Chavez agrees with me
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Saturday, September 30, 2006 01:33
VIEWED: 5105
PAGE 5 of 6
Signym
Dig more.
NAFTA is a neocon plot, it's a globalist idea, it's the opposition to internationalist. Clinton is a globalist, not an internationalist. Internationalism believes in different nations, and things like the UN. Actually, the change over to Bush resulted in fewer personel changes than any other bipartisan change over in history (<50%)
The restructuring of the military towards Halliburton was Clinton's own personal initiative, not off of his radar at all. Besides, read enough about Clinton and you get how he was a texas drug thug just like Bush.
The worst thing in the 80s for America was our support of Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war.
Wasn't saying reagan was perfect.
BTW, this just in. I wasn't disagreeing with Chavez. Just pointing out that it wasn't very diplomatic. So what is Nancy Pelosi on about? She's the opposition. She *should* be calling Bush a donkey. Except that it's the dem's mascot. But she could call him a monkey.
Clinton's main international deals were selling our ports to a british company. The Dubai deal was more of a Clinton gaff than a Bush one, but you won't rook me into defending Bush. But we had little control over the deal once the ports were sold. Also, the selling of long beach naval base to China? pure Clinton. Did you know that this is the base which is now used by the commies to funnel arms to Chavez?
Also, this Chavez arms thing is a mess. It's entirely possible that he will use his new stockpile to arm revolutions in neighboring counties.
Your position "the left has no part in this mess" doesn't match up with the facts, or even come to the same library as the truth. I think the academic left, in particular the commie circles of academia, are the main architects of this disaster. Sure, there's tons of corruption, and a number of immensely stupid christians and conservatives who bought it hook line and sinker, and many many who still do. But you guys on the regular non-commie left are still buying it hook line and sinker after you're own disaster-in-chief, Mr. Clinton killed a million plus people, stole a trillion plus dollars, and sold off your countries national security and forwarded mergers that put an end to competition and the free press. The real threat to free press is not the govt.'s little annoying interference, it's the total lack of competition resulting from merger mania. It's that Time/Warner, Disney, Viacom and FOX control everything you see and hear. Time/Warner and CBS/Viacom are barely even separate entities from each other.
Not that Bush is the opposite of this policy, he's the continuation of it. Are there differences? Sure, they compete with one another for control, to some extent. But personally, the Bushes and Clintons still get along swimmingly.
As I said, I'm sure I can prove this point, and will build a website full of links and send you the address at some point before Hillary is president.
We all voted for at least one loser of this set. We need to get over our denial so that we can learn from our mistakes and not do it again.
BTW, a typical move of the Bush/Clinton team is that the key players on one side are in the govt. when that side is in power, and then they join the private sector while the other side is in power. But all this time, the team is always making deals with itself. And this club is small. It's much smaller than the political players as a whole.
I think the biggest connection i have seen is that if you look at something and say "bush did this evil thing" you can usually dig and see "oh, and so did clinton" but you don't find that jfk or nixon did it. Sometimes you find small under the table reagan and carter deals, but you have to realize that these evil people were in those administrations, doesn't mean that they were running them. Remember, the main architects of the Iraq war were Wolfowitz and Perle, people from the Carter administration, and they follow something called the "Carter Doctrine"
Does this mean that Carter was evil and wanted world war three? No, it means these same crooks
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT
Kielbasa, bratwurst, hot dogs - in other words -
LINKS !!! man, LINKS !!
You made many claims about Chavez and Venezuela, presumably information gathered in your post-internet life. NONE of them square with anything I've read. On the one hand - information I've read first hand. On the other hand - your unsupported claims. What do YOU think carries more weight? Until you provide some sources, I can't credit what you say.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM,
Clinton did some things that deeply disappointed me. Many of them I understood as political expediency - but some just seemed intentionally, pointedly wrong-headed. Like NAFT for example. On its face it seemed so self-destructive. And given Clinton's general acumen, I puzzled over it at length. How could someone so smart do something so dumb? The best I could figure was that he was trying to float the US standard of living on cheap imports. If you're ALL sinking to the bottom of the barrel, it's best to be floating on top. So I reserved judgment on that, thinking there might be a factor I didn't account for.
I have to admit I haven't kept track. How did it all turn out?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue,
On Clinton
Your defense strikes me as rhetorical. Like the democratic party's response to the infamous black republican's ad. The bottom line is what Chris Matthews said: Sure, but what part of that isn't true?
Clinton links would take a lot of work, because clinton years were early years of the net, when everything was business and there was not a lot of political networking.
I provide a link to the only one of those that I thought would be in doubt to people. I thought all of the rest of it was well established fact.
I am going to have about $1000 more in bills than I have in income this month, and no idea how to cover it, so I'm greatly lacking for free time. What is on that list that you doubt?
I'll try to dig something up if there's something specifically there that you have reason to think isn't so.
On Chavez
Most of my Chavez stuff came from the venezuelan who posted earlier, but I did search on it and see that it was so, I can look. I believe I started that earlier round with Chavez is not as bad as we think, but I got my ass kicked in the argument. I'm always suspicious of any argument in which the official position side is that of big oil, but that aside, I still came to that conclusion, Chavez, not the antichrist, but suboptimal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Clinton did a lot of stupid things:
Established normal trade relations with China
Fought- hard- for NAFTA
Fought- hard- for GATT
Scraped people off permanent welfare w/o the job training necessary to boost them into the workforce.
As far as NAFTA is concerned, it did exactly what it's detractors said it would do: It relocated USA jobs to Mexico. www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/
Clinton's real weakness seemed to be that he believed that "free trade" really would promote democracy. It seems to me that he thought that free trade would work IF it was adopted in a framework of international law.
One of the big differences between Clinton and Bush- and I think it is a signal difference- is that Clinton was in love with international agreements. He signed a lot:
Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption September 18, 2000.
Inter-American Convention Against Corruption July 27, 2000.
Rome Statute for an International
Criminal Court (ICC) December 31, 2000
www.abanet.org/poladv/priorities/intltreaties.html
Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty 1996
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1994 Agreement relating to Implementation of Part IX (Deep Seabed Mining)
www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Rogue_State_US/Biggest_Rogue.html
Chemical Weapons Convention signed 1993
www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0812580.html
By contrast, Bush uses the military almost exclusively in international matters. CAFTA, WTO, UN, G8, Kyoto... he or his appointees attend but in general they are obstructive to the USA entering into ANY international agreements.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT- I agree with Rue. I need links. I'm not ging to spend the next five hours digging thru nut-job websites to find credible evidence to support YOUR posts. Clinton a drug thug like Bush? Clinton pushing for Halliburton? C'mon. Show me some evidence.
Quote:What, in your opinion, is the MAIN fault of the "commie left"? Supporting "merger mania"? Pushing for NAFTA? Operating our ports and security and military on a business basis? Pushing for trade with China? Cutting back on welfare? I dunno DT.... doesn't sound like "the left" to me at all. So, really, what mythical group are you refering to, and what their main failure?
Your position "the left has no part in this mess" doesn't match up with the facts, or even come to the same library as the truth. I think the academic left, in particular the commie circles of academia, are the main architects of this disaster.
Quote:Did not. You keep thinking that I supported Clinton. I have said time, and time, and time again- I didn't vote for him. I didn't support him. I didn't vote for Bush either- I "threw my vote away" on a third party candidate who had not a prayer of winning. Rue is right- you have idee fixes that keep you from absorbing crucial facts, which is why you keep misrepresenting me in your own mind and misunderstanding what I'm saying.
We all voted for at least one loser of this set.
One of the reason why we keep going round and round is that you keep calling groups by names that have no historical relevance or any connection to their current positions. So anyone you disagree with is a "commie" or a "democrat" or a "socialist" or a "fascist" or a "Schachtmannite" because they ALL believe in big-government (in your view). I think this blur critical distinctions that would otherwise inform your thinking. If you would stop re-naming the world to meet your expectations our discussions would be a lot more productive.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, that's why I left off trying to discuss anything with DT.
If you can't even hold to mutual definition of even a single term, how the hell can you have a reasoned discussion with someone when they keep changing the meaning of the words they use to describe something ?
Honestly, DT, I know you mean well, but I am really startin to wonder if you live on the same planet as the rest of us, cause unless you start linking some of this stuff you're shovelling, we're going to take it as it's face value.
Zero.
Even PN does enough homework to support his statements with links, some of them to quite reputable sources at times, so if the issue at hand matters enough for you to discuss it at such length, it damn well should matter enough for you to provide one whit of supporting evidence, especially when you are making claims that fly in the face of common sense, established, confirmed evidence and historical precedent.
If you intend to be taken any kind of seriously, when you make a claim of that nature you better be prepared to back it up, and have all your ducks in a row, else you're just another cuckoo bird ain't no one gonna listen to.
Not that I care very much, mind you, like I said, my free advice is worth everythin ya paid for it... still, you want credibility, you better bring enough evidence to the table to buy it.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay,
You win. I concede. Clinton is the only true son of God. Worship on. Or you could go search for this stuff yourself. I don't have the time to argue this, I'm not the master webreasearcher that PN is.
If you want to know about Clinton's drug dealer network you need to look no further than his presidential pardon list. If you want to know about his big Halliburton deals, all you had to do was read the news, like, at all.
I give up. I leave you with this:
http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ga/61/ga060919pm.rm
Go watch Ahmadinejad and Evo Morales and learn what real opposition is. The democrats are contantly bombarding people with liberal wedge issue politics which alienates the majority of Americans much the way Bush uses conservative wedge issues, and the rest of the time, to me, they are indistinguishable from Bush. If you want to get anyone anywhere closer to your side, find real leaders and support them, not just your own George W. Bushes.
Sig,
Bush's cronies are almost all former members of a group of trotsky leftests who were lead by Max Shachtman, (look him up in wikipedia)and Irving Kristol, people like that. They're commies, and they haven't changed since then. Look it up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Shachtman
Look up Michael Harrington, Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, these are the guys that Wolfowitz, Perle and co. worshipped, and still do, this is where the globalist agenda was born, where the war in Iraq was first cooked up. They tried to push Carter into it, and it might have worked if Carter hadn't lost the 1980 election, but now they Bush, and soon they'll have Hillary Clinton.
The problem with the political left isn't that it's radically left., it's that it's amazingly weak. It's like "Bush.left". Almost all I ever hear is "The only thing wrong is that we're not in charge."
As I said, any of you who were actually paying any attention in the 90s knows all of that stuff I posted already. I don't seriously credit that any of you actually doubt it any more than you actually doubt my unlinked claim that Joseph Stalin killed millions of his own people. I wasn't bringing it all up to convince you that Clinton was a bad guy, I thought we were on that page, I think I thought that all of the above was accepted fact.
I was posting it for two reasons:
1. The media has started to worship Clinton again in its build up lovefest to Hillary '08.
2. The democrats and the left have yet to convince me that they're not at least just like Bush. My point was, what am I missing? Where's the difference? Bush is way worse based on what? The coke vs. pepsi political contest has turned into the arsenic vs. cyanide political contest.
Finally, and I do mean this finally, I've mentioned several times that I barely have the free time to come here and post. If you really doubt that Clinton did any of those things, I'm sure you can google before you vote. But Pirate News does this stuff all day long, it's what he does. It's not what I do. I have barely the time to read all the rants here and write out my thoughts, a point I've made abundantly clear. So I can't help but feel that an inquisition insistance on me investing more time is a deliberate attempt to get rid of me in pursuit of liberal purity. I don't see any value in the debate you're creating, but you're welcome to it. I'm out of here. If anyone cares, you know how reach me, but in case you don't, you'll have better luck reaching me at dreamtrove - at - gmail.com
I have no time for this, which is why I balied before. I don't care who you vote for. But if you're going to be as unscutinizing as you appear to be of who you choose to support, I humbly suggest that Finn and Auraptor can probably set you up with some cushy jobs working for folks just as unscupulous as Clinton, but who pay way better.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since when have the Democrates been Left? America doesn't have a left wing party.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow DT, perhaps you didn't read the part where I strongly disagreed with Clinton's policies on free trade and welfare? Or that I didn't vote for him? And you know what? I won't vote for Hillary either, if we should be so unfortunate to have her as a candidate. But some people- you perhaps- just can't take a qualified "yes" for an answer.
Okay, You win. I concede. Clinton is the only true son of God. Worship on.
Just 'cause I don't unquestioningly lump Clinton in the same category as Bush doesn't mean you have to go off in a huff. But I will re-state my opinion one more time hoping that you will finally understand me. I think Cheney is evil. Very, very evil. Also, shortsighted and cruel. I think Clinton was evil- just as evil as Cheney. But in a qualitatively different way.
BTW, I did look up Schachtman. His thinking evolved considerably over the years, from a supporter of the Soviet Union to social democrat to seeing the USSR as worse than capitalism. And then when he died his so-called followers took that point even further into neoconservatism. And the guy wasn't even around at that point!
But all YOU see is Schachtman = neocon = democrat = socialist = fascist = GW Bush ... It's all just a big jumble for you, isn't it? In the meantime, the ONE thing you will not... EVER... admit is that big business is corrosive to people.
So, carry on.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME