Chavez Admin Takes on Stewie Griffin

Timshel

New member
I wonder if this retard knows that the government gives out money to spread drug war propaganda. I think, they are still doing that.

http://www.globalpost.com/notebook/...tes-drug-use-the-us-government-says-venezuela

It's a cause for controversy at home and has picked up a gamut of awards in the process, but now the popular cartoon show "Family Guy" has found itself caught in the middle of a spat between Venezuela and the United States about drug trafficking.

Venezuelan state TV today broadcast an excerpt from "Family Guy" as an example of how the U.S. promotes drug use. The clip features Stewie, the matricide-obsessed infant son of Peter and Lewis Lois Griffin, singing a song extolling the virtues of smoking weed.

"We can observe how [the U.S. government] promotes and incites the population to consume that drug there," said Tarek El Aissaimi, Venezuela's Interior Minister. "There's no subliminal message. It's an animated cartoon where you can observe perfectly how they promote consumption and moreover they foster the legalization of marijuana."

El Assaimi blames U.S. drug consumption for fueling drug trafficking in Latin America.

Venezuela took offense to a U.S. Congress report that concluded that Venezuela is undermining U.S. efforts to combat the drug trade in neighboring Colombia. Since then, El Aissaimi has been on a media blitz to prove how much effort the country is making to stamp out drug trafficking
 
I wonder if this retard knows that the government gives out money to spread drug war propaganda. I think, they are still doing that.

http://www.globalpost.com/notebook/...tes-drug-use-the-us-government-says-venezuela

It's a cause for controversy at home and has picked up a gamut of awards in the process, but now the popular cartoon show "Family Guy" has found itself caught in the middle of a spat between Venezuela and the United States about drug trafficking.

Venezuelan state TV today broadcast an excerpt from "Family Guy" as an example of how the U.S. promotes drug use. The clip features Stewie, the matricide-obsessed infant son of Peter and Lewis Lois Griffin, singing a song extolling the virtues of smoking weed.

"We can observe how [the U.S. government] promotes and incites the population to consume that drug there," said Tarek El Aissaimi, Venezuela's Interior Minister. "There's no subliminal message. It's an animated cartoon where you can observe perfectly how they promote consumption and moreover they foster the legalization of marijuana."

El Assaimi blames U.S. drug consumption for fueling drug trafficking in Latin America.

Venezuela took offense to a U.S. Congress report that concluded that Venezuela is undermining U.S. efforts to combat the drug trade in neighboring Colombia. Since then, El Aissaimi has been on a media blitz to prove how much effort the country is making to stamp out drug trafficking

LMAO... nice.... gotta love family guy
 
It's kind of unclear if that is what the guy really meant without more context. The bracketed part is the authors input, but the context that is given seems to indicate that is what he meant.

They are trying to ban the show through fines of broadcasters as they did with the Simpsons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8277129.stm

I don't see how the left defends these guys. Yeah, we have our own problems in this area (see comment about subsidies for drug war propaganda), but there censorship is far worse.
 
It's kind of unclear if that is what the guy really meant without more context. The bracketed part is the authors input, but the context that is given seems to indicate that is what he meant.

They are trying to ban the show through fines of broadcasters as they did with the Simpsons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8277129.stm

I don't see how the left defends these guys. Yeah, we have our own problems in this area (see comment about subsidies for drug war propaganda), but there censorship is far worse.

It's less that the left defends them, more of we've got our own problems and we have no moral authority to tell others what to do with their country.

They do not want to be Americans.

You are aware that we censor european shows from American TV and that we have a real long ass history of censorship in the US and that we currently rank 36th in the world on press freedom. Many African nations rank higher than we do.

United States Ranked 36th In The World For Press Freedom

The United States is ranked 36th in the world in terms of press freedom, up from 48th last year, according to a report released Wednesday by Reporters Sans Frontieres.

The US is tied with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, South Africa, Spain, and Taiwan in the 36th spot. Iceland, Luxembourg, and Norway are tied for first. Iran, China, Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea are all featured among the ten lowest-ranked countries.

According to the survey, the index "measures the state of press freedom in the world. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists and news organisations enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/22/united-states-ranked-36th_n_136788.html

Perhaps someone can explain the value of "The Family Guy" .. an absolutely putrid show that SHOULD be censored from children.
 
It's less that the left defends them, more of we've got our own problems and we have no moral authority to tell others what to do with their country.

I hear from plenty of leftists that think we should accept the moral authority of Venezuela. Chavez goes out of his way to preach the evils of the US.

You are aware that we censor european shows from American TV

In what way? I know many think there is some censorship of foreign films but the vast majority is just a condition of consumer preferences.

Perhaps someone can explain the value of "The Family Guy" .. an absolutely putrid show that SHOULD be censored from children.

Self censored (something your report seems to equate with state censorship), maybe. Or are you arguing for more state censorship due to your own preferences?

Consumers determine it's value based on their own choices. I enjoy the show and find that most criticism is based on the fact that many don't seem to get that Peter and many other characters are supposed to be seen as idiots.
 
I hear from plenty of leftists that think we should accept the moral authority of Venezuela. Chavez goes out of his way to preach the evils of the US.

Chavez and many others have a right to preach the evils of the US .. particularly when we have intervened in their internal affairs and attempted overthrows of legitimate governments, INCLUDING VENEZUELA.

What the left preaches is that Venezuelans have a right to choose their own leaders without US interference.

In what way? I know many think there is some censorship of foreign films but the vast majority is just a condition of consumer preferences.

We censor Al-Jazerra English in the US as well as all things deemed "anti-Israel." News of what happens in wars we engage in is censored. Individuals who have accounts and stories the government doesn't want told are censored with gag orders and any news agency that dare print their stories are threatened with jail.

There is a reason why we are 36th.

Self censored (something your report seems to equate with state censorship), maybe. Or are you arguing for more state censorship due to your own preferences?

I'm not arguing for any censorship at all .. just expressing that we have no moral authority to condemn others for censorship when we readily engage in it ourselves.

Consumers determine it's value based on their own choices. I enjoy the show and find that most criticism is based on the fact that many don't seem to get that Peter and many other characters are supposed to be seen as idiots.

I get that Peter is an idiot .. and for those who like watching shows about idiots, that's their choice .. however, I wouldn't allow underage children to watch it .. and it has been CORRECTLY pointed out that the show indulges drug use.

Why such fixation on what Venezuela is doing when we have more problems than they do with far-reaching consequences?

Americans love to point fingers at the rest of the world .. yet the US is the greatest prison nation in human history .. FAR surpassing ALL the totalitarian nations we look down our noses at.

AND, why wouldn't Venezuelans and everybody else not want to see their countries reject the illegal drug use of the US .. the highest in all the world.

U.S. Has Highest Levels of Illegal Drug Use
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/sa/a/drug_use.htm
 
Should there have been any comment on S Africa and apartheid? We have our racist past and continuing problems.


I'm not arguing for any censorship at all .. just expressing that we have no moral authority to condemn others for censorship when we readily engage in it ourselves.

Perhaps someone can explain the value of "The Family Guy" .. an absolutely putrid show that SHOULD be censored from children.

So "SHOULD be censored" means???

Why such fixation on what Venezuela is doing when we have more problems than they do with far-reaching consequences?

Your report put Venezuela at 113th, far below the US.

This story hit the press because Venezuela is on its own moral high horse and fixated with the US. Certainly, it was motivated by the congressional report, but they are doing the same thing and most of the press reports center around Venezuela shooting off it's mouth about the US.

You complain about the US criticizing their elected government as if Chavez has not taken every opportunity to do the same thing?
 
Should there have been any comment on S Africa and apartheid? We have our racist past and continuing problems.

So "SHOULD be censored" means???

Your report put Venezuela at 113th, far below the US.

This story hit the press because Venezuela is on its own moral high horse and fixated with the US. Certainly, it was motivated by the congressional report, but they are doing the same thing and most of the press reports center around Venezuela shooting off it's mouth about the US.

You complain about the US criticizing their elected government as if Chavez has not taken every opportunity to do the same thing?

My good brother whom I intend no offense ... perhaps you missed the part about US INTERVENTION IN VENEZUELA. Not only did the CIA try to overthrow Chavez .. they tried to assasinate him

CIA and FBI Plan to Assassinate Hugo Chávez

This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation. “How do we know that the CIA was behind the coup that overthrew Hugo Chávez?” asked historian William Blum in 2002. “Same way we know that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. That’s what it’s always done and there’s no reason to think that tomorrow morning will be any different.”

Now we have a bit more evidence the CIA and the FBI connived with reactionary elements to not only briefly overthrow Chávez, abolish the constitution and the National Assembly, but later assassinate the Venezuelan State Prosecutor, Danilo Anderson. He was killed by a car bomb in Caracas on November 18, 2004, while investigating those who were behind the coup. Giovani Jose Vasquez De Armas, a member of Colombia’s right wing paramilitary group called the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, claims he was in charge of logistics for the plot to kill Danilo Anderson. Vasquez De Armas told the Attorney General’s office that those planning the killing, “all discussed the plan with the help of the FBI and CIA.”

And the sun will rise tomorrow.

“According to the Attorney General, Vasquez De Armas said that during a meeting in Darien, Panama, on September 4 and 6, 2003, an FBI Officer called ‘Pesquera’ and a CIA agent called ‘Morrinson,’ attended a meeting along with two of the plot’s alleged organizers, Patricia Poleo and Salvador Romani, as well as two of those who actually did the killing, Rolando and Otoniel Guevera,” writes Alessandro Parma. “An official from the Attorney General’s office, speaking on behalf of Vasquez De Armas, said that in Panama the FBI and the plotting Venezuelans agreed, ‘to take out Chavez and the Government.’ He said, ‘the meeting’s final objective was to kill President Chavez and the Attorney General.’”

None of this is new or particularly revelatory. Steve Kangas writes:
"CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: “We’ll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us.” The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator.

The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be “communists,” but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow."

Examples include the coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran, the ouster of democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in Guatemala, one coup per year (between 1957-1973) in Laos, the installation of the murderous “Papa Doc” Duvalier in Haiti, the assassination of Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, the overthrow of Jose Velasco in Ecuador, the assassination of the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba in the Congo (later Zaire), the overthrow of the democratically elected Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic, the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart in Brazil, the overthrow of the democratically elected Sukarno government in Indonesia, a military coup in Greece designed to install the “reign of the colonels” (when the Greek ambassador complained about CIA plans for Cypress, Johnson told him: “F— your parliament and your constitution”), the overthrow of the popular Prince Sahounek in Cambodia, the overthrow of Juan Torres in Bolivia, the overthrow and assassination of Salvador Allende in Chile, the assassination of archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador, and dozens of other incidents rarely if ever taught in American school history lessons.

As John Perkins (author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man), as a former respected member of the international banking community and National Security Agency economist, told Amy Goodman: “Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring—to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government…. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men.” Perkins’ job was “deal-making”:

It was giving loans to other countries, huge loans, much bigger than they could possibly repay. One of the conditions of the loan—let’s say a $1 billion to a country like Indonesia or Ecuador—and this country would then have to give ninety percent of that loan back to a U.S. company, or U.S. companies, to build the infrastructure—a Halliburton or a Bechtel. These were big ones. Those companies would then go in and build an electrical system or ports or highways, and these would basically serve just a few of the very wealthiest families in those countries. The poor people in those countries would be stuck ultimately with this amazing debt that they couldn’t possibly repay. A country today like Ecuador owes over fifty percent of its national budget just to pay down its debt. And it really can’t do it. So, we literally have them over a barrel.

So, when we want more oil, we go to Ecuador and say, “Look, you’re not able to repay your debts, therefore give our oil companies your Amazon rain forest, which are filled with oil.” And today we’re going in and destroying Amazonian rain forests, forcing Ecuador to give them to us because they’ve accumulated all this debt. So we make this big loan, most of it comes back to the United States, the country is left with the debt plus lots of interest, and they basically become our servants, our slaves. It’s an empire. There’s no two ways about it. It’s a huge empire. It’s been extremely successful.
Most of the money for these loans, according to Perkins, is provided by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the two premier neolib loan sharking operations (it is important to note that the Straussian neocon, Paul Wolfowitz, is now president of the World Bank, thus demonstrating how closely related the neocons and traditional neolibs are).

If the loan sharks are unable to steal natural resources (oil, minerals, rainforests, water) as a condition of repaying this immense debt, “the next step is what we call the jackals.”

Jackals are CIA-sanctioned people that come in and try to foment a coup or revolution. If that doesn’t work, they perform assassinations—or try to. In the case of Iraq, they weren’t able to get through to Saddam Hussein… His bodyguards were too good. He had doubles. They couldn’t get through to him. So the third line of defense, if the economic hit men and the jackals fail, the next line of defense is our young men and women, who are sent in to die and kill, which is what we’ve obviously done in Iraq.

Hugo Chávez is now between the assassination point of this neolib plan and invasion, when “our young men and women” will be “sent in to die and kill” Venezuelan peasants the same way they are now killing poor Iraqis. Of course, it remains to be seen if Bush can actually invade Venezuela—the neocon roster is teeming with targets, from Syria to Iran—and so we can expect the Bushcons and their jackals to continue efforts to assassinate Chávez, as Giovani Jose Vasquez De Armas reveals the CIA and the FBI are attempting to do, with little success. One notable failure by the jackals is Fidel Castro in Cuba, who experienced numerous assassination attempts and CIA counterinsurgency specialist Edward Lansdale’s Operation Mongoose (consisting of sabotage and political warfare), also known as the ‘’Cuba Project.’‘

As Blum notes, we know all of this is happening, same as we know the sun will come up tomorrow.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1296

Additionally we have been training terrorists for years on American soil in Georgia and unleashing them upon Latin America like a plaugue.

I'm guessing that Chavez and leaders throughout Latin America have very good reasons to speak of American evil.

And, "So "SHOULD be censored" means???" means that parents should have more sense than to allow their children to watch shit like The Family Guy.
 
You are aware that we censor european shows from American TV

lol.....we censor them?.....well, perhaps we don't show those not in English, because they aren't in English.....and perhaps we don't show the British ones because they're so freckin' boring.....but I don't think anyone "censors" them....
 
lol.....we censor them?.....well, perhaps we don't show those not in English, because they aren't in English.....and perhaps we don't show the British ones because they're so freckin' boring.....but I don't think anyone "censors" them....

At least pretend you know history.

Tell me you know the history of censorship in America.

Tell me you know the genesis of the Presidential War Powers Act.

Tell me you know who Woodrow Wilson was.

Tell me you've been alive long enough to know that Bush .. the last one .. censored NASA and CDC scientists from talking to the press about their findings on global warming .. and if you've been alive that long then surely, surely, surely you know the Bush Adminstration censored the press from taking pictures of returning coffins .. with dead US soldiers in them .. dead for nothing.

If you don't know any of those things then the even deeper understanding of how a supposedly "free" press manages to censor itself .. well, you just wouldn't know anything about that .. even though the Bush years are probably the most glaring example in history. Tell the truth .. and you're an unpatriotic outcast.

Thank the LAWD for alternative and foreign press.

You wouldn't know anything about that I'm sure.

I could get much much deeper on how American press censors itself .. <whisper> "Isreal" ... but you know .. what would be the point?
 
At least pretend you know history.

Tell me you know the history of censorship in America.

Tell me you know the genesis of the Presidential War Powers Act.

Tell me you know who Woodrow Wilson was.

Tell me you've been alive long enough to know that Bush .. the last one .. censored NASA and CDC scientists from talking to the press about their findings on global warming .. and if you've been alive that long then surely, surely, surely you know the Bush Adminstration censored the press from taking pictures of returning coffins .. with dead US soldiers in them .. dead for nothing.

If you don't know any of those things then the even deeper understanding of how a supposedly "free" press manages to censor itself .. well, you just wouldn't know anything about that .. even though the Bush years are probably the most glaring example in history. Tell the truth .. and you're an unpatriotic outcast.

Thank the LAWD for alternative and foreign press.

You wouldn't know anything about that I'm sure.

I could get much much deeper on how American press censors itself .. <whisper> "Isreal" ... but you know .. what would be the point?

/wonders how long it will take BAC to realize that the very fact he is aware of these issues means his claims of "censorship" are unfounded.....
 
“How do we know that the CIA was behind the coup that overthrew Hugo Chávez?” asked historian William Blum in 2002. “Same way we know that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. That’s what it’s always done and there’s no reason to think that tomorrow morning will be any different.”
a classic example of the fallacy of liberal mind thought....."facts are irrelevant so long as our assumptions reign"........
 
My good brother whom I intend no offense ... perhaps you missed the part about US INTERVENTION IN VENEZUELA. Not only did the CIA try to overthrow Chavez .. they tried to assasinate him

...

I'm guessing that Chavez and leaders throughout Latin America have very good reasons to speak of American evil.

It's not that I am missing it. There just is not much room for further conversation on that point, because I agree.

Still, I think Chavez's own actions/words are a large cause for the "fixation." He keeps himself in the press here by taking potshots at the US and not just our government.

Also, just because our government has its flaws, which we should focus on over those of Venezuela's, does not mean we should ignore everything else going on in the world.

One poster (who seems to be on the left) was fishing to see if they could bash our nation for not caring about the suffering in Samoa. Should we respond, with noting that there are people still suffering from Katrina? I don't think so. That reasoning is a false dichotomy.
 
It's not that I am missing it. There just is not much room for further conversation on that point, because I agree.

Still, I think Chavez's own actions/words are a large cause for the "fixation." He keeps himself in the press here by taking potshots at the US and not just our government.

Also, just because our government has its flaws, which we should focus on over those of Venezuela's, does not mean we should ignore everything else going on in the world.

One poster (who seems to be on the left) was fishing to see if they could bash our nation for not caring about the suffering in Samoa. Should we respond, with noting that there are people still suffering from Katrina? I don't think so. That reasoning is a false dichotomy.

Much respect for your thoughts brother and I greatly appreciate the civil manner in which you express them.

Chavez is leading a Latin American revolution against western interests and FOR the interests of Latin America. The two are not always synonymous.

Without question, Chavez has done much to improve the quality of life for his own people and people throughout the region .. UNQUESTIONABLY. So why the fixation on Chavez? .. It's BECAUSE he's done much to improve the quality of life for his own people .. and very little to expand the pockets of western interests.

WE don't like leaders that put people first .. we never have .. and we most certainly don't do it in this country. The fixation has less to do with what Chavez is saying and everything to do with what Chavez is doing.

WE tried to overthrow him and kill him. He SHOULD be talking about the evils of the US .. if for nothing more than a survival strategy.

I agree that we shouldn't ignore what's going on in the world .. but we are naked and have no clothes on. Our history tells the truth of our actions brother.

We have an ugly ass demonic history throughout Latin America. .. and people there see our nakedness .. and they're running from it .. and forging ties with the SCO.

This is not intelligent foreign policy no matter how one looks at it.

They have very VERY good reasons to hate us.
 
Back
Top