Bush Is "The Devil" and The Master of Chaos and Death!

Prakosh said:
That's nothing, the day after his performance at the United Nations, Chavez took his stand-up routine to the Church in Harlem, where he said what he really thought. Chavez called Bush an "alcoholic," (Bush is really a dry drunk, or at least that is what he claims) and said he was a "sick man." Chevez is not alone in his diagnosis. In Bush on the Couch (2004), Justin A. Frank, M.D. a teaching analyist at the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute, was even less forgiving. After looking at Bush's false sense of ominpotence, the president's history of untreated alcohol abuse, the growing anecdotal evidence that Bush suffers from several different thought disorders, his comfort living outside the law, his love-hate relationship with his father, and Bush's rigid and simplistic thought patterns, paranoia, and megalomania, Frank suggests Bush is sick indeed.
Click to expand...
The really funny thing, from my perspective, is that our Fearless Leader has been saying the exact same sort of things about other world leaders for six years. Where was the outrage then? Where were all of the critics now bashing Chavez for being impolite and impolitic when Shrub was bloviating on the "Axis of Evil" and whatnot?

Given my choice between George W. Bush and Hugo Chavez for President of the United States, I'll take Chavez. In a heartbeat. As Darla says, at least he's clever.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
I know. I maintain, however, that business is far more powerful -- and dangerous -- than government. That's the fatal flaw in free market ideology in general . . . and Libertarianism in particular.
Click to expand...
I believe 100% that personal freedom begins with financial freedom.
 
I do not believe that riches for one denies riches for another... I believe that a free economy is the foundation of a strong society. I do advocate, as I am not "lockstep" a smart oversight over that economy.

Socialism has caused more "approved" death than any other system that I know. The severe control of government over the finances precludes severe control elsewhere.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
The really funny thing, from my perspective, is that our Fearless Leader has been saying the exact same sort of things about other world leaders for six years. Where was the outrage then? Where were all of the critics now bashing Chavez for being impolite and impolitic when Shrub was bloviating on the "Axis of Evil" and whatnot?

Given my choice between George W. Bush and Hugo Chavez for President of the United States, I'll take Chavez. In a heartbeat. As Darla says, at least he's clever.
Click to expand...

One thing the corporate media isn't making clear to the viewing public, is that Chavez hates Bush. Not America. Bush is not america.

I don't give a shit if he hates bush. He kinda is justified in doing so. The Bushies gave their tacit approval to the military junta that tried to overthrow the democratically elected Chavez a few years back. And Bush's good friend and political ally, Pat Robertson, called for our government to assassinate Chavez - and I don't believe Bush ever rebuked his friend Robertson for that.

I've traveled in venezeula. The people like and respect american citizens. There's no desire to attack us or "invade" us. Just more fear-mongering from Sean Hannity.

That being said, I think it was highly inappropriate to use the UN General Assembly, to hurl that kind of insult.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
One of the distinctions between us. I would rather the corrupt socialist over the corrupt capitalist. The former is less dangerous, in the long term.
Click to expand...

Stalin, mau, pol pot, castro, lets list all your favorite less dangerous socialists. The first thing to go in a "socialist" society are the intelligencia. Anyone with more than a basic eduaction is either killed or imprisoned for re-education. Unless you are part of the elite, that includes you. The only ones that live well in a socialist society are the elite rulers of the society.

Based on the above comment you are an avowed communist.
 
Gaffer said:
Stalin, mau, pol pot, castro, lets list all your favorite less dangerous socialists. The first thing to go in a "socialist" society are the intelligencia. Anyone with more than a basic eduaction is either killed or imprisoned for re-education. Unless you are part of the elite, that includes you. The only ones that live well in a socialist society are the elite rulers of the society.

Based on the above comment you are an avowed communist.
Click to expand...

You might want to pull out your college text books for a quick review.

Socialists are not the same as communists. The dudes you mentioned are communist.

Unless Ornot cares to correct me, I believe some american leftists admire the hybrid socialism that is found in places like the Scandinavian countries.
 
LOL. They were socialist. Admiring certain socialists doesn't change that socialist governments have by far committed some of the worst ever violations of human decency.

They weren't marxist, or communist, they were most definitely socialist.

Here, for your reading pleasure... Even Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. realized they had, at best, an imperfect form of socialism....

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/commievssoc.html

According to Marx, under socialism we have a dictatorship of the proletariat which is a government organized for the defense of survival "rights." Also, distribution goes by the principle "from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her work."

Under communism, according to Marx, the government disappears and there is economic cooperation as well. The principle of distribution becomes "from each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her need."
Click to expand...
 
Ahem....

Damo, you were the one arguing that Theocrats were the same thing as Fascists.

Now, your wildly spinning to say socalists are the same thing as communists. Refusing to see any nuance. You can talk to AOI and Ornot, if you'd like to learn some of the differences

I rest my case.
 
I was not the one arguing that Theocrats are the same thing as Fascists. I specified and made an argument stating I could see how people could consider bin Laden's movement to be fascist... That is not the same thing. If I believed Theocrats to be Fascist, then the Pope is a fascist, patent bullpucky...

It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
 
Cypress said:
Ahem....

Damo, you were the one arguing that Theocrats were the same thing as Fascists.

Now, your wildly spinning to say socalists are the same thing as communists. Refusing to see any nuance. You can talk to AOI and Ornot, if you'd like to learn some of the differences

I rest my case.
Click to expand...
Also I specifically pointed out that Socialists and Communists were different. So, not only did you get my previous argument wrong, I never said all Theocrats were Fascists, you also got my point in this thread wrong. I believe it takes desperation to specifically mess up like that with the actual person who made the point(s). Why are you so desperate to "prove" that those socialists were not socialists?
 
Damocles said:
Also I specifically pointed out that Socialists and Communists were different. So, not only did you get my previous argument wrong, I never said all Theocrats were Fascists, you also got my point in this thread wrong. I believe it takes desperation to specifically mess up like that with the actual person who made the point(s). Why are you so desperate to "prove" that those socialists were not socialists?
Click to expand...

I was responding to Gaffer.

Surely you see his logical fallacy:

Gaffer: "Ornot, you say your a socialist? Well, Stalin and Pol Pot were socialists! Therefore Ornot, you are a Communist!

Damo, do you think Ornot is a communist?

Or do you agree with me, that Gaffer's logical algorithym might be a tad flawed?
 
Unfortunately the masses and a sizable majority of voters of Venezeula agree with Ornot. Although I agree with many of Chavez's policies and I particularly approve of his subsidized heating oil program and his ability to stir up the FOXNEWS crowd to a fever pitch, not a small accomplishment or something I slough off with an aside. But after watching Amy Goodman's interview of the more reserved but no less radical president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, I think he is one of the best and I may even like his approach better than Chavez or maybe the combination of the two as a sort of good el presidente, bad el presidente. It set me to thinking about why we have never been able to elect a labor leader to a high office in this country. I think that it is because we basically don't have any respect on a national level for labor, the people who do it or the leaders that they elect year after year to lead their fight. We seem to have started out with a mythological glorification of the "yeoman farmer" the original incarnation of today’s equally glorified small business man and we just never got over it.

I began reading my copy of "Hegemony or Survival" which I bought in 2003 but with so much to read and so little time and posting hither and yon and trying to make time for all the things I want to do. I have put off starting it, but I finally did, and found out I had a first edition. Anyway on page 7 Chomsky writes about James Madison. I find his statement frightening and enlightening.

"James Madison held that power must be delegated to 'the wealth of the nation,' 'the more capable set of men,' who understand that the role of government is 'to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.' Precapitalist in his world view, Madison had the faith that the 'enlightened Statesman' and 'benevolent philosopher' who were to exercise power would discern the true interest of their country and guard the public interest against the mischief of democratic minorities. The mischief would be avoided Madison hoped, under the system of fragmentation he devised. In later years he came to fear that severe problems would arise with the likely increase of those who 'will labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its benefits.' A good deal of modern history reflects these conflicts over who will make decisions, and how."

In America, the Senate is quickly becoming our very own version of the House of Lords, with millionaires far outnumbering those who don’t have such a fortune, at the same time, the Forbes 400 doesn’t even contain a millionaire in its ranks, it is now a billionaires only club.

And yet the right hems and haws because college professors make more than a $100,000 a year. And refuses to pay those who they charge with teaching their offspring more than $25,000 a year to start in most districts and then cry because they are not more easily fired. Why not just bring in Mexicans and other illegals to do it, if they are good enough for the flowers and nannying; they should be able to teach their young charges everything they need to know to be like their parents. Certainly for this kind of money you don't expect any expertise.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
How could you possibly be responding to Gaffer when you begin with, "Damo, you were the one..."?
Click to expand...

Because you responded to My post, which was to Gaffer.

Back to the question:

Do you agree with Gaffer's logical construction that because Stalin and Pol Pot were socialists, then it logically follows that Ornot - a self admitted socialist - is a therefore communist?

Or, do you agree with me that Gaffer's logical algorithim left something to be desired?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top