Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - WHY AREN'T THE LEFTISTS HERE RALLYING TO HUGO CHAVEZ NOW?

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

WHY AREN'T THE LEFTISTS HERE RALLYING TO HUGO CHAVEZ NOW?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:16 am Post subject:

jkelly80 wrote:

I would just like to stress that very little of US policy during this time is due to altruism...

This is a huge problem in these discussions. Citing "some beneficial effects" even "some Idealist motives" (the latter not having been cited yet), does not in any way imply or suggest that I or anyone else, for that matter, would reduce American foreign policy to purely altruistic or Idealistic. (People of the left read more into this than was ever there and then work themselves up into a hysteria about it, screaming that it is "a lie.")

But this does not mean that these currents do not exist. These altruistic and Idealistic currents do exist in American foreign policy (and in Hugo Chavez's foreign policy as well). So do self-interest and Realism. The problem is this: so many in poly-sci need to establish their own pet theory's primacy (Marxism, Realism, what-have-you). And at the same time, they must aggressively discredit theories which challenge their own. This is the dynamic. Do not ask me to explain how so many professionals can be so petty in their discourse. But there it is. Thus, so many of these questions become distorted into false and foolish either/or choices.

On the rest of your post, glad you recognize that no nation-state acts purely as an altruist or Idealist also. But take this further: can you cite any examples or any human being, organization, people or culture, who has ever acted purely as an altruist or Idealist? You probably cannot. This is because everyone also acts in their own interests as well.

But does this mean their altruism and Idealism are "lies...?" Or that they are all bad and iredeemable because at least some of what motivates them is self-interest...?

Last edited by Gopher on Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:25 am; edited 5 times in total

Leavingkorea

Joined: 27 Apr 2007

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:28 am Post subject:

Sincinnatislink wrote:

What the hell does that have to do with the validity of my argument?

Counter my argument.

Pretty please.

What it has to do with it is that you don't know what you're talking about. The first thing you did here is dismiss a couple dozen Venezuelans personal thoughts as not an important sample. Then you went on to quote wiki as your source of information.

Note on people you use wiki as a sourse in discussions of this type: They have an uninformed opinion and use wiki as a back-up and fact gathering site because they have done no deep reading or research into the area. They then try to counter arguments with quick web searches that meet their tainted views. Thus instead of googling "Coca Cola nutrition" they search "Coca Cola kills you". Here is a simple guiding point. If you couldn't discuss this topic at your friends house without internet access, shut-up about it online. Nobody thinks your smart or clever here either.

It's already been pointed out by others that your facts were incorrect. If you'd been to the country that might help you some. Have you ever been inland and noticed how much more formal and polite they are or how on the coastal areas it's always great fun? Have you noticed how they comment and cat call on every beautiful woman that walks by? Thought not/

All of that and more has to do with the validity of your argument.

jkelly80

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:28 am Post subject:

postfundie wrote:

Quote:

so china's market has seen such growth because they have ignored patent laws? specifically software patent laws?????

Yes. That is the ONLY reason China has a viable economy.
Rolling Eyes

in_seoul_2003

Joined: 24 Nov 2003

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:00 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

in_seoul_2003 wrote:

ATTACHED? Oh my...

And here is yet another of those famous unprovoked posts. Note the caustic wit and exaggerated outrage via all caps that everyone here allegedly hates so much (for dramatic effect, of course).

I will go direct with you, In_Seoul_2003: what is your beef here? Do you have something to say about Chavez or any of this thread's tangents? Do you even have any views on this topic? Or are you just interested in grudges and personal attacks for their own sakes?

Apparently you are even more petty than I first suspected. Like Nowhere Man, your only purpose here is to attempt to discredit another poster personally. Good for you, "mate."

I was simply commenting on psychoanalysis. You brought it up. Did you know that Freud was a right-winger? Indeed, he modelled his paradigm of psychic development on imperialist notions of the hierarchy of civilizations. Certainly not a left-winger by today's standards. It was said, however, that his ideas were far too risque for the sensibilities occupying the other end of the spectrum.

I guess that would place him as a complex man. I'm sure that Chavez is equally complex. Yet the title of the thread seems to suggest otherwise. I guess that's a comment on Chavez then isn't it?

I can see where Nowhere Man gets his criticism's of you. It's very telling when someone insists that you say something about Chavez on a Chavez thread as though threads begin and end with a single issue addressed with no semantic diversions. Would it even be possible to speak of Chavez without diverging into other areas. I hope not. Otherwise that would suggest a depth without breadth and the ability to dig deep enough, without external non-Chavez related interference, to discover the truth of Chavez. Still silly and not nearly as plural as your obvious linearity betrays.

Sincinnatislink

Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:14 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Sincinnatislink wrote:

Counter my argument.

Pretty please.

No, thanks.

Discussions of this nature presuppose that both parties are open to persuasion on the issues at hand. You clearly are not. And you clearly know little about Latin-American affairs -- aside from having apparently memorized the U.S-centric, scapegoating, allegation-driven discourse, that is.

Best of luck.

You're joking, right?

Quote:

So now you're engaging in pseudo psychoanalysis of posters with whom you are at variance? You're quite sure you know of Gopher's educational background and can hence divine his world outlook therefrom?

He's simply asking why Gopher demands honest discourse until someone who disagrees with him offers it, at which point said dissident is derided as unqualified to discuss matters with him.
Several have asked very direct and simple questions. He refuses to answer them.
So pretty please, Gopher and stevemcgarrett. Answer your obedient pupils. This thread is your canvas. Show me the flaws of my ways. Otherwise, you are once again arguing that someone knows what's best for someone else - namely, you know how things work and I am not capable, so you should just move on.
Furthermore, if you're not willing to discuss things with people besides those with advanced degrees in a specific field, why the *beep* do you post here?

As far as the IMF arguments . . .
That's a very long discussion unto itself. If someone else wants to take that up, start another thread.

All I wanted to argue is that Venezuela was not a neat and tidy liberal democracy until big bad Chavez decided he could do things better than the existing government.
It wasn't. There is ample evidence. I'd say mass graves filled by the military are not a hallmark of good government. I mentioned the IMF to provide further context.
Jesus.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:29 am Post subject:

in_seoul_2003 wrote:

It's very telling...

I asked if you had anything to say about Chavez "or any of this thread's tangents." Either you failed to read that (not to mention all that came before it in this thread) or you pretended to ignore it to continue playing games.

Apparently you think this thread ought to be about me. And I have already commented on that: petty.

But if that kind of smokescreen helps you better get your not-so-subtle defense of poor, misunderstood, complex Chavez into the thread, then have at it. It is not as though I have not been personally-attacked on this board before, In_Seoul_2003...You are not even original.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:43 am Post subject:

Sincinnatislink: you allege, above, that several posters here have asked me questions, yet I "refuse" to answer them.

The only "questions" I see directed at me that have gone unanswered on this thread are yours here, below.

I do not see any good-faith questions here, Sincinnatislink. I see quite a bit of arrogance, hostility, and snide remarks. You condescendingly call me "a master's candidate" and therefore make it personal, again. Very well. But is this the way your vaunted "tutors" in Annapolis or Santa Fe taught you to talk with those who disagree with you? With so many four-letter words?

Moreover, I suggested to you that Venezuela had more options than your overly-simplistic "Bolivarismo" vs. "right-wing U.S. military puppet govt," or this idea you seem to have that Latin-American govts face a choice between America's lap-dog (as Chavez accuses Fox) vs. "distancing oneself from US domination," as you protest are Chavez's intentions. See Chilean, Uruguayan, or Costa-Rican politics, to cite but three outstanding examples of what I mean. You might even want to check out Kyle Longley's The Sparrow and the Hawk. And, sadly, your understanding of the Bolivarian notion of what "Pan-Americanism" ought to be betrays that you really do not understand it at all -- esp. if you buy Chavez's propaganda at face value that he is it. I do not believe that your knowledge and familitarity with Latin-American and Caribbean affairs goes deeper than your impressions, then. So I am not surprised in the least when you respond with brilliance like "My ass."

When you are prepared to talk respectfully and like an adult, I would be happy to exchange views with you, provided, as I said, you indicate in some way that such a use of my time would profit one or both of us.

The way I see it, you are just another ideologue who will eagerly play the self-righteous prosecutor and judge, silencing the defense while he badgers and bullies the jury into agreeing with him. And as I said above: thanks but no thanks.

Sincinnatislink wrote:

Gopher wrote:

Sincinnatislink wrote:

Link me to somewhere I said he was awesome.
I still believe Venezuela is better off with "Bolivarismo" or whatever than it was with "right-wing US military puppet government."

This is too simplistic. Venezuela has more options than what you suggest here.

Yes, distancing oneself from US domination is a simple matter in South America.

Quote:

And your classification of the constitutional, democratically-elected govt that preceded Chavez as "a right-wing U.S. military puppet" reveals your fundamental hostility to, above all else, the American govt.

My. Ass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Venezuela#20th_century

Quote:

February 27, 1989 saw a wave of protests, riots and looting known as the Caracazo, where it is estimated that thousands of Venezuelans were killed after the then-president Carlos Andr�s P�rez, a member of the AD political party, decided to suspend the constitutional rights of the citizens, thus allowing the armed forces to confront the rioters by violent means.

. . . perhaps we should look into what you mean by "democratic"? Does it involve suspending constitutional rights and instituting military rule?

Quote:

Ultimately, I doubt you are concerned with Venezuelan affairs per se anyway.

I'm very sure that's irrelevant.

Quote:

You merely seize a Third-World pretext to criticize American politics.

Well pardon me for trying to make sense of international affairs.
By the way, that rioting mentioned above was a reaction to proposed reforms by the IMF, while we're discussing pinko hot buttons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo

Any ideas on who might have helped secure a treasured source of bananas and oil?

If you are what you claim to be, you sure have a selective memory in discussing these matters. Care to give an alternate account here, Mr. Master's candidate?

And just for reference . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo#Consequences

Quote:

In 1998, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights condemned the government's action, and referred the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In 1999, the Court heard the case and found that the government had committed violations of human rights, including extrajudicial killings. The Venezuelan government, by then headed by Ch�vez, did not contest the findings of the case, and accepted full responsibility for the government's actions.

I'd say 9 years is a pretty good turnaround on admitting to atrocities and remedying them.
I can't think of any countries that habitually take longer, can you?

Last edited by Gopher on Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:37 pm; edited 8 times in total

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:52 am Post subject:

jkelly80 wrote:

When I say protectionist policies, I certainly don't mean 100% tariffs on cereal crops in perpetuity. More like the lower, temporary rates the US had in 1800s. It is not a level playing field because every singe developed economy (besides the Asian ones) went through a "cheater" period where they had protected markets to develop industrial bases. There were little or no patent laws, and they had decidedly less competition.

You're absolutely right when you say that current global conditions do not allow developing countries (or developed ones for that matter!) the kind of tariffs the US sported in the 19th Century and even in the early 20th.

In the globalized world, developing economies have to make it quickly and in a matter of a few years.

Quote:

The US, however, also subsidizes large portions of it ag production allowing them to flood the market with goods well under domestic prices in Latin America. It drives out domestic producers, and then jacks up the price again. The US plays by one set of rules and uses the IMF to insist that others go neo-liberal. Meanwhile, American corporations (Cargill, ADM, Monsanto) with undue influence profit hugely from the tariffs and subsidies from the US govt in a supposed "free market" environment. Just like American corporations with undue influence profited hugely from tariffs and govt spending in the 1870's.

This is true, although I would argue not to the extent that you allege. I am no apologist for American protectionism, I abhor it. But I assure you that the protectionism is a crutch for America.

Bush has actually tried to lower the agricultural subsidies in America, but it would be a political loser if he could not get Europe to do so. DOHA collapsed not on American stubborn adherence to agricultural subsidies, but on France's unwillingness to open up its own agricultural markets.

Sugar in particular has a high tariffs in America, and I know this bothers the Brazilians. In the end, the joke will be on America, because sugar is five times more efficient in producing ethanol fuel than corn is. This is important because corn is so inefficient at producing fuel that more gas is used to grow corn than can be extracted from it. If you mean to assail US Congress for its ardent protectionism and its habitual hypocrisy, I'm with you 110%.

Quote:

Let me assure you that long-term subsidies, thinking of them as a welfare program that just never stops sending checks, do not work for any economy. Look at America's steel industry. It is the holy cow of rust-belt state politicians, but the subsidies and protections continue to make the entire edifice weaker. The idea that only weak states can get bitten by bad economic policies is a misconception.

Long term subsidies do not, by any means. But short term ones are necessary for a developing economy.

Subsidies in any form are dangerous, because economies become dependent upon them. The only time direct subsidies are necessary are in the cases of economic crashes like Argentina's in 2001. However, it is rare at that point, especially with democratic countries which have terrible spending habits, that the government has the kind of money to spare (or tax breaks they can afford) to alleviate the problems. Hence the important of sound economic policies year after year.

The best kind of subsidies, if you could call them that, are investments in infrastructure, security, health, and education. Varying countries in Latin America have done better or worse with this. But it is certainly true that Mexico didn't take full advantage of NAFTA by using the dividends to invest in education and health.

Quote:

Do Mexico's woes disprove the value of free trade? Few would argue that Nafta was a waste. "If we didn't have Nafta, we'd be in far worse shape than we are today," says Andr�s Rozental, president of the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. If NAFTA has disappointed, it is in large part because the Mexican government has failed to capitalize on the immense opportunities it offered. "Trade doesn't educate people. It doesn't provide immunizations or health care," says Carla A. Hills, the chief U.S. negotiator in the NAFTA talks. "What it does is generate wealth so government can allocate the gains to things that are necessary."

If a government does not allocate the new wealth correctly, the advantages of free trade quickly erode. That is Mexico's plight. "NAFTA wasn't an end unto itself but a means to something, and that something was precisely the need to go further in reform," says former Mexican President Carlos Salinas, one of NAFTA's principal architects. "It's like Alice in Wonderland -- you have to run faster and faster if you want to stay in the same place. Globalization won't wait for you."

Quote:

Democratization of capital is a myth, as is the PC analogy. Roughly 60% of foreign investment outflow from the US goes to only six countries. That's not democratic. I think too many globalization proponents use the "small business owner" as their version of the bloody shirt.

You misunderstand my meaning. Democratization of capital does not refer to where the capital goes per se, but where it comes from. It is a fact that today from the comfort of my own home I can sign up for a Scottrade account with $1,007, and buy $1000 worth of one stock, and pay 7 dollars for the trade. That could not have been done 25 years ago, much less 125 years ago.

As for where capital flows, doesn't nearly 60% of the world's population live in the BIRC countries + Indonesia + Japan? Brazil, 190m people, India, 1.1b, China, 1.3b, Indonesia, 230m, Russia, 141m, Japan 125m, for a total of roughly 3 billion people. It's hard for me to know exactly what countries this money goes to, but I'm making an educated guess here lacking a source. I'm not arguing here that capital doesn't favor some countries over others, and it certainly hasn't been evenly distributed between the 1.3b Chinese for example, its just that large emerging markets are not exactly starving for foreign direct investment.

And that's the good news for developing countries. Foreign direct investment can come in much faster and more furiously than ever before, which is the only way its possible for a developing economy to make itself competitive in a few years. Weak currencies and low cost-of-labor are not the burdens they used to be, as globalization allows companies to come in and take advantage of the low rates and begin to invest in those countries. Eventually, coupled with proper investment and education, a stronger currency can develop. A country then relaxes emphasis on exporting goods and starts to become a net importer, as is happening right now in India.

Quote:

Sure, you can invest in Latin America. That's great. However, financial speculators working on a much larger scale can crash economies at the first sign of instability, which is an integral side effect of developing economies. They're not rational actors, they're members of a herd. Entrepreneurship and republican values have been on the ropes in the US since the 1860s because of large scale coroporate style business interests, but they make for good copy when ]talking about raiding other countries' coffers.

You're very right, we don't have perfectly rational actors behind globalization. We certainly have a herd, an image I meant to conjure up by using the term 'democratization.' But ultimately I don't agree with Antonio Negri's description in Empire (which by the way, is itself a hard left pro-globalization publication) of the world's markets as quite the simple oligarchy he makes it out to be. Certainly not everyone is involved in the global markets, and the rich have more influence than others. But this idea that financial speculators, the very term is loaded, are messing up the markets by design or by recklessness lets individual countries and individual corporations (!) off the hook for bad economic policy and bad corporate policies. The major and most important stage of hyperinflation is when domestic attitude becomes supremely suspicious of the home currency. The Argentinian crisis is important and indicative because in the end people were rioting because they could not access their bank accounts and thus could not bail out of Argentinian currency.

My position is not dogmatic, as I believe that financial speculation does occur, but usually we find it in the brand of foreign money backed up by an overly optimistic mindset about a country. Look at Bush Sr.'s overly positive prognosis of Russia's economy right before the 1998 crash. Look at the Asian crisis of 1997, which was backed by foreign money owned by foreigners who had no clue. Bad lending, yes, speculation, can be a contributing cause to financial disturbances. But usually this is an exacerbation of an already present economic weakness, a foreign blindness to something that enough locals are already all too aware of. Occasionally this even occurs without the cognizance of the very locals until the last minute, one might argue that this was the case in the American mortgage crisis (of 2007?), alternately one might argue that everyone saw the bubble coming, but the point is that financial over-optimism, irrational exuberance as the Wizard of the Fed might deem it, can turn a financial crash landing into a rippling fireball of economic catastrophe.

I would argue that this is even going on now in China. People on chatboards are talking up China as the next superpower without even paying attention to some of the nitty-gritties of a devalued currency, an over-reliance on exports, government over-subsidization of payment on non-performing loans, and general criminality and corruption. I'll cut myself off from ranting, but understand, I accept that the foreign investors are indeed somewhat complicit in not recognizing the rot in their pies in the sky, but they are hardly the sole and decisive cause of the spoilage.

Quote:

Because of current patent laws, software is impossible to produce by competing developers. Without production of software, the only viable natural resource that hasn't been devalued, countries can't truly have a stake in the Fanciful Friedman Plot Device known as the Information Revolution. Keep in mind the US routinely ignored patent laws throughout the whole of the 19th century, much like China is doing now. They could afford to because of the size of their market. We are simply not allowing the same conditions that our own economies developed under to exist elsewhere because it would not be maximizing the profits of the Western financial sector.

I don't understand what you mean when you say 'software is impossible to produce by competing developers.' I have to admit I don't know much about this, so it is hard for me to really get what you're trying to say unless you develop the theme a little more for me.

What I do understand a little is the role of Intellectual Property Rights in China. Let me tell you, ignoring Intellectual Property Rights is not a strategy for success, and the Chinese agree. That's why the Chinese themselves have been coming down on piracy for quite some time. There are tough laws on the books, but the problem is enforcement of laws. Having lived in China, I can tell you that the police do not do a good job generally in protecting Chinese citizens. Being an autocratic society, police chiefs are not accountable to any constituency (except perhaps their party overlords), and thus are risk-averse.

The reason why piracy is so bad for China is because it stifles creative production there. Talk to any Chinese mainland artist about this problem, and you'll get complaints. The good news is that progress is being made, although combatting video piracy may be hopeless in particular, one certainly hopes that Chinese musicians will be able to capitalize off their talent in the foreseeable future, because right now the vendors screw them out of their just recompense.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:44 pm Post subject: ...

STEVIE,

YOU DON'T SEEM OPEN TO PERSUASION, SO I CAN'T DISCUSS THIS WITH YOU ANY FURTHER. Razz

But here is what Gopher came into this thread saying:

Quote:

This is too simplistic. Venezuela has more options than what you suggest here. And your classification of the constitutional, democratically-elected govt that preceded Chavez as "a right-wing U.S. military puppet" reveals your fundamental hostility to, above all else, the American govt.

Ultimately, I doubt you are concerned with Venezuelan affairs per se anyway. You merely seize a Third-World pretext to criticize American politics.

Sincinnati said that he believes Venezuela is better off with Chavez than the previous government. He never even remotely suggested that these are the only two options Venezuela has. Gopher is the one who creates the strawman dichotomy. That's like someone saying they think America was better off with Clinton than Bush. Does that imply Clinton and Bush are the only possible options America has? Then we have, surprise surprise, some psychoanalysis! What percentage of Gopher's post is psychoanalysis: most of it. This is in keeping with most of what he posts here. Then he'll go on about how he wants to have an "adult" discussion...

Kuros,

Musicians in the West see very little of the profit from their record sales unless they reach superstar levels. Most make their money off touring, so I don't think that piracy is stifling creativity in China. That said, I'm sure it's not helping any.

enns

Joined: 02 May 2006

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:21 am Post subject:

Quote:

President Hugo Chavez said Sunday that foreigners who publicly criticize him or his government while visiting Venezuela will be expelled from the country.

Chavez ordered officials to closely monitor statements made by international figures during their visits to Venezuela � and deport any outspoken critics.

"How long are we going to allow a person � from any country in the world � to come to our own house to say there's a dictatorship here, that the president is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?" Chavez asked during his weekly television and radio program.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290337,00.html

Wasn't Chavez in a New York city church several months ago calling Bush a tyrant and a terrorist(introduced by Danny Glover of course)?

twg

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:29 am Post subject:

I think he called him Satan.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:35 am Post subject:

enns wrote:

Wasn't Chavez in a New York...?

"The devil came here yesterday," Chavez said, referring to Bush, who addressed [the United Nations] during its annual meeting Tuesday [20 Sept. 2006]. "And it smells of sulfur still today."

Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:11 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

enns wrote:

Wasn't Chavez in a New York...?

"The devil came here yesterday," Chavez said, referring to Bush, who addressed [the United Nations] during its annual meeting Tuesday [20 Sept. 2006]. "And it smells of sulfur still today."

I frankly don't have a high opinion of either Bush or Chavez. They have both have contributed negatively to the world and to their respective countries and in my view they are both undemocratic people. Of course, the difference is America has a vibrant enough democracy to avoid the problems of Venezuela. One is too far to the Right and one is too far to the Left. Extremism is not positive for any country. It undermines the country in the end. Chavez is a clear, unapologetic fascist while George Bush is not. Bush also has more class than Chavez, and he would not say something so offensive as what was quoted above unless he said something when a microphone was turned on and he wasn't aware of it.
Chavez is a Venezuelan Ahmedinejad. I hope the next president of the United States will be polished, eloquent, and moderate. The world doesn't need extremism.

Sincinnatislink

Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:52 am Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

I am not going to pretend my questions are "in good faith." I have an opinion, and I believe yours is quite transparently wrong.
That said, here we go:
Is it a simple matter to have a healthy economy that is not dependent on the United States in Central or South America?

Was Venezuela a centrist democracy when it eliminated civil rights and the military massacred Venezuelan citizens?

I'll go further.

Why it is unthinkable for someone with conflicting interests to go before the UN, an international regulatory body, whose headquarters just happens to be in the US, by the US' own choice/demand, and say negative things about the US? If the UN headquarters were in Caracas, would it be impermissible for the US to talk about its conflict with Venezuela?

Quote:

Very well. But is this the way your vaunted "tutors" in Annapolis or Santa Fe taught you to talk with those who disagree with you? With so many four-letter words?

This is how I speak with equals, excepting the emotionally unstable or children of parents who'd prefer I didn't use said 4 letter words.

I was encouraged to speak in ways I found contributed to my learning. No regrets so far. The sand in your vagina is enlightening.

Quote:

Moreover, I suggested to you that Venezuela had more options than your overly-simplistic "Bolivarismo" vs. "right-wing U.S. military puppet govt," or this idea you seem to have that Latin-American govts face a choice between America's lap-dog (as Chavez accuses Fox) vs. "distancing oneself from US domination," as you protest are Chavez's intentions.
See Chilean, Uruguayan, or Costa-Rican politics, to cite but three outstanding examples of what I mean.

That is anecdotal, and those countries do effectively bow to US desires when their backs are to the walls.
Costa Rica is just now removing itself from SOA things, if I recall.
Furthermore . . . fruit industry? Seriously.
We've already been over the impact that IMF intervention had in Chile. Healthy economy does not mean healthy people.
One common example is Pinochet's love of free markets.

Quote:

You might even want to check out Kyle Longley's The Sparrow and the Hawk. And, sadly, your understanding of the Bolivarian notion of what "Pan-Americanism" ought to be betrays that you really do not understand it at all -- esp. if you buy Chavez's propaganda at face value that he is it.

I've never claimed to understand any kind of Pan-Americanism, much less Bolivarismo. I don't find the minutiae of much of this masturbatory exercise terribly exciting. I'm mostly interested in the lengths people go to avoid answering uncomfortable questions.

Quote:

I do not believe that your knowledge and familitarity with Latin-American and Caribbean affairs goes deeper than your impressions, then. So I am not surprised in the least when you respond with brilliance like "My ass."

Discredit the argument following that "my ass" without poisoning a well. I dare you.

Quote:

When you are prepared to talk respectfully and like an adult, I would be happy to exchange views with you, provided, as I said, you indicate in some way that such a use of my time would profit one or both of us.

Deal with being treated like an equal.

Quote:

The way I see it, you are just another ideologue who will eagerly play the self-righteous prosecutor and judge, silencing the defense while he badgers and bullies the jury into agreeing with him. And as I said above: thanks but no thanks.

Is that sort of like claiming someone is out of their element and then refusing to respond to that which threatens their world view?

Last edited by Sincinnatislink on Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:55 am; edited 1 time in total

Sincinnatislink

Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:53 am Post subject:

Adjectival Self Exploration down the memory hole . . .

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, 6
Page 6 of 6

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