. got rid of Allende, Arbenz, Ortega, tried to get rid of Castro and wants to be rid of Chavez for one reason and one reason only, they interfere with U.S. Imperialism.
And note that all of them had like ideaologies. You see, I often accuse the US of being a society of mob rule. This is moreso true in Latin America, running between far left and far right strongmen (democratically elected or not), with a happy medium occuring only today. The onlly reason that the US is so often dragged in is because of its scapegoating status in the world. The US did a few very bad things around the turn of the century, mostly with the dawn of the Roosevelt Collary. Latin America never forgot, and understandibly so. Yet for some reason, the US remains the easier scapegoat than say, Spain or Portugal.
That is not to say that the US wasn't involved in Latin America. But for some reason, it seems to get special emphasis that exaggerates its extent. The US was no more involved there than it was in any part of the world, and it was all in the aim of denying the USSR friends.

The experienced posters around here know your game, Mesatecala. I don't know if you do it deliberately or if it's just a product of your age and relative lack of experience, and personally, I don't care. I don't debate you anymore because it's never a debate--it's an episode of Crossfire where we talk past each other and it seems whoever screams louder wins--if that can indeed be called winning.

But I have little doubt that you'll take any of this to heart. You know all and see all after all, and I'm just a liberal who doesn't know how the world really works. :rolleyes:

Let me ask you this.. who are the ones calling people fascists, and neo-conservatives? These supposedably "experienced" posters engaging acts of hypocrisy. So please spare me the nonsense. I don't think you have what it takes to debate in any thread, because I don't feel you are experienced enough in debating.

Let me ask you this.. who are the ones calling people fascists, and neo-conservatives? These supposedably "experienced" posters engaging acts of hypocrisy. So please spare me the nonsense. I don't think you have what it takes to debate in any thread, because I don't feel you are experienced enough in debating.
See--you do have a sense of humor. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE]This is from the mouth of someone who is biased. He wants to run a second time so he can continue with his plans. I feel there is nothing wrong with that, and I feel if he is popular enough he should run for a second term.

It is against the Colombian constitution to hold consecutive terms. If what he is doing is in the best interest of the nation then the next government will continue his work and he can contribute as a private citizen.

He has reduced drug production in the country,

No.

and guerrilla activity has in fact decreased,

No.

and crime has been cut (don't lie about that please, I presented an article on that).

Crime is a dodgy thing in Colombia. A lot of police and paramilitaries commit murder, but the government is granting them immunity.

Pastrana was an idiot. Please don't lie about the facts that Uribe has in fact reduced guerrilla activity. He has won against the rebels.

This is why power sources are being cut, pipelines are being sabotaged, military casualties are escalating and entire sections of the country continue to be under the control of the guerrillas?

You've been doing plenty of that, and you've walked into irrelevancy after you failed to respond to the facts I posted, about Colombia's booming economy and reduction in crime and violence.

I see you like to do a lot of name calling and I'm not the only recipient of your child like attacks, so I guess I won't take anything you have to say personally.

P.S. You're link led me to a blog that was designed to attract TESL teachers to teach English in Colombia.

Let me ask you this.. who are the ones calling people fascists, and neo-conservatives? These supposedably "experienced" posters engaging acts of hypocrisy. So please spare me the nonsense. I don't think you have what it takes to debate in any thread, because I don't feel you are experienced enough in debating.I was the only one that came close and I can post you a link to the post where I said I wasn't if you'd like. No one here called anyone a fascist.

Mesatacela, if I were you, I'd stop arguing with these dimwits. I've been reading the posts for the last few pages, and all Laerod and Oye-Oye had to say were the ultra leftist remarks that are reminiscent of college idiots. I'd let these two go. They are peddling a bankrupt ideaology.

A bankrupt ideology that has a lot of Gringos calling for the assassination of someone they've never met.

A bankrupt ideology that has a lot of Gringos calling for the assassination of someone they've never met.
What are gringos?

It is against the Colombian constitution to hold consecutive terms. If what he is doing is in the best interest of the nation then the next government will continue his work and he can contribute as a private citizen.

Constitutions can be changed. For example, the American constitution once allowed a president to run for however many terms he wants.... now it only allows two terms.


No.



No.

Prove it. And quit saying no. I proved you wrong. You are just proving to be nescient.


Crime is a dodgy thing in Colombia. A lot of police and paramilitaries commit murder, but the government is granting them immunity.

Your responses are dodgy things, they keep dodging my sources and the facts.

This is why power sources are being cut, pipelines are being sabotaged, military casualties are escalating and entire sections of the country continue to be under the control of the guerrillas?

This isn't 1999. Crime is actually down in Colombia. Military casualities have been down, and the country for the most part is now secure under government control. You need to stop spewing this crap and actually provide some sources.

Economic productivity is strongly up in 2005, and GDP growth is on the upswing. Unemployment is down, and security has been resorted.


I see you like to do a lot of name calling and I'm not the only recipient of your child like attacks, so I guess I won't take anything you have to say personally.

I see you don't respond to any of the figures..... you keep going on your same tripe... and you don't provide anything. Typical.

P.S. You're link led me to a blog that was designed to attract TESL teachers to teach English in Colombia.

The article includes officials facts and figures, it was a quoted article from a news organization. You need to provide refutation. The source isn't lying.

For those who still thought Pat Robertson was a Christian--and I guess there might be a couple out there--his recent remarks (August 22) on the 700 Club ought to put to rest that little fable. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200508220006)

You can watch the video of him saying those very words at the link above.

So tell me--who would Jesus suggest assassinating, if anyone? And would he do it for oil?
He's apparently gone the way of most other fundamentalists and relinquished whatever tenuous grip he may still have had on reality. :headbang:

He's apparently gone the way of most other fundamentalists and relinquished whatever tenuous grip he may still have had on reality. :headbang:
He's always been a bit sketchy. That MSNBC article someone linked to--somewhere beyond the pissing match currently going on in this thread--reminded me that Robertson once suggested blowing up the State Department, that he actively prayed for an opening on the Supreme Court (and the implication, since the Court is a lifetime appointment, is...), and of course, his post 9/11 remarks with Falwell about how the gays and the liberals and the ACLU brought the attacks upon us because the US is a godless nation--to quote James Carville, "I wouldn't piss down his throat if his heart was on fire." (Carville was talking about Nader, though.)

Here are the facts about Uribe and Colombia, don't believe the lies spread around here..

http://poorbuthappy.com/colombia/node/8539

Being Colombian, I wish this was true. I wish the working class people of Colombia were the recipients of the wealth that foreign corporations are extracting. The bottom line is that more and more farmers are turning to producing coca because the aerial fumigation campaign is destroying their land. The government sprays in Putumayo, the farmers plant coca in Narino, the government sprays in Narino, the farmers move to Cesar. When the government is called upon to provide evidence of the success of "Plan Colombia" they go to a recently sprayed field and say, "Look, production in the region is down."

Numbers can always be fudged.

To think I had to look up the word, 'nescient'. And by all accounts, it really is seldomly used.

Now that's a good thesaurus for you. Oh, and hello, Eutrusca. How did that thread on infinity go the other day?

*edit: and hello everybody else, too.

As a Christian, I would like to say that I have not nor have I ever listened to Pat Robertson.

and I know alot of other Christians who don't.

Here is a nice little PDF for Oye Oye... it is pretty simple so he can understand it:

http://www.colombiaemb.org/opencms/opencms/system/galleries/download/plancolombia/ColombiaChart.pdf#search='Colombia's%20progress'

Link fixed.

Being Colombian, I wish this was true. I wish the working class people of Colombia were the recipients of the wealth that foreign corporations are extracting. The bottom line is that more and more farmers are turning to producing coca because the aerial fumigation campaign is destroying their land. The government sprays in Putumayo, the farmers plant coca in Narino, the government sprays in Narino, the farmers move to Cesar. When the government is called upon to provide evidence of the success of "Plan Colombia" they go to a recently sprayed field and say, "Look, production in the region is down."

Numbers can always be fudged.

The bottom line is you don't provide any counter-evidence. The bottom line is you dodge facts. The bottom line is you can't have a reasonable debate because you turn a blind eye to the reality. The bottom line is the Colombian people are spending more as consumers because they are more confident in the security forces, and the general security situation. The bottom line is more farmers are planting alternative crops then ever before.

(I never said bottom so many times in a post)

The ultimate statement I'll make to you is, prove it.

Pat Robertson wouldn't know a christian if Jesus shot one at him. He is what we followers call, a false prophet/teacher. He takes part of the word and uses it to further his own will. he sells holy items, he wishes and prays for deaths..would Christ do either? no! the exact opposite, ie toppling the tables in the temple and asking forgiveness for his murderers! Thats how a true christian should be..also it was noted an assassination is better than war...who says we need either? Jesus didn't instruct his disciples to kill the roman emperor or jewish leader nor asked for a war against them..a war agains evil is a spiritual battle...fighting the darkness with light not with more darkness

We should send Robertson off to Iran where he would be happy (murdering people for being gay and whatnot)

Chavez is kuhl - I like his policies. The poor people he is trying to help seem to like him too since they keep voting him (shows how unpopular he is eh?) in during every referendum which he is all for allowing (wow, quite the dictator!).

Screw the rich white majority of jackasses that were hording all the wealth for themselves. *laughs at them and their demise in Venezuela*

As for America having freedom of speech... well that may be partially true (there are examples to the contrary though), but lets not forget peace activists getting put on no-fly lists as flight risks merely for voicing their opinion against the Iraq war.


Laerod and Oye Oye, I applaud your calm demeanor and civil discourse in teh face of Mesatecala's flaming/flaimbaiting.

Mesatecala, I see you are using some harsh language there - after admonishing me for using the dreaded F word in another thread a while back. hypocrisy?

Gracias hermano,

There was a thread of jokes posted a while back. Very funny. Was it you who posted it? We could use another.

His economic and security reforms mainly.... they improved economic conditions and reduced unemployment. How blind can you be? Can you recognize anything? Or are you going to continue to be ignorant?

Every politician and his grandmother has a "plan" to improve economic conditions and reduce unemployment. Can you be more specific with regards to how Uribe planned on accomplishing this?

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination..."

You know who would know? Jesus. Ask him, maybe read some of his stuff, I'm sure they mention something in there about murder. :confused:

<snip>An excellent first post :)

Every politician and his grandmother has a "plan" to improve economic conditions and reduce unemployment. Can you be more specific with regards to how Uribe planned on accomplishing this?

You need to start addressing the facts that I have posted. These numbers are not fudged either. You need to provide counter-evidence. There are clear indications on the successes of the Uribe adminstration... both in the economy (which is growing very nicely) and in the reduction of crime.

Democratically elected leaders can become dictators. He is screwing over the working class, and building up a lot of debt. He is not implementing "much needed" reforms, he's implementing "reforms" that are driving the country towards bankruptcy. He has made the working class even more poor under his rule. There is an opposition that is legitimate, but it remains under constant attack by his supporters. The change must come within.

Since WHEN...would a Bush supporter like YOU...ever give a shit about a leader screwing over the working class? Bush has done a damn good job of screwing over the working class in this country, but you still support him!

Since WHEN...would a Bush supporter like YOU...ever give a shit about a leader screwing over the working class? Bush has done a damn good job of screwing over the working class in this country, but you still support him!

You don't know anything about me. Get some maturity or else I'm putting you on my block list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oye Oye
How can you make people who have nothing more poor?


By piling debt on them that they will eventually have to repay in the future, by driving jobs out of the country.. by lowering wages... :rolleyes:

Oh...so, you mean, basically, doing what Bush is doing in this country, right now??

Oh...so, you mean, basically, doing what Bush is doing in this country, right now??

Jobs are being created here at a very good pace, and economic growth is happening... so please keep your gross misrepresentations elsewhere. Not all Americans are like you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Nexire Republic
Personally, I enjoy Chavez. I just wish he'd take more action with regards to cutting off oil to the US. That would rank him high on my list.


:rolleyes:

By driving people out of work and giving us higher gas prices? To hell with you.

Driving people out of work and giving us higher gas prices is what Bush is doing to us right now, yet, strangely, you still support HIM. What gives?

So, no one is telling me what a gringo is. Fine. I'll just assume that it is some anti-Semitic word. It has that Yiddish ring to it. I will tell you right now, however, that Pat Robertson isn't Jewish.

Oh...so, you mean, basically, doing what Bush is doing in this country, right now??

Bush isn't doing any of that, except for the deficits (which I absolutely despise him for. Big Government conservative...absolutely terrifying). Our economy isn't poorly off and is creating jobs, and wages are performing comparable to Clinton's at this point in Bush's term.

Driving people out of work and giving us higher gas prices is what Bush is doing to us right now, yet, strangely, you still support HIM. What gives?

What an ignorant....

Bush is doing this? Bush isn't the one giving us higher gas prices. It has to do with demand (keep in mind there is enough supply out there, more then enough.. not enough refineries - that's a direct result of years of not building refineries). It has nothing to do with Bush. It has to do with the the free floating market.

Driving people out of work and giving us higher gas prices is what Bush is doing to us right now, yet, strangely, you still support HIM. What gives?

Bush's unemployment rate is plunging, the ratios are improving, and good jobs are being created. Gas prices aren't his fault; he wanted new refineries on closed bases but that was shot down by obstructionist environmental extremists.

So, no one is telling me what a gringo is. Fine. I'll just assume that it is some anti-Semitic word. It has that Yiddish ring to it. I will tell you right now, however, that Pat Robertson isn't Jewish.
It's a disparaging Latin American term that basically means "foreigner," but it's usually limited to American or English people. it's kind of like "honky" or "cracker."

So, no one is telling me what a gringo is. Fine. I'll just assume that it is some anti-Semitic word. It has that Yiddish ring to it. I will tell you right now, however, that Pat Robertson isn't Jewish.Gringo is a derrogatory word for white person or American.

We may not agree on really anything, but we can both agree on the fact that Robertson is a fascist, not a christian.

Well, we did find ONE thing we agree on, anyway.

But, since you admit you, too, see Robertson as a fascist...doesn't it make you a bit nervous that your man, Bush, is rubbing shoulders with a guy like that?

Bush's unemployment rate is plunging, the ratios are improving, and good jobs are being created. Gas prices aren't his fault; he wanted new refineries on closed bases but that was shot down by obstructionist environmental extremists.

The idea is still on the table from what I heard.

Well, we did find ONE thing we agree on, anyway.

But, since you admit you, too, see Robertson as a fascist...doesn't it make you a bit nervous that your man, Bush, is rubbing shoulders with a guy like that?

Even Nazz said that the Bush adminstration has swiftly distanced itself, and criticized the remarks Robertson has made. Please, read the original article posted.

Oh and he's not my man. I'm not a vehement Bush supporter either.

And another thing.. my man is my boyfriend....

Just like nationalizing oil industries?

Exactly.

And note that all of them had like ideaologies. You see, I often accuse the US of being a society of mob rule. This is moreso true in Latin America, running between far left and far right strongmen (democratically elected or not), with a happy medium occuring only today.

This is a statement based on an bias. Political extremes depend entirely on point of view. For example I see the choice between Democrat and Republican as no choice at all and view U.S. politics exclusive only to the wealthy. (Which was why Ralph Nader recieved so little media attention even though his views were probably the most radical of the four candidates from the 2004 Presidential elections.)

The onlly reason that the US is so often dragged in is because of its scapegoating status in the world. The US did a few very bad things around the turn of the century, mostly with the dawn of the Roosevelt Collary. Latin America never forgot, and understandibly so. Yet for some reason, the US remains the easier scapegoat than say, Spain or Portugal.

The U.S. has been an imperial presence in Latin America since they annexed Texas. Colombians remember their encouragement and facilitation of Panama's seccession so they could build the Canal, Nicaruagans and El Salvadorians are aware of how the U.S. prolonged civil wars and repressive regimes by providing right winged militias with guns, the United Fruit Company and John Dulles had their bit in creating an atmosphere of exploitation in the Carribbean, and of course there is the perception of racism when Latinos seem to be portrayed in Hollywood films as either criminals or servants.

That is not to say that the US wasn't involved in Latin America. But for some reason, it seems to get special emphasis that exaggerates its extent. The US was no more involved there than it was in any part of the world, and it was all in the aim of denying the USSR friends.

Given the choice, I would prefer living in a safe, communist environment, than a capitalist society that exploits the poor and encourages a climate of violence.

Here is a nice little PDF for Oye Oye... it is pretty simple so he can understand it:
Hey now... that's rather over the top.
Link fixed.
Like I... nahh, piffle. Piffle, I say! Piffle.

And again, piffle.
*shrugs*

So, no one is telling me what a gringo is. Fine. I'll just assume that it is some anti-Semitic word. It has that Yiddish ring to it. I will tell you right now, however, that Pat Robertson isn't Jewish.
Wasn't he the short drummer for the Beatles? The one who wasn't Pete Best?

:eek: Does that make Pat Robertson a hitherto-unknown "missing" Beatle? (He can't be the fifth, sixth or seventh, there's too many people tussling for those spots already) Okay, I'm squinching my eyes tightly... and... no, I'm just not seeing it. No frickin' way. Sorry, Gringo Starr. Back to the Taco Bell with you.

Oh dang, a few of you responded to that already.

Well anyway, I just came from the CBC website and read about it there:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/08/23/robertson_chavez_2005_08_23.html

Wow scary man! What a bastard!

Pat's a moron. Don't take his remarks as representative of anything more than the lunatic right fringe... and I'm sure a good portion of them would rather not be associated with Robertson.

Don't be so sure of that!!
And, again...you also say Robertson is a representative of the lunatic right fringe. And Bush is rubbing shoulders with a guy like that. What's that make Bush?

Bush's unemployment rate is plunging, the ratios are improving, and good jobs are being created. Gas prices aren't his fault; he wanted new refineries on closed bases but that was shot down by obstructionist environmental extremists.
The rate is falling but that has nothing to do with actual employment--the rate is based on the number of people who apply for unemployment benefits, and if you stop applying (say because your benefits run out), or if you take a lower paying job just to have something, you come out of the rate. You stop being counted, basically, and thus the rate goes down without there being any real change in your status. The reason we know this is happening is because job creation hasn't been keeping up with population growth--we've been creating jobs (of questionable value, but that's another discussion), but not enough to keep up with the roughly 140,000 people who enter the workforce per month. Some months we have, but the overall average for Bush's tenure is below that number, so the only way the unemployment rate is dropping is because people aren't getting benefits anymore.

Don't be so sure of that!!
And, again...you also say Robertson is a representative of the lunatic right fringe. And Bush is rubbing shoulders with a guy like that. What's that make Bush?

:headbang:

The Bush adminstration has swiftly distanced itself from Robertson and, inturned criticized and rejected the remarks.

Hm. You must not be aware of what fascism is about. A moderate fascist government is basically a repressive ultra conservative government. On most issues, Fascists and Conservatives agree (family, gay rights, immigration, etc.). Also, I'm not saying that the US would openly be a dictatorship. My idea of what could happen is polls being rigged so that one party wins all the time.

Where have you BEEN the last five years??

COULD happen, my ass....IT ALREADY HAS BEEN HAPPENING!!

What are gringos?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=436569 :D

Where have you BEEN the last five years??

COULD happen, my ass....IT ALREADY HAS BEEN HAPPENING!!

*yawn*

More nonsense....

You sir, are speaking very foolishly. I don't like many religious conservatives, but I would not call them fascists. That's immature, and disrespectful.

I would! And it is not immature or disrespectful to call a pig a pig. It's not insulting to call a pig a pig. And, like we used to say down in Texas...I don't care how much lipstick you put on the pig, it's still a pig.

Given the choice, I would prefer living in a safe, communist environment, than a capitalist society that exploits the poor and encourages a climate of violence.
I'll agree with you there, though I'd prefer it if there were ultimately no central committees to mandate safety.

And, again...you also say Robertson is a representative of the lunatic right fringe. And Bush is rubbing shoulders with a guy like that. What's that make Bush?
A guy like that?

I would! And it is not immature or disrespectful to call a pig a pig. It's not insulting to call a pig a pig. And, like we used to say down in Texas...I don't care how much lipstick you put on the pig, it's still a pig.

Well you aren't exactly a shining example of maturity.

Where have you BEEN the last five years??Lemme see:
Berlin, Munich, and Cottbus

Well you aren't exactly a shining example of maturity.
Pot, kettle, black

Constitutions can be changed. For example, the American constitution once allowed a president to run for however many terms he wants.... now it only allows two terms.



Prove it. And quit saying no. I proved you wrong. You are just proving to be nescient.



Your responses are dodgy things, they keep dodging my sources and the facts.



This isn't 1999. Crime is actually down in Colombia. Military casualities have been down, and the country for the most part is now secure under government control. You need to stop spewing this crap and actually provide some sources.

Economic productivity is strongly up in 2005, and GDP growth is on the upswing. Unemployment is down, and security has been resorted.



I see you don't respond to any of the figures..... you keep going on your same tripe... and you don't provide anything. Typical.



The article includes officials facts and figures, it was a quoted article from a news organization. You need to provide refutation. The source isn't lying.

I will look for sources, but you must understand, Colombia is a nation at war. In order for a crime to appear on a statistic it must be reported. This is difficult to do if it is a police man is the one committing the crime. I speak from experience.

I will look for sources, but you must understand, Colombia is a nation at war. In order for a crime to appear on a statistic it must be reported. This is difficult to do if it is a police man is the one committing the crime. I speak from experience.

You need to start posting facts and figures, as I have. From what I understand, you don't know what you're talking about. You speak from experience? HAhahahahah.. somehow I find that laughable. I lived in Latin America for something like 6 years.

Please look at that PDF I posted.

The bottom line is you don't provide any counter-evidence. The bottom line is you dodge facts. The bottom line is you can't have a reasonable debate because you turn a blind eye to the reality. The bottom line is the Colombian people are spending more as consumers because they are more confident in the security forces, and the general security situation. The bottom line is more farmers are planting alternative crops then ever before.

(I never said bottom so many times in a post)

The ultimate statement I'll make to you is, prove it.

The best proof is with your own eyes. Go to Colombia and tell me what you see.

The best proof is with your own eyes. Go to Colombia and tell me what you see.

I've been there about a dozen times. I lived in Quito, Ecuador for about three years (and traveled from Ecuador to Colombia countless times). So nice try.

Good article--and the Bush administration did exactly what they needed to do, the only thing they really could do, and I give them credit for it.
Yep. the only thing they could do. It was like when, right after 9/11, when this same Robertson tried to blame the 9/11 attacks on the gays, the feminists, the liberals, the ACLU, the People For The American Way...and all the usual targets of Pat Robertson's bile. GWB publicly rebuked Robertson for his remarks, which was the only thing Bush COULD do, at that point, because Robertson's comments had so enraged so many people. but, I'm betting that, in his secret heart of hearts, Bush agreed with every word Robertson said, back in September, 2001...and I bet in his secret heart of hearts, Bush agrees with Robertson on this one, too.

Bush's heart, if he even has one, is most definitely black.

I lived in Latin America for something like 6 years.Really? How old were you when you lived there? I'm curious because you've mentioned frequently that you're still somewhat young. So, how old do you have to be to possess an independent, critical analysis of Latin American geopolitics? I'll admit to being 36 and largely ignorant of the subject post-approximately 1986-7. Ahh, but you were in the thick of it, then were you?

Really? How old were you when you lived there? I'm curious because you've mentioned frequently that you're still somewhat young. So, how old do you have to be to possess an independent, critical analysis of Latin American geopolitics? I'll admit to being 36 and largely ignorant of the subject post-approximately 1986-7. Ahh, but you were in the thick of it, then were you?

I was there till I finished high school.. let me get more specific. I'm 20, and lived in Latin America until I was 18 (I celebrated my 18th birthday there [living in Argentina]). I left two weeks after to California. Actually, not 6 years.. 5 years... 2 years in Ecuador and 3 in Argentina. Sorry about that. I do have plenty of knowledge about Latin America because it was a required topic in the schools I went to (both political and economic aspects). So what if I'm young.. It doesn't mean i'm stupid.

You're such a jerk.

I've been there about a dozen times. I lived in Quito, Ecuador for about three years (and traveled from Ecuador to Colombia countless times). So nice try.Mesa, didn't you try to berate me on whether East Germans liked the GDR or not? Until I pointed out that I know more East Germans than you'll ever meet?

Oh, come on. Lyric rants. The stuff you hear from me actually comes from hours of pondering.

The fact that you're willing to discredit what I'm saying simply because I'm "Leftist" is very scary.

(And thanks for the Argentina bit)

EXCUSE ME...but I do not appreciate being brought up, and used as an example...in a conversation that I was not...at the time...a part of.

And further examples of this, Laerod, and I'll turn YOU in to the Mods, too. don't think I won't. Just because you are not a Conservative, don't think I'm going to take any more bullshit off of you than I take off of anyone else.

The comparison was uncalled-for, and extremely rude...and a cheap shot. Consider yourself warned.

One point I would like to make about posting articles. Please make sure if your going to post them use credible sources! I can easily go and find a million different articles that look favorably on Chavaz or not. But 99% are opinions or have reasons to post favorable/not favorable information.

Examples:
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2312
Why would a publication called 'Capitalism Magazine' be so opposed to chavez? lol

Also
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/JulAug2005/parenti0705.html
This one is flawed because its obviously an Anti-War, Socialist publication that supports anyone that opposes the US.


http://poorbuthappy.com/colombia/node/8539
Even this article posted by Mesatecala is somewhat flawed because it looks to be from a tourst site and would'nt post any 'bad' news.

Mesa, didn't you try to berate me on whether East Germans liked the GDR or not? Until I pointed out that I know more East Germans than you'll ever meet?

You misinterpreted me. But that's what you do on this forum.. misinterpreting other people. You should get an award for that.

Really? How old were you when you lived there? I'm curious because you've mentioned frequently that you're still somewhat young. So, how old do you have to be to possess an independent, critical analysis of Latin American geopolitics? I'll admit to being 36 and largely ignorant of the subject post-approximately 1986-7. Ahh, but you were in the thick of it, then were you?Um... don't do any of the age discrimination please. Let people's posts talk for them. I only beat him by a year.

You misinterpreted me. But that's what you do on this forum.. misinterpreting other people. You should get an award for that.
I'm almost tempted to start a thread with a poll on which one of us does more misinterpreting... :D

Hey Lyric, don't be a hypocrite about that. You do plenty of insulting of others.

One point I would like to make about posting articles. Please make sure if your going to post them use credible sources! I can easily go and find a million different articles that look favorably on Chavaz or not. But 99% are opinions or have reasons to post favorable/not favorable information.

I am using credible sources.


http://poorbuthappy.com/colombia/node/8539
Even this article posted by Mesatecala is somewhat flawed because it looks to be from a tourst site and would'nt post any 'bad' news.

It doesn't change the fact that isn't flawed. It is an news article (it was done by a journalist). So please don't dodge the facts like someone else here. You did it in the China debate when I proved you wrong.

I've been there about a dozen times. I lived in Quito, Ecuador for about three years (and traveled from Ecuador to Colombia countless times). So nice try.

I've been to Quito myself, and Quito is not Colombia. Where have you been to in Colombia and when? Having been to Colombia I'll assume you are aware of how easy it is for someone to "dissappear". Being to Colombia you should know how much of the landscape is covered by jungle and mountains. And knowing a little about what is going on in Colombia, as you claim to do, you should know that the majority of the violence is taking place in the country side, where bodies are not always accounted for.