You go shove us, Diablo? Si, este Real Presidentissimo es un puto diablo, mas que fueron las Marxistas russas. A devil. As from the mouths of babes, I found this petulent peasant leftist prophetic. A devil who can go to hell? I wonder. Come on- Baby dontcha ya wanna go? Discuss, Gringos mas Estupidos. Chavez Address to the UN
Bush is evil. But I have my doubts about Chavez. The enemy of my enemy isn't necessarily my friend. Still, I'd rather my money go to the poor in Venezuela than to the schools in Saudi Arabia turning out radical Muslims.
Both Chavez and Ahmdinejad are obviously finding vast audiences, not only for play in their own country. What we are witnessing now is highly significant, less in terms of some planetary popularity contest, or competition between front-men- rather: Criticism of the American neocons/neoimperialists is now clarifying, globalizing, pervading, and resonating. Which means a historic power shift is about to accelerate.
I just liked the fact that so many people thought it was funny (some apparently cheering) and didn't protest by remaining silent. I think it's precious! Hilarious actually.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Name any former Venezolano president. Name any other famous Venezolano period. Chávez is a populist. He's gotten his country on the front page of every newspaper in the world, and he's gotten it mentioned prominently in newscasts. It's even on the Daily Show. His people love him for that. That's what he's all about. For all his foolishness, I will always love him for calling that Redneck Retard a pendejo in public. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
All show and no go. If he hates us so bad why doesnt he just stop selling us oil? Oh thats right he needs the money...dang, capitalism can be a real bitch.
He doesn't hate us. He's a showman. This is his schtick. All leaders have their schtick. Bush has his. He's the good ole boy who can't use words right and is too dumb to be dishonest.
Schtick and show it may well be, but that doesn't mean it isn't serious. The American Empire is being called out. But it's too afraid to answer coherently. Do Americans still hold any remaining and sincere collective sense of national destiny that we can articulate to the world, or even each other? Who will answer? Will the Monkey speak for us? That's really the best we can do? Americans are dismissing and ignoring these increasingly frequent, frank, and embarrassing challenges in the most public of places because (shamefully) we have no reply. We are citizens of a paper empire, about to be stamped "cancelled", because we can't even bear to acknowledge much less promote it. We thought we could just assume We Are The Greatest because our textbooks tell us so, and that the world economy would always defer to America, leaving us to show the way, and allowing us the first biggest slice of the world pie. Wrong answer, pendejos.
Yes, unfortunately he had the likes of Mugabe siding with him, whose hot air kind of dilutes the message. That man's done worse to his country than ever the imperialists managed.
The world isn't suddenly free of assholes because arrogant and exploitative US foreign policies are being exposed. What is significant is that many fewer assholes are now taking orders from Washington. That means they can fall down all by themselves, and developing countries can then get a new chance at more secure and equitable futures, or whatever authentic democratic processes (not GW Bush's version) demand within sovereign states and new federations.
Originally posted by Hypewaders: When fewer assholes are taking orders from Washington, will lives change for the better? Let us take Saudi Arabia for an example: Saudi Arabia was dirt poor in before it oil revenues started to pour in, specifically from sales to the United States. The average life expectancy was 35 years old around 1950. By the 1990's it was almost 70. During the early 80's the Gross domestic income was at its highest, and then slowly began to fall after a peak. This was for two reasons: 10% of the income from oil does go to 7000 members of the royal family, but it always has been a corrupt nation. Population growth is the biggest reason for poverty and growing discontent. In 1975 there were 7 million and in the year 2005 there were 26 million. Is this the fault of the United States? The people of Saudi Arabia had very few problems with their goverment until the population exploded and the share of the pie dwindled. Now that they have less money, they increasingly blame the United States for propping up a government they have had for 150 years. The U.S. neither created the House of Saud, nor have they suggested to that government how they should repress their people. That government always has been repressive. Point here is that most problems in nations have little to do with the United States or its involvement in their nations, and have always existed. The United States takes advantage of some corrupt governments, but then again this is no different than what Europe or for that matter, China does themselves. The scale may simply be smaller. Saudi Arabia always had a repressive government, and it always will whether or not it is Islamic, a Monarch, a pretend democracy, or a dictatorship. It is what its people have come to expect. Saudi extremism has been a direct result of poverty from overpopulation, and Islamic schools that have fomented violence. If the United States left today, its problems would still remain strong. Has China suffered from its trade with the United States? Has South Korea suffered? What about Japan? The United States has employed the same economic tactics, yet the result was different. Remember, Japan was even under US occupation. Do you ever ask whether the problem may lie within the nation itself, and not with the US who you so often criticize?
Originally posted by Nickelodeon: Just as one example, France, Germany, and Russia's resistance to the Iraq war in reality had little to do with their moral views, but rather the billions that that regime owed them. The overthrow of Hussein's regime made the goal of collecting that money impossible.
