Obama Goes to Summit, Gets a Galeano Book... and Detente

It turns out that Barack Obama was right when he said during last year's presidential debates that talking to foreign leaders might actually ease international tensions.

After Obama used an address at the Summit of the Americas to reject U.S. "heavy-handedness" toward Latin America and exchanged greetings with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Chavez has responded by voicing hopes for a "new era" in relations and moved to immediately renew diplomatic relations between his country and the U.S.

Venezuela withdrew its ambassador to the U.S. in solidarity with Bolivia, which had expelled a U.S. ambassador appointed by former President Bush, Patrick Duddy, who stood accused of meddling in local affairs. The U.S. responded by expelling the ambassadors from Venezuela and Bolivia.

Now, after Obama's trip to the summit -- where Chavez greeted him Saturday with the words "I want to be your friend" and the gift of a Eduardo Galeano's anti-imperialist manifesto, Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent -- everbody's talking about exchanging ambassadors and improving relations.

(As for Galeano's book, Obama's review is not in. But the president said of the gift: "I thought it was a nice gesture to give me that book. I'm a reader." So, it happens, are a lot of other folks. The publicity about the gift sent the Uruguayan author's book to No. 2 on amazon.com)

Score one for diplomacy -- and for Barack Obama's efforts to make the United States part of a safer, saner, more functional world and undo the damage of the Bush years. And for Eduardo Galeano.

Comments (125)

1. It seems Obama is doing nothing to alleviate concerns that he would be another far left marxist loving ruler.

   Now he's buddies with Chavez and Ortega. What's next? brunch with Fidel and Chavez in Havanna?

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/19/2009 @ 12:23pm

2. Is brunch so bad if normalized relations with our 'former colonies' means that we can avoid Ruskis on our doorstep and obtain better 'oil spike' management?

   Posted by snowball666 at 04/19/2009 @ 12:43pm

   You don't give credibility to a thug like Chavez who openly speaks of seeing the US destroyed.

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/19/2009 @ 12:48pm

3. NICHOLS: ".....Barack Obama was right when he said ....that talking to foreign leaders might actually ease international tensions....Score one for diplomacy..."

   Mere foreign visits to introduce himself is "Score one for diplomacy"? Just how much lower can Presidential standards be lowered for The Messiah, he who's already the equals of Lincoln, JFK & NLK?

   I know, he's able to walk on water, heal the sick and is the one he's been waiting for.....but, come on, let's look at common English definition:

   Di-plo-ma-cy: The practice or art of conducting international negotiations.

   So, what exactly has Magic scored on his "negotiations"? Did he negotiate with Ortega to let the US take the 50-min. beating? In exchange for what exactly?

   Where is the Beef, John????

   Posted by Happy at 04/19/2009 @ 1:40pm

4. But its okay for us to legitamize Pinochet, Marcos, Saddam, etc?

   Cherry pickin'

   Even Nixon went to China.

   Posted by snowball666 at 04/19/2009 @ 1:56pm

   Those were "lesser" evils.

   And I disagreed with Nixon when he went to China. That was when I completely went against him.

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/19/2009 @ 2:22pm

5. Is brunch so bad if normalized relations with our 'former colonies' means that we can avoid Ruskis on our doorstep and obtain better 'oil spike' management?

   Posted by snowball666 at 04/19/2009 @ 12:43pm

   Yes, brunch is bad and Russia is already there.

   Posted by ACook at 04/19/2009 @ 2:32pm

6. "the gift of a a book on foreign exploitation of Latin American countries"

   John Nichols you can't spin this one. As my youngest child said "Mama he got punk'd and dissed by Chavez". Again!!

   WTF!! Chavez is not interested in "being friends" with the US. He's got his best buds - Russia, Cuba, and Iran.

   If someone is extending a hand in friendship, you don't turn around and shove a book in the man's hand (right in front of flashing cameras) that critizes America's treatment of Latin American countries and smile all while you're doing it. Chavez made Obama look like a complete fool. Just damn!

   Posted by ACook at 04/19/2009 @ 2:49pm

7. "You don't realize how badly your side's approach to the rest of the world has failed since 9/11 do you?"

   And you think "your side" did any better under Clinton?

   "How can you expect the rest of the world to take us seriously if we insist on pretending that our rather horrendous history is just some unpleasant fiction which doesn't fit in with the mythology we've written for ourselves since St. RayGun's 'Morning in America' speech?"

   I, personally, don't expect anything from rest of the world. If they don't take the U.S. seriously its due to the U.S. not taking itself seriously.

   "The rest of us won't be ignorant because it makes you feel better about our history in Latin America."

   Since the beginning of civilization, every country has had it's own "horrendous history" to deal with, and the US is no exception.

   "A strong country can handle criticism and address it directly."

   True, but they don't get politically bitch-slapped by a guy like Chavez either.

   Censorship is for scared, weak juntas and big brother dictatorships only.

   You mean like Iran, Cuba, Russia, China, Venezula, the ME and many countries in Africa?

   "Listen, when you get much older, you'll come to understand that everything you think ..."

   "Grow up yourself."

   You know what the difference between you and I are? One of them happends to be age (47) and the other is I respect the opinions of others. I don't have to stoop to writing immature lines out of frustration because the arguements presented have had little effect. That's what debate is all about. You will never see me write anything like that. Even when others hurl insults at me, I don't respond in kind.

   Now, what I wrote to C3 was the truth. He's only in his early 20s.

   Posted by snowball666 at 04/19/2009 @ 3:58pm

   Posted by ACook at 04/19/2009 @ 4:38pm

8. We need to work on cultivating friendships among the countries in our own hemisphere (western). Is there anything so bad about profits ending up in the hands of indigenous peoples rather than in the pockets of international oligarchs?

   Maybe if we're friends we can negotiate for more Venezuelan oil for ourselves. Good for the American people. Good for the Venezuelan people.

   Posted by Sorelish at 04/19/2009 @ 6:49pm

9. Though I have never operated on a grand scale, it has been my experience, that you have to listen to people, talk with them, and work with them, if you want to get things done. On one of those Sunday morning political programs, a pundit was wondering if Syria could be split off from Iran, in order for Israel could be more secure. Conflict resolution is about bring people together and not dividing them. Dividing people is about seeking a temporary tactical advantage that has no lasting effect. Conflict resolution is hard work , but no one must be left out of the peace process.

   Posted by pjcasey at 04/19/2009 @ 7:06pm

10. According to Wikipedia:

    "During an interview with Amy Goodman on the night of Barack Obama's election as President of the United States, [Eduardo] Galeano said that 'The White House will be Barack Obama's house in the time coming, but this White House was built by black slaves. And I'd like, I hope, that he never, never forgets this.' [7]"

    'So, what exactly has Magic scored on his "negotiations"?' asked "Happy."

    Respect, say I. Something our previous president could never find anywhere outside our borders and has nearly completely lost even at home.

    Nothing says "strength" like a few moments in which our president takes time off from pressing our own interests and recognizes that others have interests as well. The presentation of a book by Eduardo Galeano was not a capitulation. It was a recognition of a deep and shared historical truth. It is on the basis of such truth that progress can be made.

    Just as childish timidity develops into pride, so does pride develop into humility. Alas, not everybody matures this far. Some people only get as far as pride, and when they see humility in others who are more mature than themselves, they mistake it for timidity. Humility is nothing more than the refusal to take credit for one's own good fortune. It is refined pride, pride that is cleansed of arrogance and imbued with generosity. I hope that someday more of our conservatives discover what humility is and learn to recognize it and admire it in others.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/19/2009 @ 7:19pm

11. hey, larry,

    ever ask yourself WHY mr. chavez came to power?

    pinche gringos.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 04/19/2009 @ 7:27pm

12. "Humility is an anathema to the conservative culture of personal and American exceptionalism."

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/19/2009 @ 7:44pm

    No, humility is not anathema to we conservatives. Timidity and weakness is.

    Obama would have shown better leadership if he had politely smiled back and said "no thank you". That would have put Chavez on notice, "just because I'm attending this summit with you doesn't mean I'll put up with your foolishness".

    This is the second time Chavez has called Obama out and next time he'll be much more bolder.

    And yes, there is no shame in being an exceptional people, that's what sets us apart from every other country. I don't know about you, but I have no desire to mimic what Europe does or anyone else for that matter.

    Posted by ACook at 04/19/2009 @ 8:47pm

13. Posted by antisocialist at 04/19/2009 @ 2:22pm

    Larry, have you EVER bought ANY products...

    made in China?

    If so...why is opening up Cuba different?

    Posted by Mask at 04/19/2009 @ 8:50pm

14. "I'm pretty sure you've squandered your 10-year head start; your opinions sound right at home coming out of a rebellious 12-year old."

    Now you're beginning to sound like the weird German living in NY who haunts this blogsite. And like you, he thinks he's an intellectual too, bragging about his IQ and how well read he is.

    Iran: a vacuum created by us and filled by insane mullahs...I doubt Mossadegh's nationalists would have been nearly as repressive.

    I'm sorry, but no. The US didn't create the vaccum, that was the Shah of Iran's making. The US may have taken advantage of the situation regarding their oil reserves, but the Shah was a very corrupt monarch to begin with. And we weren't the only western nation he cozied up to. We aren't to blame for all of Iran's ills.

    "Cuba: A tiny island we exploited to the point of revolution (history conservatives often conveniently ignore...like nothing before the missile crisis counts)."

    We exploited?! It's the same thing with Bautista except his relationship with Eisenhower wasn't that good to begin with. He was corrupt. And those coups he staged in Cuba were by him and not the US.

    "As for your taking the high road, I'll let you get back to characterizing the president as a bitch-slapped fool, since you're so constrained to the morays of eloquent debate and whatnot."

    I have no regrets.

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/19/2009 @ 5:28pm

    Posted by ACook at 04/19/2009 @ 9:48pm

15. Of course real anti-American traitors and apologists for the false accusations of American imperialism always flock to the marxist communist inspired dictatoral leaders of S. America to lend credulence to their murderous repressive regimes! Would that they all become ex-patriots of the U.S.A.!

    Oh, I forgot this is the guy the leftist all disguised under a false candidacy as a viable Patriotic American Presidential candidate, and now he is President! My mistake.

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/19/2009 @ 10:57pm

16. <i>Posted by snowball666 at 04/19/2009 @ 11:25pm </i>

    On the Shah...yeah, I was wondering the exact same thing. He came to power...because WE PUT HIM in power.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/20/2009 @ 12:19am

17. always flock to the marxist communist inspired dictatoral leaders of S. America to lend credulence to their murderous repressive regimes!----Posted by comancheamerican at 04/19/2009 @ 10:57pm

    So...shouldn't Reagan have NEVER talked with Gorbachev? Or do you allow "exceptions"?

    Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 06:08am

18. You don't give credibility to a thug like Chavez who openly speaks of seeing the US destroyed.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/19/2009 @ 12:48pm

    I am betting your list of "wanted destroyed" is longer than Hugo's.

    I am trying to compare Hugo to some of your allies:

    Augusto Pinochet

    Saddam Hussein

    Islam Karimov

    hmmm, seems you like it rough and tumble, Rev. Maybe Hugo needs to kill more of his own people before he becomes your friend and ally.

    ----

    I don't know about you, but I have no desire to mimic what Europe does or anyone else for that matter.

    Posted by ACook at 04/19/2009 @ 8:47pm

    Pride used to be a sin. But then, so was greed.

    out with the Olde, in with the Gnu.

    -----

    How do you propose to get along in the world if you can only talk to your allies?

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/19/2009 @ 3:46pm

    See above post by ACOOK, and similar posts by other neo-cons here. They don't even want to get along with our allies. they don't want to "get along" at all. They want everybody do do as "we" say (certainly not as we do), change to suit our needs du-jour, loan us money and shut up. (Except for JOMMAMA, he wants to cozy up to the largest authoritarians and look to them for answers)

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 06:37am

19. Again, even with all of Pres Obamas faults, it is good to have grown ups in charge for a change.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 06:39am

20. "Alas, not everybody matures this far. Some people only get as far as pride, and when they see humility in others who are more mature than themselves, they mistake it for timidity."

    How convenient for "ACook" to show up and provide an example of EXACTLY what I mean!

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/20/2009 @ 07:44am

21. BTW, you think SJCHER and HAPP's mentor, Rush has NEVER smoked a....CUBAN cigar? In violation of the embargo AND his stated "principles"?

    or that he gets the limo driver to ALWAYS avoid filling up at a Citgo???

    Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 09:16am

22. There is nothing wrong with respecting and dealing with socialist leaders in South America or anywhere else. Leaders like Chavez and Morales were popularly elected and have the support of a majority of their population. To deny their legitimacy, as the US has done under the last administration, is to reject democracy. Of course, it seems that America's mission over the past few decades has drifted in favor of furthering its own version of free market Capitalism rather than supporting the spread of democracy throughout the world. I'm glad to see the Obama administration altering course to bring us closer to what many of us learned America is all about.

    Posted by raaustin at 04/20/2009 @ 10:28am

23. If I were President, upon meeting Chavez I would have greeted him with at least one word that begins with the letter F.

    And upon him handing me the "anti-imperialist" book I would have tossed it into the nearest wastebasket as he watched.

    It is too bad I am not President!

    At some kind of meeting like this a couple of years ago perhaps, one that did not involve the United States, at least one person did do the right thing.

    The King of Spain told Chavez to shut up.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 10:36am

24. Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 10:36am

    But you will keep trading with Hugo?

    According to your philosophy, Hugo should be able to have assasination squads in the US, as you want us to have in many places.

    That damn goose and gander thing!!

    Just curious, how many people do you have to have die, how many leaders do you want to ignore, till you "feel" safe and happy?

    As I wrote to anti, do you have any problem with Islam Karimov leasing military bases to the US? Did you have any problems with Pinochet? How about Emomali Rahmon?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 10:51am

25. crabwalk,

    You are overlooking the fact that separate from any discussion of political ideology or international arrangements or whatever, Chavez is an absolute obnoxious blowhard that needs to be told what to do with himself, an activity involving a word with the letter F.

    The King of Spain is the only one who publically has even done something similar.

    It is too bad that former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada is still not the Canadian PM, because from what I have read, I think he would have no qualms about doing that.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 10:56am

26. Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 10:56am

    Hey, SJCHER....how did REAGAN treat Gorbachev and the Chinese in Beijing when he met them..."word starting with an F"...

    or smiles and handshakes????

    Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 11:02am

27. Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 11:02am

    That word is reserved to use on US senators.

    And SJ, what would that accomplish? Make you feel good? Do you pray with the same mouth you would use to tell Hugo off?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 11:12am

28. awwww, someone said something bad about the USA!

    It hurt SJ's feelings and he demands satisfaction!!

    SJ, have you walked a mile in the shoes of indiginous Venezuelans?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 11:15am

29. To all detractors, how can this not be seen as a refreshing take on foreign affairs? Even Mr. Conservative himself, Richard Nixon, engaged with enemies, and those were even more perilous times. Long term change is an outgrowth of diplomatic engagement. War simply begets more war. You don't have to fawn at the man's feet, but shall we not give it a chance? Furthermore, I find it insufferable to listen to detractors deride other regimes as totalitarian, oppressive, violating human rights, etc...What has the United States (even under presidents not named Bush) done to other countries at times? They've meddled with elections, killed leaders, conducted proxy wars. etc etc. Our people are not exculpated either. Therefore, we should look to the future, and one with more cooperation and dialogue.

    Posted by Jetfly83 at 04/20/2009 @ 11:16am

30. A photo for SJCHER....

    http://pro.corbis.com/images/ TL006070.jpg?size=67&uid=%7B245F79C5-40F9 -4580-B30E-7B2017254A18%7D

    (have to close up the spaces)

    An American President SMILING and shaking hands with a Commie dictator!!! A dark day for America, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 11:29am

31. Back when everyone hated the U.S. president, making him an enemy was a very smart thing for Chavez to do. Now that everyone loves the U.S. president, making him a friend is a very smart thing for Chavez to do.

    Obama knows this, and is smart to play to that strength.

    Now, Bush never really was an enemy to Chavez, he was a competitor. Both were rightfully elected leaders (ahem), but both used their wins to subvert democracy.

    Obama might outclass the likes of Hugo and Raul, making moot the whole friend, enemy, competitor issue. If he can shake off the riff-raff of folks like Sen. Ensign, he may just succeed in opening up a "new era" in this hemisphere.

    Posted by mdetrano at 04/20/2009 @ 11:33am

32. Posted by snowball666 at 04/20/2009 @ 11:25am

    LOL!

    unfortunately I am not so sure that the general populace has much more money under Chavez than they did before. From what I read he is doing the basic medical care, some food for the bottom %, a little outreach. What he is not doing is building up a solid economic base, ie jobs, for his peeps. He talks the talk, not sure about his walk.

    As I have said many times, I am no fan of Hugo, but I am amazed ( amused, nervous) reading the comments of the war mongers reactions to him. They feel threatened by the smallest things, and people. Hugo is absolutely no threat to the US. He may be a threat to Exxon/Mobil, but that is their problem, their bed they made.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 11:43am

33. Tea baggers?

    AP wire-

    "COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho --

    The Aryan Nations has returned to northern Idaho with what it is calling a "world headquarters" and a recruitment campaign.

    Coeur d'Alene resident Jerald O'Brien, who has a large swastika tattoo on his scalp, is one of the leaders of the white supremacist group and said he expects membership to grow because of the election of President Barack Obama.

    He told The Spokesman-Review newspaper that the president is the "greatest recruiting tool ever.""

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 11:46am

34. "Residents of a Coeur d'Alene subdivision found recruitment fliers on their lawns Friday and O'Brien said more fliers will be distributed. He said the group has "several handfuls" of members in the city.

    The fliers show a young girl asking her father "Why did those dark men take mommy away?" "

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 11:46am

35. As I wrote to anti, do you have any problem with Islam Karimov leasing military bases to the US? Did you have any problems with Pinochet? How about Emomali Rahmon?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 10:51am

    Karimov-No problem, at least he's battling against jihad.

    Pinochet; preferrable to Allende

    Rahmon-another who is battling radical Islam

    <Tajikistan: Is President Rahmon's Government Anti-Islamic?

    September 8, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- More than 300 makeshift mosques have been closed recently by authorities in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe, with some of those sites subsequently turned into beauty salons or police offices. These and other clampdowns follow a government ban on Islamic head scarves -- hejab -- in schools, compulsory tests for clerics, and a ban on the fundamentalist Mavlavi religious group.

    Government scrutiny of mosques and religious activities has intensified all over the predominantly Muslim republic of Tajikistan.>

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 11:50am

36. "How convenient for "ACook" to show up and provide an example of EXACTLY what I mean!"

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/20/2009 @ 07:44am

    As always, your responses are as timid as that president you voted for.

    Posted by ACook at 04/20/2009 @ 11:57am

37. As always, your responses are as timid as that president you voted for.----Posted by ACook at 04/20/2009 @ 11:57am

    Curious...what "timid responses" of Obama are you referring to exactly?

    Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 12:01pm

38. So, it is not dictators or thugs that you oppose, Rev? Not even when those thugs are pro-communist?

    "Mr Rakhmon was instrumental in the pro-Communist effort to remove Islamist rebels from Dushanbe in the early 1990s. "-BBC country profile

    It appears that you oppose democratically elected leaders that say bad things about President Bush. You say bad things about president Bush, now.

    Are you going to enter FOX's newest reality show "Biggest Hypocrite"?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 12:01pm

39. Thoughtfulness = timidness?

    Reckless abandon = decisivness?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 12:03pm

40. <i>Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 11:46am </i>

    OK...so...racist groups exist. Relevance?

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/20/2009 @ 12:04pm

41. Ammends have to start somewhere...America has a shady history for those who may not know or opt to recess.

    Posted by Firestorm at 04/20/2009 @ 12:11pm

42. OK...so...racist groups exist. Relevance?

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/20/2009 @ 12:04pm

    I am amused that Aryan Nation uses some of the same rhetoric as our resident neo-cons. "The dark man is going to take our freedoms." HAPPY and RIO barely disguise their racism.

    I would also like to see some of the rhetoric from the "far right" condemned by our resident neo-cons. I would like to see neo-cons even admit to the terrorism of the far right. They talk lot's O-BS about the "threat from the left" but I have read very little about the killings committed by Right to Lifers and other right wing groups.

    I think US citizens have more to fear from Aryan Nation, and their affiliated prison gangs, than we have to fear from words that come out of Chavez mouth.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 12:13pm

43. Funny to see a nationalist president give Obama an anti-imperialist book. The clueless wonders on this chain would continue exploiting, invading and killing Latin Americans, just like the U.S. has done for ... many years. Never ... learn ... anything. Just ... call .... everyone a ... dictator and ... communist. Never learn anything, blah blah blah.

    Obama is no leftist, but he's smart enough to see the US Morons - ah, Republicans and many neo-liberal Democrats - have fucked up in Latin America big time.

    So he wants to get back some traction for imperialism. Which is why he attempts to talk to enemies. It is called diplomacy.

    Posted by ElyDog at 04/20/2009 @ 12:13pm

44. Is The Nation on "s-Pacific time"?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 12:14pm

45. There is nothing to fear from words that come out of Hugo Chavez's mouth if someone would stand up at one of these public conferences and right during the meeting tell him what to do with himself and publically humiliate him and put him in his place.

    By the way, crabwalk, Hugo Chavez style socialism will do nothing to help the indiginous Venezuelans.

    Actually, if I were president I would tell the other leaders at these meetings that if and when they feel disposed to do so, they need to stop carping and whining and blaming the U.S. for their problems and get their own acts together.

    Mexico is a good example, especially under their previous president, Vincente Fox.

    That is always the instant solution and answer. Blame the U.S., and that explains everything and justifies everything.

    The Mexican government has always been corrupt beyond belief. It is a little better now, but all they have to do is blame the U.S., and all responsiblity for their own problems just washes away.

    But of course, now, we have a president who is joining in the chorus of America blame as well.

    Maybe that is the solution - to call out and publically humiliate these other countries when their leaders act like children throwing temper tantrums - seeking to blame everyone other than themselves for their problems.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 12:30pm

46. Pinochet; preferable to Allende Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 11:50am

    Disappearing is really a benign thing, huh Rev? Were these deadbeats trying to escape maintenance of their families? Clandestine vacationing? No such thing as a victim of fascist retribution in your book.

    El Salvador take note. Looks like the reverend is headed for Hawaii. Disguise might be in order. Buy yourself a tie-dyed teashirt & a pup tent. Might be too many liberal neighbors for your taste.

    Posted by Sorelish at 04/20/2009 @ 12:35pm

47. I think US citizens have more to fear from Aryan Nation, and their affiliated prison gangs, than we have to fear from words that come out of Chavez mouth.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 12:13pm

    Every conservative who posts here has condemned anti-abortionists who commit violence, myself included.

    There isn't a single conservative here who has condoned the violent activities or rhetoric of white supremacist groups or individuals.

    As to Chavez, only a lover of radical marxist ideology would deny that Chavez is a threat to the US.

    Here is Dem Strategist Doug Schoen

    "The Threat Closer to Home Hugo Chávez and the War Against America by Douglas E. Schoen and Michael Rowan

    The American government has shrugged off South American politics for nearly forty years. In the meantime, our neighbor to the south has grown into an unprecedented threat. Hugo Chávez, the current president of Venezuela and a self-proclaimed enemy of the United States, commands what even Osama bin Laden only dreams of -- but few Americans see him as a true danger to this country. This book argues that we should.

    Chávez has the means and the motivation to harm the United States in a way that few other countries can, and he has declared an "asymmetric war" against America... He has more modern weapons than anyone in Latin America. He has strategic alliances with Iran, North Korea, and other enemies of America, yet he has duped many Americans -- from influential political and cultural leaders to ordinary citizens who benefit from his oil largess through his state-owned oil company -- into believing that he is a friend.

    http://tinyurl.com/cql5zb

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 12:38pm

48. "Every conservative who posts here has condemned anti-abortionists who commit violence, myself included" pro-communist anti-islamist

    I do not recall RIO or HAPPY doing any such thing.

    Have you called for warrantless wiretaps of anybody associated with Right to Life?

    what "asymmetric" actions has Hugo taken that have harmed you?

    Are you really, truly, afraid of the Venezuelan navy?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 12:43pm

49. I do not recall SJ condemning violence of the "right"

    nor BARRY25, nor HONESTLIBERAL, nor WOODYEE, nor JOMMAMA.

    I do remember you calling for the total destruction of Falluja, much of the Korean penninsula, Islamists you find threatening, kids that happen to be in the wrong place when those scary Islamists gather at weddings.

    When I add up those that you want killed, jailed, denied the right to join together, spied upon by the feds....I get more groups than Hugo threatens.

    You blame everybody for being arrogant, but you want to decide who lives and dies all of the time.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 12:48pm

50. You people need to wake up and see reality for what it is - the reason America dislikes Hugo Chavez and those south American leaders is because they pulled themselves free of the grip of the IMF (International Monetary Funds) & the World Banks. These institutions along with the (not-so-federal)"federal" reserve (oh and there aren't any reserves left either) are THE reasons for the Economy - not some housing bubble. These Latin American countries are the only truly sovereign nations of the world being freed from these bankster cartels. The people of Venezuela LOVE Hugo Chavez - well, not the rich white latin americans who love americas twisted ways of greed and selfishness - America could really learn something from Hugo Chavez, a president that actually DEFENDS his nations Constitution - not like our leaders who shred our constitution to nothing but confetti. I implore you all to visit my blog @ http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com and watch the Amazing documentary "The REVOLUTION Will Not Be Televised" and see what a Real leader looks like. Meanwhile our leaders, Obama and his criminal administration are handing over All OUR Money to the Elite, to the Uber Rich Wall St tycoons and Banksters and while they turn our government over to the PRIVATE Institution otherwise known as the "federal" Reserve (notice, Mr. Tim - I don't have to pay my taxes until I get appointed to some government job - Geithner, was the former president of the NYC Chapter of the "federal" Reserve. Wake Up People before its too late. http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com

    Posted by kristofeR! at 04/20/2009 @ 12:50pm

51. More on Chavez

    <The German newspaper "Die Welt" reported last month that Venezuela is becoming a safehaven for Islamic terrorists. The close friendship between the leftist Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez and his Iranian colleague Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a hardline Muslim radical, resulted into ever closer cooperation between the two countries. Western intelligence services have reason to believe that Iran's fundamentalist regime is sending terrorists and Muslim radicals to an increasing number of Latin American countries. Iran and its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah are also providing terrorist training to citizens from Latin American countries.>

    http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3537

    Chavez vows destruction of US while in Iran

    <The cornerstone of Ahmadinejad's Latin America policy is the formation of an anti-American axis with Venezuela. During a July 2006 visit to Tehran, Chávez told a Tehran University crowd, ‘We have to save humankind and put an end to the US empire'. When Chávez again visited Tehran a year later Ahmadinejad and Chávez used the visit to declare an ‘Axis of Unity' against the US.

    http://tinyurl.com/cutbte

    In a separate statement, the Kremlin also disclosed plans to lend $1 billion to Venezuela for the purchase of Russian arms. The state-run news agency RIA Novosti reported that talks were underway on the sale of antiaircraft systems and armored personnel carriers to Venezuela.

    Since 2005, Venezuela has signed contracts to buy more than $4.4 billion worth of arms from Russia, including fighter jets, helicopters and assault rifles, according to the Kremlin.

    http://tinyurl.com/dk2tef

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 12:52pm

52. Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 12:52pm

    Fri, 23 Nov 2007 19:20:14 GMT

    Saudi Arabia's Prince has held talks in Moscow with Russian President to pave the way for purchasing Russian weapons by the kingdom.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Crown Prince and Defense Minister Sultan ibn Abdul Aziz met at the Kremlin on Friday, to discuss bilateral military-technical cooperation, Russian Foreign Ministry said on Friday.

    Kommersant newspaper revealed that Saudis plan to purchase 150 T-190 tanks, 100 Mi-35 helicopters and about 20 M-2 medium-range air defense systems from the Russian side which is worth over $ 4 billion.

    -----

    Saudi Arabia is a far worse purveyor of Islamist radicals.

    Should Obama tell Crown Prince Aziz to "f- himself"?

    Or is Haus Saud one of those anti-leftists you admire so much?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 1:04pm

53. crabwalk,

    I have never condoned what you refer to as violence of the right.

    I certainly do not condone anyone who would harm or kill a Baby-killing doctor.

    As far as things like Aryan Nation, take your head out of your ass. I have spoken out pro-Israel many times on this website. If you think somehow that someone (me) who has said that Bibi Netanyahu should be our U.S. President would in any way support or condone Aryan Nation, then like I said, take your head out of your ass.

    Once your head is out you would see that this is a leftist website with articles (that are the start point for these blogs) written by leftist authors and thus comments that come from Conservatives are invariably to take issue with the leftist stance being promoted.

    Every entire issue on earth does not come up or is addressed. Comments made by Conservatives revolve around the original start point of the leftist article.

    If it were up to me I think the Morons (known by everybody else but me as the NY football giants) should be kicked out of the NFL, on the grounds that I hate that team, and always have.

    But is that I subject that I should be bringing up on this site. I would think not and if I ever have mentioned that (and I may have once or twice), I don't continually comment about that on a political web site.

    I would point out that the NFL is back to normal now with the 6 time winners Steelers as the champions, the greatest NFL team ever.

    And I have mentioned them on this website, because kids in utopias like Cuba or Venezuela could learn a lot from people like the Bus (Steeler great Jerome Bettis) or Tony Dungy (was a coach for the Steelers early in his career) but the people you like, Fidel and Hugo, would never allow that.

    That is wrong.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 1:13pm

54. Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 1:13pm

    do you think that people associated with domestic terrorists should be subject to warrantless wiretaps?

    Should they be held as "combatants"?

    Should anybody that helped hide Eric Rudolph be held for "material support of terrorism"?

    Should people that stand on the side of the road with pictures of doctors with targets on their backs be held without charges for years?

    Do you think Obama is "taking your freedoms"?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 1:21pm

55. And, if I understand you, you want to compare me with Chavez, but you don't want to be compared to Jerald O'Brien?

    You want to compare Obama to Castro, but you don't want to be swept up with Aryan Nation?

    Move them goalposts, just let me know where you put them.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 1:26pm

56. The only people that refer to Cuba or Venezuela as "utopia" are the same people that call Obama "The Messiah".

    Why do you think that is, SJ?

    Are you like ACOOK, and you think you can learn NOTHING from anybody that is not a US citizen?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 1:28pm

57. crabwalk,

    I do not own a business but Obama will be taking my freedoms as there becomes more control over business first 1) because of this economic situation and then 2) (and this hasn't even hit this website yet) the thing that came out on the news last Friday about the EPA "finding" that greenhouse gases situation is detrimental to people's health. (at a time when no public scientific debate on climate change is even allowed by the biased media and at a time when the earth may be starting a cooling trend)

    Number 2 is the big kahuna, what libs have been looking for, if they can get legislation through Congress that gives them the "in" to start controlling a lot of what we do.

    So yes, of course, Obama has begun the process of taking some of my freedoms, for the "greater good" as you libs say.

    Questions for you:

    1 - Do you think it is wrong that there is censorship in Utopia (excuse me, Cuba) that results in Cuban children having no idea who the Bus or Coach Dungy are - people they could learn from and people who kids would benefit learning from?

    2- Do you think it is wrong that among the kids mentioned above there is Elian Gonzales, who is now trapped in communist Gulag for the rest of his life, even though he belongs in America and was stolen from his country under orders of Slick Willie/Janet Reno?

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 1:29pm

58. "I certainly do not condone anyone who would harm or kill a Baby-killing doctor"

    What about a women saving doctor?

    Or is there no such thing in your world?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 1:30pm

59. Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 1:29pm |

    You are a twisted, angry, confused person.

    I weep for you.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 1:32pm

60. crabwalk,

    You do not even read what I write!

    I want Bibi to be President of the U.S., and actually I would like Brian Mulroney of Canada to have a stint as President as well, (so he can tell, and he would, Hugo Chavez to f himself) -----

    --- and in the past I have expressed admiration for Tony Blair over and over again------

    But still you ask me:

    "......Are you like ACOOK, and you think you can learn NOTHING from anybody that is not a US citizen?...."

    My only comment is ???????..I have no idea what planet you come from!

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 1:28pm

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 1:33pm

61. crabwalk,

    You say ".......I weep for you......"

    Don't weep for me, weep for the kids in Cuba who will never know who the Bus or Coach Dungy are.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 1:35pm

62. 1 - Do you think it is wrong that there is censorship in Utopia (excuse me, Cuba) that results in Cuban children having no idea who the Bus or Coach Dungy are - people they could learn from and people who kids would benefit learning from?

    Yes, I condemn Castros regime. Always have. Only in your twisted view of "libs" does Cuba = utopia.

    2- Do you think it is wrong that among the kids mentioned above there is Elian Gonzales, who is now trapped in communist Gulag for the rest of his life, even though he belongs in America and was stolen from his country under orders of Slick Willie/Janet Reno?

    Who are you to decide a fathers wishes? Last I checked, parental rights was the purview of parents, not the federal govt.

    But, like marriage in the case of Shaivo, and support of Saddam Hussein, all things are open for neo-con revisionism depending on the results desired.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 1:37pm

63. Don't weep for me, weep for the kids in Cuba who will never know who the Bus or Coach Dungy are.

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 1:35pm

    Yes, a crime against humanity for sure.

    "My only comment is ???????..I have no idea what planet you come from!

    "

    Utopian Messiahville.

    Turn (hard) left at Albequerque

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 1:38pm

64. Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 1:33pm

    allow me to rephrase then...

    are you like others that think they can learn nothing from those to the "left" of ...gosh I don't know who... Bib Neten-Yahoo,

    se, SJ, I learn from everyone, left, right, middle, black, brown, yellow, male, female, or at least I try to. I am not beholden to any particular worldview, and I retain the right to change my views when new info comes in.

    wishy washy non-violent offender.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 1:44pm

65. crabwalk,

    You say "....Who are you to decide a fathers wishes? Last I checked, parental rights was the purview of parents, not the federal govt. ...."

    That is, in the view of the left, only true when a Democrat president forcibly removes an American (Elian Gonzales) and sends him to communist Gulag.

    But when it comes to a woman "choosing" (i.e. nuking her unborn child) then the father has no say whatsoever. Absolutely none, by dictate of you the enlightened libs!

    And don't forget (as you seem to have forgotten), Terry Schiavo's wishes were NOT documented to the standard required by Florida law. As a result, according to Florida law, the doctors were REQUIRED by law to leave the tube IN.

    This was required by FLORIDA LAW. But as you know, independent "judges" decided that Florida law be thrown in the toilet.

    Did you forget that?

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 1:45pm

66. Be afraid, SJ.

    We are out to get you.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 1:48pm

67. Saudi Arabia is a far worse purveyor of Islamist radicals.

    Should Obama tell Crown Prince Aziz to "f- himself"?

    Or is Haus Saud one of those anti-leftists you admire so much?

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 1:04pm

    Can you provide a quote from the Saudi Govt threatening the destruction of the US?

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 1:53pm

68. I recently met someone from Venezuela (a leftie like myself) who told me that Chavez started out as a knight in shining armor for the "plain" folk" on the country and, like many dictators before him (on the left and on the right), has silenced his critics, extended his power, and is determined to keep it. He's yet another in a very long line of South American dictators. The man I was speaking to was afraid for his family, still in Venezuela because Chavez is growing more and more powerful and when a dictator grows more powerful they become unafraid of using that power.

    It was obvious that Chavez knew a photo op when he saw one, and grabbed the opportunity for it with our President, who was unfortunately, stuck in the "OK, I guess I had better shake his hand and smile" bit. I have nothing against Obama for doing that; he didn't have much of a choice.

    However, the summit was supposed to be a gathering of democracies (which is why Cuba wasn't invited). Venezuela is a democracy in name only. I am sure Obama knows that...at least I am hopeful he knows that.

    Personally, I don't think we'll continue supporting Chavez (I hope not), but I can't wait until a few years from now when he calls Obama "el Diablo." He won't like that photo-op then, will he?

    And as for Elian Gonzalez (sjchermak), he is with his father, where he should be. Forgetting the politics for a moment, would the right wing in this country prefer he was forcibly separated from his father by the US government? What if the government stepped in and took your children away from you because they didn't like your politics, eh? Aren't you guys "pro-family?"

    Oh, it's the same far-right Florida folks who brought us Terri Schiavo and the Senator who diagnoses patients from the floor of the Senate....

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 04/20/2009 @ 1:58pm

69. JakobFabian: "Alas, not everybody matures this far. Some people only get as far as pride, and when they see humility in others who are more mature than themselves, they mistake it for timidity."

    ACook: "No, humility is not anathema to we conservatives. Timidity and weakness is."

    JakobFabian: "How convenient for "ACook" to show up and provide an example of EXACTLY what I mean!"

    ACook: "As always, your responses are as timid as that president you voted for."

    This is not timidity, "ACook." This is SUBTLETY. I did not think it was necessary to explain that YOU are one of those conservatives I mentioned who tend to mistake humility for timidity. I believed most readers of this thread could confirm this for themselves, simply by reading what you posted shortly after I posted my little essay on maturity (which I have reprinted above, for everybody's convenience).

    Now I have said explicitly and bluntly what I formerly said implicitly and subtly, thereby throwing subtlety out the window, which is not my style. Let me try again.

    It is often said among liberals that subtlety is wasted on conservatives, and I believe "ACook's" example confirms this, too.

    There -- did you catch what I just said, "ACook," or was I too subtle for you?

    Posted by JakobFabian at 04/20/2009 @ 1:58pm

70. Did he negotiate with Ortega to let the US take the 50-min. beating?

    Posted by Happy at 04/19/2009 @ 1:40pm

    I am no fan of Daniel Ortega, but Nicaragua has every right in the world to give the U.S. a verbal beating. Hell, by any just standard, the U.S. owes Nicaragua reparations for its sponsorship of the Contras, who were responsible for something like 85% or more of the civilian casualties during the Nicaraguan Civil War of the 80's. We mined their frickin' harbors, for God's sake! They would have had every right to bomb the shit out of our cities just for that.

    So spare me the offended feelings of the superpower over some Third World leader, even a corrupt scumbag like Ortega, calling out the U.S. for its history or exploiting and murdering their people.

    Hell, if I were Ortega or Chavez, I'm not sure I would have even shaken Obama's hand until he apologized for U.S. policy and practice in Latin America.

    Posted by cka2nd at 04/20/2009 @ 1:59pm

71. Can you provide a quote from the Saudi Govt threatening the destruction of the US?

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 1:53pm

    The quote you posted earlier had Chavez' calling for an end to the "U.S. empire," not the U.S. itself. Never been a fan of Chavez, but somehow I don't think he's proposing a Visigothic-style sacking of Washington, a la ancient Rome. Ending the U.S. empire would mean forcing an end to U.S. intervention in and exploitation of the rest of the world. Going beyond mere formal independence for its colonies, ending the U.S. empire envisions trimming the economic, military and covert levers of its control, as well. I don't think it can happen absent socialist revolution in the U.S. itself, but Chavez seems to think differently, since I've never heard of him (or Ortega, Allende, Castro, etc.) calling for a Third American Revolution.

    Posted by cka2nd at 04/20/2009 @ 2:23pm

72. crabwalk,

    You ask ".....are you like others that think they can learn nothing from those to the "left" of ...gosh I don't know who... Bib Neten-Yahoo...."

    It is spelled Netanyahu.

    But in answer to your question, I have learned from Lyndon B. Johnson, I have learned from Tony Blair, I have learned from Ed Koch, I have learned from Joe Lieberman.

    Who on the right have you learned from? Or are you another one of those libs that say the are not a lib? (I have lost count of the number of libs on this site and elsewhere that say they are not lib)

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 2:45pm

73. Since you the enlightened libs are so enraptured with your buddy Hugo, I thought it might be the time to bring some humor into the website.

    I saw this headline on the Internet:

    "Chavez brings smile, speed to Seattle "

    I thought to myself, what in God's name now?

    But then I saw the blurb under the headline:

    "Endy Chavez, having been traded in the multi-player deal that sent J.J. Putz packing from Seattle, is proving to be quite a catch for his new team."

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 2:56pm

74. I really dont understand why there are so many who dont watn to see a rapproachment with Latin America, in order to start building a partnership of equals and when American MLCs dont continue with the gross exploitation of natural resources and incipient companies in each country. Do these people prefer to continue the antagonistic relationship that the US has had for some 100 odd years? The need for social justice in all latin American countries is very well documented and indeed needed and that implies governments with a "socialistic" mode of governance and the US should with respect contribute and assist in the governments elected or chosen by the people in each country. Look where free enterprise or shall I say exploitative capitalism has got the US? Please be more understanding and lets build relationships of peace and harmony after centuries of something else!!

    Posted by samgeorge at 04/20/2009 @ 3:19pm

75. I think it's great that Obama shook hands with Chavez. Obama needs to make greater use of soft power than the Bush administration did, and simply diplomacy is one form, but I would like to see an increase in the foreign aid budget as well. The Borgen Project has good info on the estimated cost of ending global poverty:

    $30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.

    $550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.

    Posted by davidwaters at 04/20/2009 @ 3:30pm

76. I am no fan of Daniel Ortega, but Nicaragua has every right in the world to give the U.S. a verbal beating. Hell, by any just standard, the U.S. owes Nicaragua reparations for its sponsorship of the Contras, who were responsible for something like 85% or more of the civilian casualties during the Nicaraguan Civil War of the 80's. We mined their frickin' harbors, for God's sake! They would have had every right to bomb the shit out of our cities just for that.

    So spare me the offended feelings of the superpower over some Third World leader, even a corrupt scumbag like Ortega, calling out the U.S. for its history or exploiting and murdering their people.

    Hell, if I were Ortega or Chavez, I'm not sure I would have even shaken Obama's hand until he apologized for U.S. policy and practice in Latin America.

    Posted by cka2nd at 04/20/2009 @ 1:59pm

    your figures are an outright lie. There are no outright figures dividing death by responsibility of either the Sandinistas or the Contras. But if you want to take the known facts, the Sandinista "revolution" resultd in 30,000 deaths. The Contra successful insurgency to restore Democracy resulted in 43,000 deaths.

    When Russia and Cuba apologize for the 10s of thousands of deaths they caused in Central America, we'll talk.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 3:37pm

77. Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 2:56pm

    I want to see the quote from the posters here that are " enraptured with your buddy Hugo".

    As I read the posts, it looks like he is getting a pretty mild welcome, not even luke warm. We just don't fear and loathe him, yet.

    As I said earlier, the only people that think of Cuba or Venezuela as "utopias" are the people that think Obama is viewed as the Second Coming. Both are far from reality.

    I think Castro should be tarred and feathered. But, I also think the embargo has been counterproductive after 1980.

    I think little of Chavez. He is a celebrity wanna-be, a needle in the butt of multi nationals and a blow hard. But I see little threat from him. I feel sorry for those that find insult in his words. Sticks and stones....

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 3:40pm

78. Even Nixon went to China.

    Posted by snowball666 at 04/19/2009 @ 1:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Now he's buddies with Chavez and Ortega. What's next? brunch with Fidel and Chavez in Havanna?

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/19/2009 @ 12:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Shall we haul out Rummy's 1980's dictatorial embrace of Saddam?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 04/20/2009 @ 3:43pm

79. Who on the right have you learned from? Or are you another one of those libs that say the are not a lib? (I have lost count of the number of libs on this site and elsewhere that say they are not lib)

    Posted by sjchermak at 04/20/2009 @ 2:45pm

    I am a proud liberal. I am a proud gun owner. I am a proud hunter. I am a proud four wheeler.

    I have learned things from Pat Buchanon, CATO Institute, Nixon, Teddy Roosevelt, John McCain, Jim Webb, and a host of others.

    Don't fry your brain.

    Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2009 @ 3:44pm

80. Again, SJCHER....Larry...

    So the attack on Obama is that he "smiled and shook hands with Hugo Chavez"....

    yet it was "okay" for Reagan to smile and shake hands with Gorbachev and the Chinese leaders in Beijing because....

    "He was talking tough about them"???

    Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 3:55pm

81. The quote you posted earlier had Chavez' calling for an end to the "U.S. empire," not the U.S. itself. Never been a fan of Chavez, but somehow I don't think he's proposing a Visigothic-style sacking of Washington, a la ancient Rome. Ending the U.S. empire would mean forcing an end to U.S. intervention in and exploitation of the rest of the world. Going beyond mere formal independence for its colonies, ending the U.S. empire envisions trimming the economic, military and covert levers of its control, as well. I don't think it can happen absent socialist revolution in the U.S. itself, but Chavez seems to think differently, since I've never heard of him (or Ortega, Allende, Castro, etc.) calling for a Third American Revolution.

    Posted by cka2nd at 04/20/2009 @ 2:23pm

    Let's see

    Venezuela is providing support--including identity documents--that could prove useful to radical Islamic groups, say U.S. officials. U.S. News has learned that Chavez's government has issued thousands of cedulas, the equivalent of Social Security cards, to people from places such as Cuba, Colombia, and Middle Eastern nations that play host to foreign terrorist organizations. An American official with firsthand knowledge of the ID scheme has seen computer spreadsheets with names of people organized by nationality. "The list easily totaled several thousand," the official says. "Colombians were the largest group; there were more than a thousand of them. It also included many from Middle Eastern `countries of interest' like Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon." The official adds: "It was shocking to see how extensive the list was."

    http://tinyurl.com/ca7kmm

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 4:49pm

82. Ahh, I see LVL, you are willing to support thugs and Communists and murders as long as they are fighting your religious war. I get it now. You want Christian domination.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/20/2009 @ 5:03pm

83. Ahh, I see LVL, you are willing to support thugs and Communists and murders as long as they are fighting your religious war. I get it now. You want Christian domination.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/20/2009 @ 5:03pm

    Wrong again. I don't believe that Christians are supposed to control govts.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 5:15pm

84. My concern is rather for GINGRICH'S CONSTANT BABBLE about released documents. On that I say, Newt, bring it on. Democrats will be happy. Newt of course will never be President. Is there anything that Obama does that pleases Mr. Gingrich? He railed and raged against Obama regarding the piracy issue. Like McCain, Newt preferred the mantra of "bomb, bomb, bomb""to start a war the US can ill-afford to fight right now in the Horn of Africa. When Obama's approach succeeded and still saved the Captain"s life--and indeed produced the desired result with little cost--we didn't hear any apology from Newt. He is careless with his words--and does very little thinking before he opens his mouth. My sense is that beyond his opportunism and constant political posturing, he seems to have a personal hatred of Obama, a black man in the White House. Just think of his vicious attitude and words toward this President who is facing so many heavy-duty problems and daily working hard for the American people. If Newt and the Republicans had held Mr. Bush to the same standard they now hold Obama, we could not have descended into the current abyss of economic decline, weakened military position and tattered reputation abroad. We are never going to go back for choice of leaders to "leaders" like Newt Gingrich. The touch has been passed to a new generation of American. The question is: does Newt know this? Will he ever?

    Posted by drsam8 at 04/20/2009 @ 5:21pm

85. Wrong again. I don't believe that Christians are supposed to control govts.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 5:15pm

    Doesn't mean you don't believe they shouldn't be the one world religion and you are supporting achieving that through any means necessary.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/20/2009 @ 5:43pm

86. Doesn't mean you don't believe they shouldn't be the one world religion and you are supporting achieving that through any means necessary.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/20/2009 @ 5:43pm

    No, I don't believe in a one world religion the way you frame it; nor do I believe we will ever see Christianity as the world religion. The world will one day see one world religion, but you won't like it's leader.

    this is just more of your ignorance spouting off.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 7:35pm

87. Wrong again. I don't believe that Christians are supposed to control govts.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 5:15pm

    On that, Larry, given you don't want to see non-Judeo-Christians elected (not Muslims, not Mormons, etc.)....doesn't that sort of mean that Christians (maybe a few Jews) will control the government???

    Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 8:20pm

88. Wrong again. I don't believe that Christians are supposed to control govts.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 5:15pm

    On that, Larry, given you don't want to see non-Judeo-Christians elected (not Muslims, not Mormons, etc.)....doesn't that sort of mean that Christians (maybe a few Jews) will control the government???

    Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 8:20pm

    Mask, this isn't difficult. I am not looking for or wanting a religiously run govt. I'm very happy that we have a secular govt.

    And I've said before, that Christ did not command His believers to go out and form govt's. He called us to go out and share the good news in word and deed. Our kingdom is not of this world.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 9:05pm

89. No, I don't believe in a one world religion the way you frame it; nor do I believe we will ever see Christianity as the world religion. The world will one day see one world religion, but you won't like it's leader.

    this is just more of your ignorance spouting off.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 7:35pm |

    No actually I am doing my best to sound exactly like you and your Communist fear. How you always tell people they are Communist and they want to see the fall of the US whether that is their actual belief or not. Am I doing it well guys?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/20/2009 @ 9:07pm

90. Where, oh where, do guys like Chavez, Morales, and Ortega 'get off' with painting the US as a militarist, 'corporate-financial Empire' that tortures powerless people in its oil territories, and economically oppresses its own 'working class' citizens?

    Oh, that's right, they 'get off' with it because they see it directly and know the truth ---- of which the American people are blinded by the 'Vichy' facade of democracy that this ruling-elite global 'corporate financial Empire' hides behind (with the help of an equally 'Vichy' corporate media) while the guileful EMPIRE hides in our kitchen of faux democracy and mis-uses the US super-power military to abuse the rest of the world!

    There may be some method to Obama's madness in allowing others to inform the American people about the global corporate empire in which we really live.

    My bet? That not only all the other Western Hemisphere states will deliver this message today, but that all the European and other real, sustainable, and functioning 'social democracy' (post-WWII, and post-Empire) nations of Europe and Japan will start telling America this "inconvenient truth" ---- which will make Obama's job as the reforming leader of our country more possible in bringing America from EMPIRE back to the democratic Republic that 99% of Americans thought we were and want to be again.

    Alan MacDonald (aka antiempirist) Sanford, Maine

    Posted by amacd at 04/20/2009 @ 9:16pm

91. No actually I am doing my best to sound exactly like you and your Communist fear. How you always tell people they are Communist and they want to see the fall of the US whether that is their actual belief or not. Am I doing it well guys?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/20/2009 @ 9:07pm

    Actually, what you have become is a mirror of Mask. People who ask the same questions over and over again while contributing virtually nothing.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 9:22pm

92. I'm very happy that we have a secular govt.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 9:05pm

    So you'd have no problems with an atheist Congress and atheist President...none at all?

    Oh, wait a minute, you don't consider most Christians in this country to be "real Christians" anyway...just "devotees"...so it's practically like atheists are running the place now, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 9:55pm

93. So you'd have no problems with an atheist Congress and atheist President...none at all?

    Oh, wait a minute, you don't consider most Christians in this country to be "real Christians" anyway...just "devotees"...so it's practically like atheists are running the place now, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 04/20/2009 @ 9:55pm

    What I'd like and having no problem are seperate things.

    It would always be better to have a Christian in the White House because they would have a similar frame of reference as most of the Founders.

    The only real problem with an atheist in the White House is that I would never be able to trust their moral judgment.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 10:17pm

94. Actually, what you have become is a mirror of Mask. People who ask the same questions over and over again while contributing virtually nothing.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 9:22pm

    What question did I ask again? I think I didn't ask a single question actually. I made a few statements.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/20/2009 @ 10:22pm

95. The only real problem with an atheist in the White House is that I would never be able to trust their moral judgment.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 10:17pm

    Yeah because all Christians do a bang up job. You know the ones that fire bomb abortion clinics are really moral paragons. Christianity doesn't make you more moral.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/20/2009 @ 10:23pm

96. Actually, what you have become is a mirror of Mask. People who ask the same questions over and over again while contributing virtually nothing.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 9:22pm

    I guess you don't like my impression of someone arrogant enough to believe they can tell other people what they believe. As long as you insist on telling others what their beliefs are while then complaining when other people do the same to you I will continue to point out the hypocrisy.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/20/2009 @ 10:28pm

97. Yeah because all Christians do a bang up job. You know the ones that fire bomb abortion clinics are really moral paragons. Christianity doesn't make you more moral.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/20/2009 @ 10:23pm

    Just because someone carries a label of Christian, doesn't make them one.

    If you are are genuine Christian than, indeed you do have a better moral compass because it's not your own. It's Christ through the Holy Spirit.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 10:37pm

98. Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 3:37pm

    My apologies for at first relying on my memory of a comprehensive study comparing the left and the right in Latin America in the 80's that I read about at some point which found the right responsible for an overwhelming percentage of the civilian deaths in Guatamala, El Salvador and Nicaragua. I can't remember if Peru and Columbia were included in the study but, as bad as Shining Path was, I doubt the ratios would change much.

    In response to your charge that I lied, I've tried to find more precise statistics and, according to the below-cited study, I stand by my original numbers, at least broadly so.

    Civilian deaths and disappearances linked to the Sandinistas, 1981-1989: 400.

    Civilian deaths and disappearances linked to the Contras, 1982-1985, that is, in less than half the time above: 1,185.

    That's almost a 3:1 ratio, and assuming civilian deaths and disappearances caused by the Contras came even close to the above numbers in 1981 and 1986-1989, we're looking at perhaps a 5:1 ratio or more.

    See The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua, a) Policing Abuses and Pre-Trial Detention at http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/html/ds022/ds022-03.htm.

    And by the way, the figure for overall Contra War deaths in the above study is 29,270.

    Lastly, pray tell where are the massive numbers of deaths caused by the Soviets and Cubans in Latin America? The worst, most deadly leftists in Latin America have been Sendero Luminoso, Shining Path, and they're Maoists who launched their armed struggle after the transition to Deng Xiaoping in China. And they were pikers compared to the U.S.-backed Guatemalan military in the 80's.

    Posted by cka2nd at 04/21/2009 @ 12:16am

99. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 10:37pm </i>

    The problem with your premise here is that it is either clearly false or non-responsive. If you're only suggesting that a person becomes better than they were by becoming a true Christian, than it's non-responsive because the question involves comparisons between different people rather than of different stages of the same person's life. If, instead, you're saying that non-Christians don't have the influence of the Holy Spirit and thus cannot have trustworthy moral compasses, you are simply incorrect. This claim is easily falsifiable so long as one can name people who are both non-Christians and possess strong moral compasses.

    Moreover, given that God alone is supposed to truly know the heart, it seems like a "true" Christian (an interesting concept, seeing as how all human beings are subject to moral corruptibility) might not be as easy to single out as your analysis appears to suggest.

    Posted by Thrawn at 04/21/2009 @ 12:30am

100. If you are are genuine Christian than...

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 10:37pm

     No, that's not true in the least. The control is people who identify as Christian YOU don't get to define what is a real Christian and what is not. If that's the case you just choose people who do what YOU believe is moral work and exclude anyone who doesn't. Just like I am including ALL people who consider themselves atheist, not just the one's who are being moral. If you are going to say only TRUE Christians, meaning only moral people, then I get to say only TRUE atheists, meaning only moral atheists. Then we come up with the same numbers.

     Growing up Christian, identifying as Christian or any other religion does not MAKE you a moral person. I don't care how you try to define it, people, even Christians have free will which mean their compass IS their own. God can't make you do things and how you interpret God's laws becomes your morality. To abortion clinic bombers God's law says that they must do that. It all becomes about interpretation of morality.

     I am an atheist and I would consider myself more moral than MOST of the Christians I interact with on a daily basis because I notice that so many religious have a twisted logic to moral questions. They use religion to justify what to an atheist would just be considered an immoral act because we don't have a book to interpret. We carry our morals in the innate form. Don't murder, don't steal so on... We don't have to be told by someone else what is right or wrong, we decide for ourselves and there is no interpretation.

     This is not a knock on religion either because I think it is a beautiful thing but I think your argument is loaded to the -enth degree and based on willing blindness rather than fact.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/21/2009 @ 03:44am

101. Moreover, given that God alone is supposed to truly know the heart, it seems like a "true" Christian (an interesting concept, seeing as how all human beings are subject to moral corruptibility) might not be as easy to single out as your analysis appears to suggest.

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/21/2009 @ 12:30am

     Well this is entirely funny because humans have free will. God can not force me to do good. I can read his book but it doesn't mean I will interpret it properly as has been shown throughout the history of Christianity. Which means it all falls on me just like it all falls on an atheist. God can not take my compass and FORCE it in the right direction because I am a human with free will. So that premise becomes entirely worthless.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/21/2009 @ 03:46am

102. Because when it comes to National Security, I believe every president, Democrat or Republican acts to preserve the Nation.

     Bush, Obama, Clinton, or whomever, will take action to preserve our safety and the Union. And I don't need to know how they do it. I just want to know they will.----Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 10:07pm

     You stick with that, right, Larry?

     Posted by Mask at 04/21/2009 @ 06:25am

103. Can you provide a quote from the Saudi Govt threatening the destruction of the US?

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/20/2009 @ 1:53pm

     Can you provide one from Chavez

     You haven't yet.

     What you have is a quote expressing disdain for empire, and probably quotes expressing total disdain for Bush. The breaking news is; Bush was not America, no matter how much you desire to equate the two.

     Face it, most of the world is much happier to see Bush out and Obama in. You continue to be a fringe element railing against perceived fringe elements.

     Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2009 @ 06:59am

104. Rev Larry debates Rev Larry

     "It would always be better to have a Christian in the White House because they would have a similar frame of reference as most of the Founders. "

     "Just because someone carries a label of Christian, doesn't make them one. "

     Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2009 @ 07:03am

105. "Karimov-No problem, at least he's battling against jihad." --ANTISOCIAL, 4/20

     Is it any surprise that pious and relatavistic rightwing thugs go apeshit if someone gets a paper cut in Venezuela. And then shrug "no problem" to massacres in Uzbekistan?

     And that these are the same raving assholes who moan and hystericize 100% falsely that someone is going to send them to a re-education camp -- while, out the other side of their sewer-like lying mouths, they raptorously coo over the dungeon, cage, and the torture chamber that is reserved for anyone who can be characterized as having a different religion or political stance than their own?

     from HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

     "Uzbekistan: May 13 Killings in Andijan Need Fuller Investigation: June 6, 2005

     The Uzbek authorities are trying to whitewash this massacre. Kenneth Roth Executive Director of Human Rights WatchThe killing of unarmed protesters by the Uzbek government in Andijan last month was so extensive and unjustified that it amounted to a massacre, Human Rights Watch said today in releasing the most comprehensive investigation to date of the tragic events in eastern Uzbekistan.

     The report, "Bullets Were Falling Like Rain": The Andijan Massacre May 13, 2005, is based on 50 interviews with victims of and witnesses to the May 13 killings. It details the Uzbek government's indiscriminate use of lethal force against unarmed people, describes government efforts to silence witnesses, and places the events against the background of Uzbekistan's worsening human rights record.

     Although armed men were present in Bobur Square during the shootings, the Uzbek government's use of force against the crowd in the square was neither proportionate nor appropriate to the danger they posed, Human Rights Watch said."

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/21/2009 @ 07:53am

106. ANTISOCIAL said it (4/20): "Karimov-No problem"

     We know that ANTI loves drunkard & abusive rightwing "authorities" (GWB, McCarthy) because he has told us so. Here is a new moment in his endless love for dictators:

     "On May 13, 2005, thousands of people participated in a rare, massive protest in Bobur Square in the eastern Uzbek city of Andijan. It was initiated by a group of armed people who earlier in the day seized weapons at a military barracks and police station, led a prison break to free local businessmen unjustly accused of Islamic extremism, and took officials hostage in the local government building. Later the protest grew into a rally of thousands of people voicing their anger about growing poverty and government repression.

     ...Numerous witnesses interviewed separately told Human Rights Watch that government forces, some of them on armored personnel carriers & military trucks, fired indiscriminately into crowds where the overwhelming majority of people were unarmed...

     After troops sealed off the area surrounding the square, they continued to fire from various directions as the protesters tried to flee. According to numerous witnesses & a few survivors, one group of fleeing protesters numbering up to 400 people was almost completely mowed down by government gunfire. Only a handful of people from the group of 400 survived.

     ...Uzbek authorities deny responsibility for the killings. The government claims the death toll was 173 people--law enforcement officials and civilians killed by the attackers, along with the attackers themselves. The government says the attackers were "Islamic extremists" who had an Islamist agenda and help from abroad. Human Rights Watch found no evidence that any of the speakers at the protest promoted an Islamist agenda"

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/21/2009 @ 08:05am

107. Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2009 @ 07:03am

     Two in one 24 hour period, crab. Note mine....Larry just said he believes EVERY President, including Obama, "will take action to preserve our safety and the Union".

     So...how does he now turn around and criticize Obama on foreign policy????

     Posted by Mask at 04/21/2009 @ 08:06am

108. "...including Obama, 'will take action to preserve our safety and the Union'."

     Posted by Mask at 04/21/2009 @ 08:06am

     The Rev may be achieving an audacious triple flip on this one since he has also held open the possibility of joining forces with Saint Sarah and Ayatollah Todd in some "Alaska First!!!" succesionist antics.

     Breathtaking how these freaks can harbor so many flatly contradictory and relativistic ideas from one moment to the next -- without so much as noticing.

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/21/2009 @ 09:27am

109. <i>Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/21/2009 @ 03:46am </i>

     Right; all human beings have free will, and being morally corruptible, will in at least some circumstances abuse it. I don't think we're disagreeing there.

     The point I was making there was that EVEN IF we buy the ontological (if I'm using that term correctly here) point that Liberty makes (that "true" Christians= more moral than non-Christians), it's still epistemologically problematic because presumably, only God would be able to sort these "true" Christians out anyway.

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/21/2009 @ 09:44am

110. Posted by snowball666 at 04/21/2009 @ 09:03am

     Tattoed on the back of his neck...

     ----

     As I read anti's comments... it appears that he would accept an Aryan Nation/Christian Identity Movement president before an Atheist president.

     Of course his response will be that of course AN/CI are not "real" Christians. They just happen to use the same Good Book. Meanwhile he will rant and rave about Chavez, come here to attempt to sway us from our backwards socialism, but not go to Idaho to correct the theology of dangerous righties

     Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2009 @ 09:45am

111. Rev Larry debates Rev Larry

     "It would always be better to have a Christian in the White House because they would have a similar frame of reference as most of the Founders. "

     "Just because someone carries a label of Christian, doesn't make them one. "

     Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2009 @ 07:03am

     there is no contradiction there. But I realize for all of the atheists and agnostics the distinction will forever remain unintelligible to them.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/21/2009 @ 09:45am

112. tattooed

     Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2009 @ 09:45am

113. Posted by antisocialist at 04/21/2009 @ 09:45am

     Many of the Founding Fathers do not meet your criteria.

     Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2009 @ 09:47am

114. Two in one 24 hour period, crab. Note mine....Larry just said he believes EVERY President, including Obama, "will take action to preserve our safety and the Union".

     So...how does he now turn around and criticize Obama on foreign policy????

     Posted by Mask at 04/21/2009 @ 08:06am

     Again Mask, Foreign Policy and National Security Actions involving the military and/or the CIA are not synonymous

     I support Obama 100% on any military or CIA action he takes against threats to our national security. that is not the same as the politics of foreign policy

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/21/2009 @ 09:48am

115. The point I was making there was that EVEN IF we buy the ontological (if I'm using that term correctly here) point that Liberty makes (that "true" Christians= more moral than non-Christians), it's still epistemologically problematic because presumably, only God would be able to sort these "true" Christians out anyway.

     Posted by Thrawn at 04/21/2009 @ 09:44am

     Indeed we can:

     Matthew 7:21-23

     "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

     John 14:21

     He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."

     John 15:4-6

     Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5 "I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

     And the entire letter of 1st John

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/21/2009 @ 09:58am

116. As I read anti's comments... it appears that he would accept an Aryan Nation/Christian Identity Movement president before an Atheist president.

     Of course his response will be that of course AN/CI are not "real" Christians. They just happen to use the same Good Book. Meanwhile he will rant and rave about Chavez, come here to attempt to sway us from our backwards socialism, but not go to Idaho to correct the theology of dangerous righties

     Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2009 @ 09:45am

     As noted by my lost posting of scripture references, neither of these groups are Christian. I have no problem with the govt getting rid of all racist groups like the ones you mentioned. They don't use the Bible, except selectively like atheists and agnostics; pulling out selective passages that they believe will support their hate.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/21/2009 @ 10:01am

117. Posted by antisocialist at 04/21/2009 @ 09:48am

     Basically, if Obama wants to kill somebody foreign....you'd support it?

     If he wants to TALK to somebody foreign....you'd be dubious?

     Posted by Mask at 04/21/2009 @ 11:13am

118. ANTISOCIAL, the worshipper of disgruntled and drunken rightwing abusive types with Joe McCarthy as High Preist, reveals his love of unbridled statism and uninihibited state terrorism:

     "Karimov-No problem, at least he's battling against jihad.

     Pinochet; preferrable to Allende"

     --- Posted by antisocialist at 04/21/2009 @ 10:01am

     "I have no problem with the govt getting rid of all racist groups like the ones you mentioned."

     --- Posted by antisocialist at 04/21/2009 @ 10:01am

     It is easy to play by these rules, and for a state to prosecute a war with its own poulation, when it possesses the sickly cocktail of zero scruples, lust for state terror, and baked-in disdain for humanity. All it requires is to noisily denounce the terrorized group as danger-laden "leftist subversives", or Temple Mormons, or "agnostics", or as an ethnically unfit population -- and the license to kill and maim behind the sheild of the state is minted. It's what ANTISOCIAL calls "getting rid" (those are his words, above) of undesirable groups. And his own disgusting words in support of filth like Pinochet and Karimov umistakably demonstrate that he knowingly affirms state-sponsored murder and terrorism. He is one of them.

     Under this form of rapidly animalistic knuckle-dragging statism, which set of Maryknoll nuns would that noted lover of the death penalty, Jesus the Christ, rape and kill as they made their way through El Salvador? All in the name of "national defense" against degenerate "communism"?

     As for authentic racist groups, they suck ass hard. But one cannot prosecute them until they have committed or planned recognizable crimes. Same as everyone else, that's the idea. And not sick sick sick bloodlust like "getting rid" of people of whom one does not approve.

     Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 04/21/2009 @ 12:20pm

119. Basically, if Obama wants to kill somebody foreign....you'd support it?

     If he wants to TALK to somebody foreign....you'd be dubious?

     Posted by Mask at 04/21/2009 @ 11:13am

     Tell me who he wants to kill first.

     Dubious about his talks because of the way he has framed his goals in talks with others. They are defeatist, submissive to other govts, and denigrate the soveriegnty of the US.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/21/2009 @ 12:29pm

120. They don't use the Bible, except selectively like atheists and agnostics; pulling out selective passages that they believe will support their hate.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/21/2009 @ 10:01am

     Wait are you comparing atheists and agnostics to racists, saying that racists hate religious people?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/21/2009 @ 4:56pm

121. Dubious about his talks because of the way he has framed his goals in talks with others. They are defeatist, submissive to other govts, and denigrate the soveriegnty of the US.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/21/2009 @ 12:29pm

     You mean because unlike Bush thy don't require someone else to completely submit to the US BEFORE we talk to them? The isn't defeatist that is realistic. Stepping the table with demands accomplishes nothing. No one will come to the table if you are forcing things on them before you have even talked, which is why the hard right rarely accomplishes anything diplomatically.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/21/2009 @ 5:00pm

122. Wait are you comparing atheists and agnostics to racists, saying that racists hate religious people?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/21/2009 @ 4:56pm

     No I wasn't. Do you have a reading disability.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/21/2009 @ 5:23pm

123. You mean because unlike Bush thy don't require someone else to completely submit to the US BEFORE we talk to them? The isn't defeatist that is realistic. Stepping the table with demands accomplishes nothing. No one will come to the table if you are forcing things on them before you have even talked, which is why the hard right rarely accomplishes anything diplomatically.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/21/2009 @ 5:00pm

     It should not surprise you that I find little benefit from most diplomacy today.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/21/2009 @ 5:24pm

124. Ccomfo1,

     I noticed something here in something you said,

     "....Stepping the table with demands accomplishes nothing. No one will come to the table if you are forcing things on them before you have even talked....."

     Some entities insist that Israel return to the pre-1967 borders as a PRECONDITION to negotiations. We are told that the Palestinians want a Palestinian state, that they really do not want no Israel, etc. etc.

     But some of them say that they want the Palestinian state, and THEN they will start to talk!

     About what?

     Since my second paragraph is your words, do you agree with your own words that it would be unreasonable to demand this of Israel?

     Just curious.

     Posted by sjchermak at 04/21/2009 @ 9:30pm

125. No I wasn't. Do you have a reading disability.

     Posted by antisocialist at 04/21/2009 @ 5:23pm

     No I actully read what you said perfectly well. Should I quote you since you have a memory problem apparently.

     " They don't use the Bible, except selectively like atheists and agnostics; pulling out selective passages that they believe will support their hate."

     That SURE sounds like a comparison to me. Maybe you should learn to write a sentence clearly in order to get your intentions across before you go around insulting others for misinterpreting your poorly written words.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/22/2009 @ 12:49am