The full Hugo Chavez speech

[TooDrunkToFuck]

http://dvmx.com/chavez_UN_speech.html

 

 

He makes some good points. Too bad the only thing that was reported here was that he called Bush the devil. Thoughts?

 

 

 

And yes I know Chavez is a fuckin' socialist, so let's please just focus on the foreign policy issue.

[Lethalfind]

http://dvmx.com/chavez_UN_speech.html

 

 

He makes some good points. Too bad the only thing that was reported here was that he called Bush the devil. Thoughts?

 

 

 

And yes I know Chavez is a fuckin' socialist, so let's please just focus on the foreign policy issue.

 

At the risk of being shot as a traitor...I thought the same thing. Barbara Walters has been down to interview him and I saw some clips from the show and he doesn't seem as crazy as the media would like to protray...

 

Are we sure that Bush doesn't commune with the devil???

[snafu]

The only thing I have to say is this:

 

A democratic society is a strange thing to watch, they try to blame themselves first when a foreign power is trying to destroy them.

.

.

.

 

 

Wow what a profound statment. And true too. Thank the Lib's.

[hugo]

Let me explain how the fuckin' socialist mind works. If we trade with them we are exploiting them. If we don't trade with them we are causing them to starve. If we send troops in to remove a mad dictator we are imperialists. If we don't remove a mad dictator we are failing to use our military might to advance civil liberties. Chomsky is the biggest fool around.

 

A blind frog occassionally catches a fly. We should not intervene militarily unless a strong national interest is at stake.

[RoyalOrleans]

Let me explain how the fuckin' socialist mind works. If we trade with them we are exploiting them. If we don't trade with them we are causing them to starve. If we send troops in to remove a mad dictator we are imperialists. If we don't remove a mad dictator we are failing to use our military might to advance civil liberties. Chomsky is the biggest fool around.

 

A blind frog occassionally catches a fly. We should not intervene militarily unless a strong national interest is at stake.

 

Noam Chomsky can suck my fat cock.

[builder]

Let me explain how the fuckin' socialist mind works.

 

You lost me with that line, hugo a gogo.

 

Run that by me again, without the capitalist bourgoise mindset.

[neilsthepoet]

Hugo is a lying scumbag.

 

I heard he had an attempted three way with

Harry Belafonte, and Cindy Shehan

 

But failed because all three couldn't stop adoring

their own reflections.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neils

10:03 pm

04/01/2007

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Have any of you idiots read Noam Chomsky? Unlike most of you, he backs all of his opinions up with cold hard facts directly from government sources around the world.

 

You can cover your ears and say "lalalalalalalala" all you want, but it won't change the facts of the US' foreign policy. Hell, Clinton's bombing of the pharmaceutical company in Sudan, Reagan's disguisting attacks on Latin America, the sanctions in Iraq that killed more people than Saddam ever did, helping to overthrow more democratic leaders in Iraq and Iran in favor of Saddam and the Shah in the first place, acting similarly in Chilie, blocking a resolution for a ceasefire in the recent Israel/Lebabon "war" ... These are all facts that the US government itself acknowledges.

 

 

And as for NazzNegg's ridiculous post, you can find dissent in any country in the world. This includes those you would label as "undemocratic" for no other reason than that they aren't US allies.

 

 

Seriously, some of the posters here approach international politics with all the logic of a Party member from 1984.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Let me explain how the fuckin' socialist mind works. If we trade with them we are exploiting them. If we don't trade with them we are causing them to starve.

 

 

There's a difference between not trading with a country and using your international leverage to force other countries to join you in sanctions. Likewise, there's a difference between fair trade and forcing them to accept trade terms that would fuck them economically, as is what tends to happen when puppet governments are set up.

 

 

 

If we send troops in to remove a mad dictator we are imperialists.

 

 

It depends on the reason. If you HELPED THAT DICTATOR GAIN POWER IN THE FIRST PLACE, overthrowing a democratic leader who granted more civil liberties in the process, then yes. Especially if it's clear that your goal is to gain a monopoly on that country's energy reserves.

 

Hell, after the first Gulf War, the US had control of the sikies and could've easily given minor aid to the Shi'ites rebelling in Iraq. Instead, they let Saddam crush the rebellion. Saddam wasn't any more tyrannical in recent times than in the past. The difference was that he switched his oil currency to the Euro, signed deals with European powers, and was turning the control of the oil reserves away from the US.

 

That's why France is pissed at the war. It's not because they're hippies. It's because the US declared that Saddam's previous contracts were null and void. Meaning fuck everyone else; oil will be controlled through our puppet government once we set it up.

 

 

 

 

If we don't remove a mad dictator we are failing to use our military might to advance civil liberties.

 

 

Who said this? What Chavez was calling for is treating all countries with respect. And who the hell HAS called for the US to police the world? If anything, most people including some Socialists prefer for the UN as a whole to place pressure on such countries. And really, who's calling for the US to attack Sudan or Saudi Arabia?

 

 

 

 

Chomsky is the biggest fool around.

 

 

You have obviously never read Chomsky. He is 90% facts and 10% opinion, compared to most idiot pundits whio are more opinion than facts. Chomsky is in fact THE most logical political analyst of our time. Anyone who's ever read his work is aware that it's almost all based on cold hard cited facts from reliable sources (often declassified government files or stories not widely reported although acknowledged by various governments), and he has almost NO emotion whatsoever. He analyzes everything based on the empirical method after taking in all the facts.

 

 

 

A blind frog occassionally catches a fly. We should not intervene militarily unless a strong national interest is at stake.

 

 

A national interest as in lives at stake; NOT a national interest as in the US possibly having a challenge to its place over the rest of the world.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

And one other thing ... Chomsky is NOT a socialist any more than he's an anarchist. He admires certain traits of socialism but doesn't believe in its literal application to the modern world. He has explained this before. In general, he's against most of the governments of the world and seeks to bring most of their crimes to light while suggesting logical steps to rectifying the problems. He thinks some countries would be better served as individual tribes rather than being forced into a nation-state system to begin with. Besides that, he also identifies with old-fashioned conservatism (not the fake conservatism of neo-cons).

 

Trying to fit Noam Chomsky's views into one political party or another is ignorant as shit. Generally, he's an anti-imperialist who exposes the crimes of all governments and parties while looking for logical solutions. And he's considered one of the greatest modern intellectuals around the world for good reason.

[RoyalOrleans]

And one other thing ... Chomsky is NOT a socialist any more than he's an anarchist. He admires certain traits of socialism but doesn't believe in its literal application to the modern world. He has explained this before. In general, he's against most of the governments of the world and seeks to bring most of their crimes to light while suggesting logical steps to rectifying the problems. He thinks some countries would be better served as individual tribes rather than being forced into a nation-state system to begin with. Besides that, he also identifies with old-fashioned conservatism (not the fake conservatism of neo-cons).

 

Trying to fit Noam Chomsky's views into one political party or another is ignorant as shit. Generally, he's an anti-imperialist who exposes the crimes of all governments and parties while looking for logical solutions. And he's considered one of the greatest modern intellectuals around the world for good reason.

 

Are you fucking him or something?

[neilsthepoet]

Or is he having a go at you?!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neils

8:00 pm

04/14/2007

[hugo]

Chomsky is a fuckin' socialist. The only people too dumb to see it are socialists who call themselves anarchists. Chomsky's Zinninan world view ignores context. He is a fool. Anyone who calls himself a libertarian socialist is a dumbfuck too stupid to realize the term libertarian socialist is an oxymoron.

 

If you want to see brilliance and logic I suggest Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom."

 

In the real world large scale socialism requires coercion which requires big government. Only a fool could fail to see that.

[hugo]

From Chapter I Capitalism and Freedom

 

The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom

 

It is widely believed that politics and economics are separate and largely unconnected; that individual freedom is a political problem and material welfare an economic problem; and that any kind of political arrangements can be combined with any kind of economic arrangements. The chief contemporary manifestation of this idea is the advocacy of "democratic socialism" by many who condemn out of hand the restrictions on individuai freedom imposed by "totalitarian socialism" in Russia, and who are persuaded that it is possible for a country to adopt the essential features of Russian economic arrangements and yet to ensure individual freedom through political arrangements. The thesis of this chapter is that such a view is a delusion, that there is an intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain arrangements are possible and that, in particular, a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.

 

Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.

 

The first of these roles of economic freedom needs special emphasis because intellectuals in particular have a strong bias against regarding this aspect of freedom as important. They tend to express contempt for what they regard as material aspects of life, and to regard their own pursuit of allegedly higher values as on a different plane of significance and as deserving of special attention. For most citizens of the country, however, if not for the intellectual, the direct importance of economic freedom is at least comparable in significance to the indirect importance of economic freedom as a means to political freedom.

 

The citizen of Great Britain, who after World War II was not permitted to spend his vacation in the United States because of exchange control, was being deprived of an essential freedom no less than the citizen of the United States, who was denied the opportunity to spend his vacation in Russia because of his political views. The one was ostensibly an economic limitation on freedom and the other a political limitation, yet there is no essential difference between the two.

 

The citizen of the United States who is compelled by law to devote something like io per cent of his income to the purchase of a particular kind of retirement contract, administered by the government, is being deprived of a corresponding part of his personal freedom. How strongly this deprivation may be felt and its closeness to the deprivation of religious freedom, which all would regard as "civil" or "political" rather than "economic", were dramatized by an episode involving a group of farmers of the Amish sect. On grounds of principle, this group regarded compulsory federal old age programs as an infringement of their personal individual freedom and refused to pay taxes or accept benefits. As a result, some of their livestock were sold by auction in order to satisfy claims for social security levies. True, the number of citizens who regard compulsory old age insurance as a deprivation of freedom may be few, but the believer in freedom has never counted noses.

 

A citizen of the United States who under the laws of various states is not free to follow the occupation of his own choosing unless he can get a license for it, is likewise being deprived of an essential part of his freedom. So is the man who would like to exchange some of his goods with, say, a Swiss for a watch but is prevented from doing so by a quota. So also is the Californian who was thrown into jail for selling Alka Seltzer at a price below that set by the manufacturer under so-called "fair trade" laws. So also is the farmer who cannot grow the amount of wheat he wants. And so on. Clearly, economic freedom, in and of itself, is an extremely important part of total freedom.

 

Viewed as a means to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are important becuase of their effect on the concentration or dispersion of power. The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other.

 

Historical evidence speaks with a single voice on the relation between political freedom and a free market. I know of no example in time or place of a society that has been marked by a large measure of political freedom, and that has not also used something comparable to a free market to organize the bulk of economic activity.

 

Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has ever been anything like political freedom: the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery. The nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the Western world stand out as striking exceptions to the general trend of historical development. Political freedom in this instance clearly came along with the free market and the development of capitalist institutions. So also did political freedom in the golden age of Greece and in the early days of the Roman era.

That is logic.

[RoyalOrleans]

Or is he having a go at you?!

 

 

He should take a number.

[neilsthepoet]

"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle,... that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. that the only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

-- John Stuart Mill -

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good ol John.....straight there with it on that one.

 

 

 

 

Neils

11:22 am

04/15/2007

[Anna Perenna]

And one other thing ... Chomsky is NOT a socialist any more than he's an anarchist. He admires certain traits of socialism but doesn't believe in its literal application to the modern world. He has explained this before. In general, he's against most of the governments of the world and seeks to bring most of their crimes to light while suggesting logical steps to rectifying the problems. He thinks some countries would be better served as individual tribes rather than being forced into a nation-state system to begin with. Besides that, he also identifies with old-fashioned conservatism (not the fake conservatism of neo-cons).

 

Trying to fit Noam Chomsky's views into one political party or another is ignorant as shit. Generally, he's an anti-imperialist who exposes the crimes of all governments and parties while looking for logical solutions. And he's considered one of the greatest modern intellectuals around the world for good reason.

 

Uh-oh, I see trouble ahead for you.

 

You