Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - HUGO CHAVEZ PULLS ANOTHER HUGO: NO TERM LIMITS

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

HUGO CHAVEZ PULLS ANOTHER HUGO: NO TERM LIMITS
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Alias

Joined: 24 Jan 2003

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:05 pm Post subject:

So we can all agree that he is a demagogue but that the US should not be involved in any coup to overthrow him? Fair compromise?

Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:16 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

This thread does a nice job of teasing out the crux of their problem, McGarrett: unable to tolerate any criticism at all directed against anyone but the American govt; and, moreover, such criticism will provoke the crudest form of apologia for people like Chavez.

Go figure.

Why is that? Why is it that people actually defend Chavez? Is it only because he hates the U.S.?

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:33 pm Post subject:

Pligganease: yes. That is but one of the many consequences the U.S.-centric discourse produces -- especially in the popular imagination. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Hugo Chavez is their best friend...

Alias wrote:

So we can all agree that he is a demagogue but that the US should not be involved in any coup to overthrow him?

Alias: can you explain why it is always necessary for some posters to follow a primary clause, like the one you offer, above, and which deals with the OP, with that U.S.-centric "but"-clause? Because that makes about as much sense to me as it would if you were to agree with me that, say, Nero was a bad Caesar -- but then you felt it necessary to stipulate or clarify that the U.S. should not be involved in any coup to overthrow him.

That is, why are you and others here so stubbornly resistant when it comes to talking about Hugo Chavez on Hugo Chavez's own merits?

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:57 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Another post full of hyperbole and, to be kind, misrepresentations.

Go figure.

You are a friend, indeed. Please hold that knife by the blade when you hand it to me, would you? Oh, and please put it in my hand, not my back.

Thanks bunches!

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:07 pm Post subject: Re: HUGO CHAVEZ PULLS ANOTHER HUGO: NO TERM LIMITS

mack4289 wrote:

I'm sorry for assuming you think something that you don't.

Thanks.

Quote:

I'd appreciate it if you didn't make unfounded assumptions about what I think (that I don't care about Bush's mistakes

I don't think I said that about you, did I? Perhaps it seemed I did, by extension. If so, my apologies, but given you were, in fact, defending McGarrett's post, it would have been a logical conclusion. I think, though, that I was referring to McGarrett.

Quote:

and that I'm only responding to defend McGarret).

You were responding to a post about McGarrett's comments on Chavez and his lack of commentary on Bush, but you weren't defending McGarrett? Then you were just deconstructing my logic?

I like your debate style. Refreshing change from the bash-o-rama.

Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject:

keane wrote:

Really? That's rich. This thread started about Hugo Chavez proposing the elimination of term limits. You, in your first post and the second post of the thread, say...

keane wrote:

Again I ask, where is your concern for the Constitutional rights of your fellow Americans? For the separation of powers in the US government? for justice for all, including a law-breaking president?

Has Chavez spied on his own people illegally?

Has Chavez voided the Bill of Rights?

Has Chavez claimed sole power over all levels of government, even the judiciary?

Has Chavez broken the law by refusing to enforce the laws passed?

Has Chavez imprisoned and tortured the innocent?

Has Chavez kidnapped and kept in indefinite detainment the innocent, or even the guilty?

Do you think Bush's order voiding the separation of powers in the case of a state of emergency is less dangerous than what Chavez is seeking? In actuality, it is far worse.

I don't follow Chavez. Enlighten me. Perhaps it is he and Bush that are kissing cousins.

What I truly want to see is equal outrage at the gross crimes committed by your own government. Then I would feel I was talking to an American, not a conservative.

Is it impossible for you and people like you to hear any criticism of any person except George Bush? I don't particularly care for Bush, but if you want to discuss another politician or other policies that are borderline criminal, I'm not going to scream about the evils of Bush.

Seriously, it's like this...

Person A: Pol Pot was a real son of a bitch. He was a horrible dictator.

Person B: George Bush is the devil!

Are they related, these two topics? Not really. It's kinda like you sit back and think of nothing but Bush. That's kinda sad.

Last edited by Pligganease on Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:13 pm Post subject:

Pligganease wrote:

Is it impossible for you and people like you to hear any criticism of any person except George Bush?

You are not addressing the issue I raised.

Quote:

I don't particularly care for Bush, but if you want to discuss another politician or other policies that are borderline criminal, I'm not going to scream about the evils of Bush.

You are not addressing the issue I raised.

Quote:

Seriously, it's like this...

Person A: Pol Pot was a real son of a *beep*. He was a horrible dictator.

Person B: George Bush is the devil!

Are they related, these two topics? Not really.

You are not addressing the issue I raised.

Quote:

It's kinda like you sit back and think of nothing but Bush. That's kinda sad.

What is sad is that you are not concerned about the Bush administration.

stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject:

Plig observed:

Quote:

Are they related, these two topics? Not really. It's kinda like you sit back and think of nothing but Bush. That's kinda sad.

Equally pathetic is that the poster feels the need to have two usernames, keane and EFLT. I suggest he combine them to form "Kucinich."

Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:21 pm Post subject:

keane wrote:

What is sad is that you are not concerned about the Bush administration.

I think you're missing the point. Whether or not I am concerned with the Bush administration is completely irrelevant. If we were posting in a thread about the Bush administration, then maybe it would be relevant. This thread started about Hugo Chavez, not George Bush. Why do you have to post about Bush in a thread that has nothing to do with him. Do you have a crush?

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

That is, why are you and others here so stubbornly resistant when it comes to talking about Hugo Chavez on Hugo Chavez's own merits?

Who cares about Chavez? How many Venezuelans visit this board? The question is, why do you care about some guy who is running his nation into the ground? And why do you not care about the guy running your nation into the ground?

A far, far better set of questions.

Chavez means next to nothing to the US or our interests. His oil wealth is very dependent on agreements with the US, so he couldn't do anything with it even if he wanted to. So who cares? Let him rattle his oil cans. He's nothing more than Kim Jong Il in Spanish.

But you, friend, will spin anything anyone says into anti-American jingoisitc pap, so who cares what you say?

kisses...

Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject:

keane wrote:

Gopher wrote:

That is, why are you and others here so stubbornly resistant when it comes to talking about Hugo Chavez on Hugo Chavez's own merits?

Unlike you, apparently, some people like to discuss topics other than George Bush. Would you like for every thread on this board to be about Bush? That is what you are implying.

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:43 pm Post subject:

Pligganease wrote:

keane wrote:

Gopher wrote:

That is, why are you and others here so stubbornly resistant when it comes to talking about Hugo Chavez on Hugo Chavez's own merits?

Unlike you, apparently, some people like to discuss topics other than George Bush. Would you like for every thread on this board to be about Bush? That is what you are implying.

Ah, twist, twist, twist. Read the thread, pligganease, read the thread. I do not question anyone's right to post anything they wish. Have you ever seen me comment in any way on whether any thread should be deleted? No. Of course not. So, you obfuscate and attempt to paint me as extremist and intolerant of any subject but Bush. I was not aware that you had access to my records as regards reading this site.

But let us get down to the core question, which is posted on this thread and which you either did not read or chose to pretend doesn't exist so that you could toss out your attempt to discredit me based on the questions I ask of others on this forum. We are all very impressed by this incredible use of rhetoric. May I borrow it?

Getting on to the point. If you had read the thread, you would know my point is not about Bush, it is an inquiry as to why McGarrett spends so much time attacking China and Chavez, but seemingly has no time for Bush. The issue of the Bush administration's behavior is far more important to his freedom and exercise of his rights, is it not? Why so much focus outside of the US on issues that don't affect him? Bush's crimes are real, documented, have endangered McGarrett's freedom, and are continuing, but Chavez is worth the time and the ink?

By extension, I ask the same question of all the right-wing neo-cons, cons, etc.

Shall I draw a picture?

Wink

Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject:

So, you're saying there should be a ratio? If McGarrett wants to post about China or Chavez, he needs to devote equal time to Bush? Or, are you saying that a double standard applies? Enemies of Bush are allowed to talk about nothing but his administration, but people who are indifferent or support Bush must not talk about too many things other than his administration?

Matt_22

Joined: 22 Nov 2006

Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject:

keane wrote:

i care about chavez, and so do many others. then again, many of us care and are interested in the world that surrounds us, and we regularly discuss and attempt to educate ourselves about the world political climate. many anti-american groups often claim that the stereotypical american is oblivious to the rest of the world, and that this allows ignorant foreign policy decisions (i.e. bush invading iraq) to be made without a significant political backlash. in many ways this makes sense, and to chide a group of individuals for taking part in a rational discussion about something not directly involved with america's internal politics just seems a little retarded and/or hypocritical.

and if a thread is started about a power hungry dictator in south america, why is there the need to hijack it to talk about bush? maybe these other guys are huge bush apologists, i dunno, but there are probably a million other threads where criticism of president bush is on-topic. if not, one can easily be created. if you can't discuss any other subject in world politics without relating it somehow to the bush administration, you really come across as an irrational zealot, which in turn just damages your arguments in the long run. and frankly, i'm tired of the bush administration escaping certain criticism because the loud obnoxious tin-foil-hat wearers are drowning out the rational, moderate, legitimate criticism that actually means something.

mack4289

Joined: 06 Dec 2006

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:43 pm Post subject:

keane wrote:

Gopher wrote:

That is, why are you and others here so stubbornly resistant when it comes to talking about Hugo Chavez on Hugo Chavez's own merits?

Did you read this part of the New Yorker article I posted?

"The U.S. continues to be Venezuela�s most important trading partner. Much of this business is oil: Venezuela is America�s fourth-largest supplier, and the U.S. is Venezuela�s largest customer. But the flow of trade goes both ways and across many sectors. The U.S. is the world�s biggest exporter to Venezuela, responsible for a full third of its imports..... And, even as Ch�vez�s rhetoric has become more extreme, the two countries have become more entwined: trade between the U.S. and Venezuela has risen thirty-six per cent in the past year."

Clearly Venezuela should be a concern to Americans. The world is more interconnected now than ever before. The problems of even the most remote corner of the world could be your problem in the future.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe