You might want to look in the situation in Venezuela a bit more ... Regardless of your feelings about Bush, Chavez is undeserving of any sort of hero worship, IMHO.
..I agree fully: I do not know much about venezuela and I should learn more about it.
and I need to say that I do not worship Chavez of any kind.
so the backround to my little praising of this news smile is explained now:
here in Europe/ Germany we hear too much of evil states, the evil achses of evil, terror and fear,
yeah, you hear all this in Germany as well daily and most people believe it all.
however, none here in this world anymore, (beside the muslims) critize seriously Bushs way and that he has done serious mistakes and let the world suffer badly,
... he is maybe also one of those evil ones.
Chaves impressed me with his Mumm, with his curage..
..thats all that made me smile... they did not show any details of any speek.
Chavez ways and his system might be unfair as well...well, it is just like all the others.
to me,
none is right or wrong anymore,
as there is no middle anymore.
there is no way to peace, peace is the way!
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
their country is also divided..like us.. and these 'grown ups' continue talks of unity of the world.. get it right here first!
hate the french
hate the iranians
hate the venezuleans
hate the north koreans
hate some of the south koreans
but dont hate
kuwait
israel
britain
Bush is a misspoken Lunatic. Fuck War.
War has NEVER solved anything..regardless of the cute signs.
Nazis still exist
tyrants still exist
terrorism still exists
oppression still exists
a divided country with civil war in its past, rises to exist again
You have to love the irony. Both Chavez and the neo-cons want to fix the UN.
don't they know the UN can be swayed all you gotta do is show them some computer images of brown things being moved in a desert...call them..umm... weapons! and scare the fuck out of em!
than do whatever ya want
the idea of nationalism is to put faith and love in your country. This is a great idea.. but now that the communications today are faster and We are seeing patterns of a shift to a global society... maybe we should be teaching Nationalism on a basis of 'Worldism' love your world first. Any 'Nationalist" who doesnt agree, isn't a true Nationalist, because as i have said many times on this board, Nationalism is directly linked to Romanticism.. the idea of one.. maybe now it isn't just One Country, it is one Globe.
leave Nationalism behind for Olympic Events, and sporting events..and especially leave it behind when making decisions that will effect your globe. Keep in mind.. things we do in Iraq, or anywhere in the world..will make it back to us. That is history.
Is he a dictator yet, or does he just like to think he is (a la "things would be a lot easier if ......." )?
He did win an election, but now he basically functions as a dictator ... Things I have read suggest that he is currently undermining democracy in Venezuela.
He did win an election, but now he basically functions as a dictator ... Things I have read suggest that he is currently undermining democracy in Venezuela.
I guess we'll find out. I must say I had better hopes for the guy - but, then, it's not my country. I've read a while back that there's an election in December, and that he's polling at about 60%. However, I also read that the main reason he stands to clean house is because the opposition is disparate and can't seem to get their act together (which sounds very familiar to me). Oh, and that the most recognized opposition candidate is a comedian.
All in all, I'd say from my distant outsider's perspective, he's Bush - only Left-Wing style. Kung-Fu vs. the Drunken Boxer - flip a coin to decide which title fits which.
the idea of nationalism is to put faith and love in your country. This is a great idea.. but now that the communications today are faster and We are seeing patterns of a shift to a global society... maybe we should be teaching Nationalism on a basis of 'Worldism' love your world first.
"Townism" wasn't any better than "villageism". "Statism" wasn't any better than "Townism". "Nationalism" wasn't any better than "Statism". How would "Worldism" make things any different?
Any 'Nationalist" who doesnt agree, isn't a true Nationalist, because as i have said many times on this board, Nationalism is directly linked to Romanticism.. the idea of one.. maybe now it isn't just One Country, it is one Globe.
Ok. What if my "worldism" isn't the name as your "worldism"?
leave Nationalism behind for Olympic Events, and sporting events..and especially leave it behind when making decisions that will effect your globe. Keep in mind.. things we do in Iraq, or anywhere in the world..will make it back to us. That is history.
Certainly "things we do" affect us. Would anyone suggest otherwise?
I guess we'll find out. I must say I had better hopes for the guy - but, then, it's not my country. I've read a while back that there's an election in December, and that he's polling at about 60%. However, I also read that the main reason he stands to clean house is because the opposition is disparate and can't seem to get their act together (which sounds very familiar to me). Oh, and that the most recognized opposition candidate is a comedian.
All in all, I'd say from my distant outsider's perspective, he's Bush - only Left-Wing style. Kung-Fu vs. the Drunken Boxer - flip a coin to decide which title fits which.
I don't know why, but people in these countries who are elected as socialists usually seem to wind up corrupt ... I mean, elect a socialist party, power to you. But outside of Europe and North America, such leaders find themselves becoming more and more dictatorial, dealing with the opposition in harsh ways and basically forgetting that socialism CAN actually work in a DEMOCRATIC system. And Chavez, despite any political merits he may have, is a child. I mean, his baiting and antics are just not appropriate in a statesman. I actually agree with your Bush comparison, although Chavez has more power in his nation than Bush does in his.
I don't know why, but people in these countries who are elected as socialists usually seem to wind up corrupt ... I mean, elect a socialist party, power to you. But outside of Europe and North America, such leaders find themselves becoming more and more dictatorial, dealing with the opposition in harsh ways and basically forgetting that socialism CAN actually work in a DEMOCRATIC system. And Chavez, despite any political merits he may have, is a child. I mean, his baiting and antics are just not appropriate in a statesman. I actually agree with your Bush comparison, although Chavez has more power in his nation than Bush does in his.
Socialists in a socialist system will corrupt much faster than socialists in a democratic (even quasi-democratic) system.
Put a bull in a china shop and he'll do a lot of damage. Put a bull in a cage in a china shop and it'll take a bit longer.
"Townism" wasn't any better than "villageism". "Statism" wasn't any better than "Townism". "Nationalism" wasn't any better than "Statism". How would "Worldism" make things any different?
Ok. What if my "worldism" isn't the name as your "worldism"?
Certainly "things we do" affect us. Would anyone suggest otherwise?
Worldism puts in end to two Enlightening countries, destroying each other. Respect the World and Do not worry of evil things that are done by terrorists and misanthroped countries. Bush has stated many times, freedom will always prevail...and it will. So where does violence and war fit into this? If we continue to become stronger and more enlightened, why would we have to be so afraid?
'' all mankind is my brethren, and to do good, my religion. '' - Thomas Paine.
Worldism puts in end to two Enlightening countries, destroying each other. Respect the World and Do not worry of evil things that are done by terrorists and misanthroped countries. Bush has stated many times, freedom will always prevail...and it will. So where does violence and war fit into this? If we continue to become stronger and more enlightened, why would we have to be so afraid?
'' all mankind is my brethren, and to do good, my religion. '' - Thomas Paine.
Kind of all over the place here....
First, two countries who are destroying each other are not "Enlightened" or "Enlightening". They are the opposite of that. Furthermore, "worldism" is not a default, meaning that it cannot grow out of the simple destruction of nationalism.
Bush certainly states that "freedom will always prevail" and he contradicts this by his violence and war. But contradiction and nationalism are not the same thing.
The world or "we" will not become more enlightened. Some will, some will not. Conflicts will arise from that. The world will never adopt the words of Paine as a whole until people simply stop rejecting each others' will with force. That goes for George Bush v. terrorists, and it goes for you v. George Bush.
A doctrine of "worldism" will still dictate that an individual is subservient to his neighbor, therefore placing his will in opposition to his neighbor's. All you're doing is expanding the influence of that subservience and making it stronger. In other words, you're suggesting that we lighten the load by adding a ton of bricks.
"Worldism" is not the answer to the ills of nationalism. Individualism, on the other hand, is. Societies that put the will of their members above the fantasy-will of their collective are the ones that will no longer suffer the injustices of nationalism.
I don't know why, but people in these countries who are elected as socialists usually seem to wind up corrupt ... I mean, elect a socialist party, power to you. But outside of Europe and North America, such leaders find themselves becoming more and more dictatorial, dealing with the opposition in harsh ways and basically forgetting that socialism CAN actually work in a DEMOCRATIC system. And Chavez, despite any political merits he may have, is a child. I mean, his baiting and antics are just not appropriate in a statesman. I actually agree with your Bush comparison, although Chavez has more power in his nation than Bush does in his.
I think the reason for that (and let's not pretend this is just socialist problem - Latin America has it's history of right-wing dictators too) is that we in the Americas and in Europe have a longer history with democracy. It's been tried and tested, and basically made it through the break-in period. Bush doesn't have as much power as Chavez because, generally, we don't let our presidents have it (though Bush does have far more than he should, if you ask me). In a lot of ways, the U.S. is lucky in this regard. George Washington didn't want to be King, and, while John Adams did, he simply didn't have the personality to pull it off. And Jefferson was too much of an idealist to even consider it. So, after three different styles of president the message sunk in - this democracy thing might actually work. Venezuela has been a democracy since roughly 1960 - and not really an affluent one at that. It's still young in that regard - but not really a young country like the U.S. was. Simple analysis, I know, but this is just a message board.
I think the reason for that (and let's not pretend this is just socialist problem - Latin America has it's history of right-wing dictators too) is that we in the Americas and in Europe have a longer history with democracy. It's been tried and tested, and basically made it through the break-in period. Bush doesn't have as much power as Chavez because, generally, we don't let our presidents have it (though Bush does have far more than he should, if you ask me). In a lot of ways, the U.S. is lucky in this regard. George Washington didn't want to be King, and, while John Adams did, he simply didn't have the personality to pull it off. And Jefferson was too much of an idealist to even consider it. So, after three different styles of president the message sunk in - this democracy thing might actually work. Venezuela has been a democracy since roughly 1960 - and not really an affluent one at that. It's still young in that regard - but not really a young country like the U.S. was. Simple analysis, I know, but this is just a message board.
You beat me to it. I think that is the difference. Latin America has been raped for the past century and Chavez paranoid behaivior is a direct result of it.
I think the reason for that (and let's not pretend this is just socialist problem - Latin America has it's history of right-wing dictators too) is that we in the Americas and in Europe have a longer history with democracy. It's been tried and tested, and basically made it through the break-in period. Bush doesn't have as much power as Chavez because, generally, we don't let our presidents have it (though Bush does have far more than he should, if you ask me). In a lot of ways, the U.S. is lucky in this regard. George Washington didn't want to be King, and, while John Adams did, he simply didn't have the personality to pull it off. And Jefferson was too much of an idealist to even consider it. So, after three different styles of president the message sunk in - this democracy thing might actually work. Venezuela has been a democracy since roughly 1960 - and not really an affluent one at that. It's still young in that regard - but not really a young country like the U.S. was. Simple analysis, I know, but this is just a message board.
Message board or no, its a decent analysis. Ideally, the same growing process will occur in Latin America ... Ultimately, though, people's attitudes are going to have to shift enough such that they can actively choose a democratic system. Latin America has been exploited in the past, both by its own leaders (left and right) and by outside powers, but eventually, the past must be left behind and the people there are going to have to decide not to tolerate corruption, and move forward. Chevez and others are retarding the growth process.
-as in "Look at me, Im publicly calling the US president the Devil. Im a certified bad ass."
perhaps he should have called bush an "evil-doer"...and then added him the the "axis of evil"....and perhaps he could have added a "christo-fascist"...
perhaps he should have called bush an "evil-doer"...and then added him the the "axis of evil"....and perhaps he could have added a "christo-fascist"...
that would have been much more mature...
He wouldn't have sounded like a spoiled 5 yr old. But as long as ppl say what you wanna hear, you're al for'em i guess.
Comments
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13989898/site/newsweek/
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu
http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200412161451
If you like socialist dictatorships with some corruption on the side, he's a great guy. I don't, though.
..I agree fully: I do not know much about venezuela and I should learn more about it.
and I need to say that I do not worship Chavez of any kind.
so the backround to my little praising of this news smile is explained now:
here in Europe/ Germany we hear too much of evil states, the evil achses of evil, terror and fear,
yeah, you hear all this in Germany as well daily and most people believe it all.
however, none here in this world anymore, (beside the muslims) critize seriously Bushs way and that he has done serious mistakes and let the world suffer badly,
... he is maybe also one of those evil ones.
Chaves impressed me with his Mumm, with his curage..
..thats all that made me smile... they did not show any details of any speek.
Chavez ways and his system might be unfair as well...well, it is just like all the others.
to me,
none is right or wrong anymore,
as there is no middle anymore.
...the world is come undone, I like to change it everyday but change don't come at once, it's a wave, building before it breaks.
http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/ven-summary-eng
what is this new idea you speak of?
it starts by ending the teaching of nationalism and patriotism to our kids.
don't they know the UN can be swayed
than do whatever ya want
Ok. How do you do that?
the idea of nationalism is to put faith and love in your country. This is a great idea.. but now that the communications today are faster and We are seeing patterns of a shift to a global society... maybe we should be teaching Nationalism on a basis of 'Worldism' love your world first. Any 'Nationalist" who doesnt agree, isn't a true Nationalist, because as i have said many times on this board, Nationalism is directly linked to Romanticism.. the idea of one.. maybe now it isn't just One Country, it is one Globe.
leave Nationalism behind for Olympic Events, and sporting events..and especially leave it behind when making decisions that will effect your globe. Keep in mind.. things we do in Iraq, or anywhere in the world..will make it back to us. That is history.
He did win an election, but now he basically functions as a dictator ... Things I have read suggest that he is currently undermining democracy in Venezuela.
All in all, I'd say from my distant outsider's perspective, he's Bush - only Left-Wing style. Kung-Fu vs. the Drunken Boxer - flip a coin to decide which title fits which.
"Townism" wasn't any better than "villageism". "Statism" wasn't any better than "Townism". "Nationalism" wasn't any better than "Statism". How would "Worldism" make things any different?
Ok. What if my "worldism" isn't the name as your "worldism"?
Certainly "things we do" affect us. Would anyone suggest otherwise?
I don't know why, but people in these countries who are elected as socialists usually seem to wind up corrupt ... I mean, elect a socialist party, power to you. But outside of Europe and North America, such leaders find themselves becoming more and more dictatorial, dealing with the opposition in harsh ways and basically forgetting that socialism CAN actually work in a DEMOCRATIC system. And Chavez, despite any political merits he may have, is a child. I mean, his baiting and antics are just not appropriate in a statesman. I actually agree with your Bush comparison, although Chavez has more power in his nation than Bush does in his.
Socialists in a socialist system will corrupt much faster than socialists in a democratic (even quasi-democratic) system.
Put a bull in a china shop and he'll do a lot of damage. Put a bull in a cage in a china shop and it'll take a bit longer.
Worldism puts in end to two Enlightening countries, destroying each other. Respect the World and Do not worry of evil things that are done by terrorists and misanthroped countries. Bush has stated many times, freedom will always prevail...and it will. So where does violence and war fit into this? If we continue to become stronger and more enlightened, why would we have to be so afraid?
'' all mankind is my brethren, and to do good, my religion. '' - Thomas Paine.
Is it "courage"?
or is it simply "Attention Whore-ism"
-as in "Look at me, Im publicly calling the US president the Devil. Im a certified bad ass."
when you do stupid things again and again, respect is lost
Kind of all over the place here....
First, two countries who are destroying each other are not "Enlightened" or "Enlightening". They are the opposite of that. Furthermore, "worldism" is not a default, meaning that it cannot grow out of the simple destruction of nationalism.
Bush certainly states that "freedom will always prevail" and he contradicts this by his violence and war. But contradiction and nationalism are not the same thing.
The world or "we" will not become more enlightened. Some will, some will not. Conflicts will arise from that. The world will never adopt the words of Paine as a whole until people simply stop rejecting each others' will with force. That goes for George Bush v. terrorists, and it goes for you v. George Bush.
A doctrine of "worldism" will still dictate that an individual is subservient to his neighbor, therefore placing his will in opposition to his neighbor's. All you're doing is expanding the influence of that subservience and making it stronger. In other words, you're suggesting that we lighten the load by adding a ton of bricks.
"Worldism" is not the answer to the ills of nationalism. Individualism, on the other hand, is. Societies that put the will of their members above the fantasy-will of their collective are the ones that will no longer suffer the injustices of nationalism.
and your answer is......
A-Attention Whore
or
B-Courageous
You beat me to it. I think that is the difference. Latin America has been raped for the past century and Chavez paranoid behaivior is a direct result of it.
Message board or no, its a decent analysis. Ideally, the same growing process will occur in Latin America ... Ultimately, though, people's attitudes are going to have to shift enough such that they can actively choose a democratic system. Latin America has been exploited in the past, both by its own leaders (left and right) and by outside powers, but eventually, the past must be left behind and the people there are going to have to decide not to tolerate corruption, and move forward. Chevez and others are retarding the growth process.
perhaps he should have called bush an "evil-doer"...and then added him the the "axis of evil"....and perhaps he could have added a "christo-fascist"...
that would have been much more mature...
He wouldn't have sounded like a spoiled 5 yr old. But as long as ppl say what you wanna hear, you're al for'em i guess.
the whole thing? can you post it dude?
Tivo'd...
Don't worry, it'll hit youtube soon. Get some popcorn. It's a riot.