Anyone watching Chavez's UN speech right now?

rebornFixer

RainDog wrote:

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.

RainDog

reborncareerist wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

macgyver06 wrote:

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?

rebornFixer

RainDog wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

reborncareerist wrote:

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.

macgyver06

farfromglorified wrote:

"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.

truroute

Chavez and his 5 yr old rhetoric:

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."

macgyver06

truroute wrote:

Chavez and his 5 yr old rhetoric:

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

farfromglorified

macgyver06 wrote:

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.

RainDog

reborncareerist wrote:

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.

truroute

macgyver06 wrote:

when you do stupid things again and again, respect is lost

and your answer is......

A-Attention Whore

or

B-Courageous

TheVoiceInside

RainDog wrote:

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.

rebornFixer

RainDog wrote:

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.

inmytree

truroute wrote:

Chavez and his 5 yr old rhetoric:

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."

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...

MrBrian

a short vid of his speech is on the front page of yahoo news right now.

truroute

inmytree wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

Just saw the speech. That guy is a great entertainer.

sweet adeline

i wonder how chomsky feels about chavez pimping his book like that?

MrBrian

farfromglorified wrote:

Just saw the speech. That guy is a great entertainer.

the whole thing? can you post it dude?

farfromglorified

MrBrian wrote:

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.