The Southern White Man's Party

[uscitizen]

Umm could it be because those feelings are generated for political reasons ?
Not out of real compassion for the people of VZ , or understanding of their real situation ?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't understand why you believe those who do not like Chavez are somehow faking these feelings?

because.. liberals like her are so open-minded that they believe anyone who thinks differently must simply be faking it.

 

[Epicurus]

Umm could it be because those feelings are generated for political reasons ?
Not out of real compassion for the people of VZ , or understanding of their real situation ?

Please share with us your real compassion and your insightful understanding of their situation so that we may end our faux-outrage.

 

[uscitizen]

As I understand it the majority of the people in VZ elected and I think reelected Chavez because they feel they are better off.....
That is good enough for me, I do not try to run someone elses country.
Be glad that other countries do not try to run ours for electing Bush 2X.

 

[cawacko]

Please share with us your real compassion and your insightful understanding of their situation so that we may end our faux-outrage.

I guess he's saying when Chavez spoke out against U.S. foreign policy and a large group of people here agreed him it was really faux outrage because Bush was elected by the people and Chavez has no right to tell us what to do in our country.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

As I understand it the majority of the people in VZ elected and I think reelected Chavez because they feel they are better off.....
That is good enough for me, I do not try to run someone elses country.
Be glad that other countries do not try to run ours for electing Bush 2X.

Is it also in their best interest to have the press that is opposed to Chavez shut down? So that they are cut off from as much of the dissenting view as possible?

 

[Cancel7]

I guess he's saying when Chavez spoke out against U.S. foreign policy and a large group of people here agreed him it was really faux outrage because Bush was elected by the people and Chavez has no right to tell us what to do in our country.

Do any of you know anything about US foreign policy in Latin America?

If so, may I ask why you are all outraged now because a socialist is in charge, but weren't when US backed dictators were murdering, torturing, raping, disappearing and maiming people there?????

Maybe that's why Tiana thinks it's faux outrage now, could it be, or am I crazy talking again?

I implore all of you to please read something about what the US did in Latin America, please.

 

[Cancel7]

Is it also in their best interest to have the press that is opposed to Chavez shut down? So that they are cut off from as much of the dissenting view as possible?

Was it in their best interest to have dicators whose goons murdered thousands of babies by holding them by their feet and knocking their heads against rocks?

But these dicators were "anti-communist" so it was in their best interests? I am asking.

 

[Cypress]

Is it also in their best interest to have the press that is opposed to Chavez shut down? So that they are cut off from as much of the dissenting view as possible?

Do you have a link that he shut down the press?

I read that he shut down a television station. I'm quite sure that's not the quivalent of the entire press. When I lived in venezuelan, there were a ton of newspapers.

I'm simply not going to believe anyone who quotes bush anymore, or the rightwing media. Yes, he did not renew the liscence of a TV station he alleges was involved in the 2002 coup. I don't know who's telling the truth. Do I think press freedom is not what is should be in venezueula? Yes. But, from my experiecne, Venezueal is neither the best, nor the worst in latin american when it comes to human rights and press freedom. Yet, Chavez gets all the threads here dedicated to him by bush voters. I wonder why?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Was it in their best interest to have dicators whose goons murdered thousands of babies by holding them by their feet and knocking their heads against rocks?

But these dicators were "anti-communist" so it was in their best interests? I am asking.

Funny, but hasn't Venezuela had democratic elections since the 60's? Wasn't it Chavez himself that led the military coup against the democratically elected President in the early 90's? Isn't Chavez the one that is setting up to rule as a dictator? Turning their Constitution into a "I am King" documentation? Isn't it Chavez who is returning Venezuela to the military dictatorship that the country escaped in the early 1900's? Isn't it Chavez that is eliminating all opposing factions ability to speak to the public via the media?

Do you know a damn thing about this man? You can spout all the outrage you want against brutal dictators... because I agree with you. But to act as if Chavez is not one of those dictators is a mistake.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

"And both Hispanics and Asians, another growing force in the electorate, are getting the message. Last year they voted overwhelmingly Democratic, by 69 percent and 62 percent respectively".

But that's stupid! If they start voting as heavily Democratic as black people do, than the Democratic party will take them for granted! I'm concerned. I have concern for black and hispanic people. They should vote for Republicans who won't go to their debates and either want to kick them out of the country or put them in jail. Because otherwise the Democrats will take them for granted! I'm concerned. Did I mention how concerned I am?



Politics in Black and White
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Last Thursday there was a huge march in Jena, La., to protest the harsh and unequal treatment of six black students arrested in the beating of a white classmate. Students who hung nooses to warn blacks not to sit under a “white” tree were suspended for three days; on the other hand, the students accused in the beating were initially charged with second-degree attempted murder.

And one of the Jena Six remains in jail, even though appeals courts have voided his conviction on the grounds that he was improperly tried as an adult.

Many press accounts of the march have a tone of amazement. Scenes like those in Jena, the stories seemed to imply, belonged in the 1960s, not the 21st century. The headline on the New York Times report, “Protest in Louisiana Case Echoes the Civil Rights Era,” was fairly typical.

But the reality is that things haven’t changed nearly as much as people think. Racial tension, especially in the South, has never gone away, and has never stopped being important. And race remains one of the defining factors in modern American politics.

Consider voting in last year’s Congressional elections. Republicans, as President Bush conceded, received a “thumping,” with almost every major demographic group turning against them. The one big exception was Southern whites, 62 percent of whom voted Republican in House races.

And yes, Southern white exceptionalism is about race, much more than it is about moral values, religion, support for the military or other explanations sometimes offered. There’s a large statistical literature on the subject, whose conclusion is summed up by the political scientist Thomas F. Schaller in his book “Whistling Past Dixie”: “Despite the best efforts of Republican spinmeisters to depict American conservatism as a nonracial phenomenon, the partisan impact of racial attitudes in the South is stronger today than in the past.”

Republican politicians, who understand quite well that the G.O.P.’s national success since the 1970s owes everything to the partisan switch of Southern whites, have tacitly acknowledged this reality. Since the days of Gerald Ford, just about every Republican presidential campaign has included some symbolic gesture of approval for good old-fashioned racism.

Thus Ronald Reagan, who began his political career by campaigning against California’s Fair Housing Act, started his 1980 campaign with a speech supporting states’ rights delivered just outside Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered. In 2000, Mr. Bush made a pilgrimage to Bob Jones University, famed at the time for its ban on interracial dating.

And all four leading Republican candidates for the 2008 nomination have turned down an invitation to a debate on minority issues scheduled to air on PBS this week.

Yet if the marchers at Jena reminded us that America still hasn’t fully purged itself of the poisonous legacy of slavery, it would be wrong to suggest that the nation has made no progress. Racism, though not gone, is greatly diminished: both opinion polls and daily experience suggest that we are truly becoming a more tolerant, open society.

And the cynicism of the “Southern strategy” introduced by Richard Nixon, which delivered decades of political victories to Republicans, is now starting to look like a trap for the G.O.P.

One of the truly remarkable things about the contest for the Republican nomination is the way the contenders have snubbed not just blacks — who, given the G.O.P.’s modern history, probably won’t vote for a Republican in significant numbers no matter what — but Hispanics. In July, all the major contenders refused invitations to address the National Council of La Raza, which Mr. Bush addressed in 2000. Univision, the Spanish-language TV network, had to cancel a debate scheduled for Sept. 16 because only John McCain was willing to come.

If this sounds like a good way to ensure defeat in future elections, that’s because it is: Hispanics are a rapidly growing force in the electorate.

But to get the Republican nomination, a candidate must appeal to the base — and the base consists, in large part, of Southern whites who carry over to immigrants the same racial attitudes that brought them into the Republican fold to begin with. As a result, you have the spectacle of Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, pragmatists on immigration issues when they actually had to govern in diverse states, trying to reinvent themselves as defenders of Fortress America.

And both Hispanics and Asians, another growing force in the electorate, are getting the message. Last year they voted overwhelmingly Democratic, by 69 percent and 62 percent respectively.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

Correction - the AMERICAN southern white man's party.

*Waves American/Confederate flag*

 

[uscitizen]

Is it also in their best interest to have the press that is opposed to Chavez shut down? So that they are cut off from as much of the dissenting view as possible?

well I guess some of their media ware harder to buy than the media here. And who keeps wanting to shut down PBS and NPR here ?

 

[Cancel7]

Funny, but hasn't Venezuela had democratic elections since the 60's? Wasn't it Chavez himself that led the military coup against the democratically elected President in the early 90's? Isn't Chavez the one that is setting up to rule as a dictator? Turning their Constitution into a "I am King" documentation? Isn't it Chavez who is returning Venezuela to the military dictatorship that the country escaped in the early 1900's? Isn't it Chavez that is eliminating all opposing factions ability to speak to the public via the media?

Do you know a damn thing about this man? You can spout all the outrage you want against brutal dictators... because I agree with you. But to act as if Chavez is not one of those dictators is a mistake.

No, Chavez is the one who was elected President in 1992.

And yes, Venezuela is probably the most stable democracy in Latin America. And they elect leftist leaders, rather than allow the US to install muderous dicators, as they did all over Latin and Central America. Hundreds of thousands of people were murdered and hundreds of thousands more tortured under Reagan's adminstration alone, who used this part of the world as a damned workshop, though they were not the first, and you want people to get outraged over a freaking socialist? Reagan is burning in hell today because of what he allowed there.

It is no wonder to me why the Venezuelan people love Chavez. They have not forgotten Guatemala, nor will they ever.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

well I guess some of their media ware harder to buy than the media here. And who keeps wanting to shut down PBS and NPR here ?

Strawman.... people want to stop public funding, I haven't heard proposals to shut them down.

 

[Cypress]

Funny, but hasn't Venezuela had democratic elections since the 60's? Wasn't it Chavez himself that led the military coup against the democratically elected President in the early 90's? Isn't Chavez the one that is setting up to rule as a dictator? Turning their Constitution into a "I am King" documentation? Isn't it Chavez who is returning Venezuela to the military dictatorship that the country escaped in the early 1900's? Isn't it Chavez that is eliminating all opposing factions ability to speak to the public via the media?

Do you know a damn thing about this man? You can spout all the outrage you want against brutal dictators... because I agree with you. But to act as if Chavez is not one of those dictators is a mistake.

Oh hell, in Latin america participating in a coup is like going to the county fair for an american congress person. Its a right of passage. Not to excuse it, its just what it is.

Interesting for you to bring up the 1992. You should really get off Drudge and the White House website, and read up on venezuelan history from the late 1980s and early 1990s. A center-right government was in power then, and tried a bunch of so called free market reforms and mass privitization. And the economy basically collapsed as a result. Funny how often that happens. Anyway, with the economic devastaion came corruption, plutocracy, and kleptocracy. Which, as I understand it, ultmately paved the way for chavez to get elected in 1998, and turn the country away from its disasterous experiment with poorly implemented privitization schemes.

 

[uscitizen]

Strawman.... people want to stop public funding, I haven't heard proposals to shut them down.

and without public funding they can be bought just like the rest of our media. Not a strawman, your public funding issue is a strawman.

 

[Cancel7]

Oh hell, in Latin america participating in a coup is like going to the county fair for an american congress person. Its a right of passage. Not to excuse it, its just what it is.

Interesting for you to bring up the 1992. You should really get off Drudge and the White House website, and read up on venezuelan history from the late 1980s and early 1990s. A center-right government was in power then, and tried a bunch of so called free market reforms and mass privitization. And the economy basically collapsed as a result. Funny how often that happens. Anyway, with the economic devastaion came corruption, plutocracy, and kleptocracy. Which, as I understand it, ultmately paved the way for chavez to get elected in 1998, and turn the country away from its disasterous experiment with poorly implemented privitization schemes.

And that is when Chavez did attempt a coup, but it failed. He was elected three times by his own people.

But you know, all of that aside, when I think of the things, just unholy things, that happened in that part of the world just so recently, with US participation, couldn't have happened without US participation! and the things they did to children even, young girls, and these people are outraged over a fuckign socialist, get real!!

Where were you people in the 80's? Were any of you out on the streets because you damned well should have been. These people hate us. Nixon was nearly murdered in Venezuala because of the genocide in Guatemala when he visited there as vice president. But they should be worried about "free markets"!

I mean for God sakes people, get your head out of US propaganda and wake the fuck up. Their children were raped, tortured and murdered in front of them, they don't give a fuck for your free markets. Jesus Christ Almighty.

 

[Cypress]

No, Chavez is the one who was elected President in 1992.

And yes, Venezuela is probably the most stable democracy in Latin America. And they elect leftist leaders, rather than allow the US to install muderous dicators, as they did all over Latin and Central America. Hundreds of thousands of people were murdered and hundreds of thousands more tortured under Reagan's adminstration alone, who used this part of the world as a damned workshop, though they were not the first, and you want people to get outraged over a freaking socialist? Reagan is burning in hell today because of what he allowed there.

It is no wonder to me why the Venezuelan people love Chavez. They have not forgotten Guatemala, nor will they ever.

If these dudes would ever get off the Drudge website, they might learn that the venezuealan government of the late 1980s and early 1990s was highly corrupt, and was indeed found guilty of mass human rights violations. Chavez is no saint. But, I suspect he's no worse, and probably better than what came before him.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, Chavez is the one who was elected President in 1992.

And yes, Venezuela is probably the most stable democracy in Latin America. And they elect leftist leaders, rather than allow the US to install muderous dicators, as they did all over Latin and Central America. Hundreds of thousands of people were murdered and hundreds of thousands more tortured under Reagan's adminstration alone, who used this part of the world as a damned workshop, though they were not the first, and you want people to get outraged over a freaking socialist? Reagan is burning in hell today because of what he allowed there.

It is no wonder to me why the Venezuelan people love Chavez. They have not forgotten Guatemala, nor will they ever.

Wrong... Chavez went to prison for attempting to over throw Perez.

Venezuela WAS the most stable democracy in Latin America... by far... until Chavez decided to make himself into the dictator he always wanted to be. Any time you shut down the media and start assuming total control over a country, you are a dictator. Pretty soon we will see elections much in the same manner Saddam had in Iraq. Vote for me or die....

Quit trying to bring the rest of Latin America into this. The leaders the Venezuelan people elected were not all leftists to the extent Chavez was.

Also, please make sure to share your blame with Tip O'Neil and the Dems that led Congress for decades as this was done. I must say, I do find your faux Reagan outrage amusing though.

 

[uscitizen]

The real reason that many hate/fear Hugo is the nationalization of his coutries oil.
That is the truth of it.