SC and Prole: We told you so

[sexual_chocolate]

and no, i had a Wonderful commute home. 4 inches of snow and a fucking winter wonderland all around me. beautiful and fucking serene.

[underworld]

geezz.. well you were asking an opinion/speculation of someone that, i am assuming, hasn't been there and might not know anyone there.

 

i was asking a SPECIFIC person to IMAGINE having grown up in a different set of circumstances, and asked them if they could in any possible way see themselves having a different set of beliefs if they had been exposed to a different set of circumstances; is this question really that hard to understand?

 

it was a question meant as an attempt to reveal the potentially nebulous nature of political beliefs- how those beliefs CAN be the result of simple circumstance. do you not see this, or perhaps not agree?

 

couldn't agree more!

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

geezz.. well you were asking an opinion/speculation of someone that, i am assuming, hasn't been there and might not know anyone there.

 

i was asking a SPECIFIC person to IMAGINE having grown up in a different set of circumstances, and asked them if they could in any possible way see themselves having a different set of beliefs if they had been exposed to a different set of circumstances; is this question really that hard to understand?

I wasn't asking for any friggin' opinions about conditions or chavez's allegiance to the devil or somesuch nonsense; it was a question meant as an attempt to reveal the potentially nebulous nature of political beliefs- how those beliefs CAN be the result of simple circumstance. do you not see this, or perhaps not agree?

 

You're so full of shit it's seeping from your eyeballs

[Dechristo]

but, is it chocolate?

 

 

poor guy's been packed tighter than a box of rocks

Edited January 11, 2007 by Dechristo

[mattp]

There you go, KK, spewing vile and vinegar when you really have nothing to say. You apparently don’t like what Mr. Chavez stands for. Big surprise. I’m not saying I’m a supporter, either, although I do admire the guy’s pluck. He was elected, however. As far as I know, we have no reason to think the elections were unfair. If you respect democracy around the world, you gotta respect him as an elected leader.

 

I am only suggesting that you admit your objection is ideological and wondering if the bottom line is that you only respect free and fair elections if they produce a result you support. And I wonder whether, if you liked the result, you feel unfair elections should be respected as well. Mr. Bush was elected on false pretenses, at least the first time around, and all analysis indicates that by any standard a fair count of that election would have shown he lost that election as well. Yet you seem to suggest that those such as myself who state that Bush should not be our president, or in other discussions have criticized his policies as corrupt or worse, “hate America?”

 

You can go with “get over it,” but the “hate America first” is straight out of Rush Limbaugh CA ten years ago. It really shows nothing more than that you have nothing to say and can only show crude contempt for those who actually DO have something to say. Or else it shows that you believe political debate is by definition unpatriotic.

[Dechristo]

It really shows nothing more than that you have nothing to say and can only show crude contempt for those who actually DO have something to say.

 

Kind of says it all. The filter of personal perception, boundaries of offense, and limits of understanding subjectively decides whether anyone has "something to say".

[tvashtarkatena]

Couldn't we just install our own elected Venezuelan president?

[mattp]

Hmmm... we tried that in Iraq but maybe it would work better in Venezuela.

[The_Rooster]

The filter of personal perception, boundaries of offense, and limits of understanding subjectively decides whether anyone has "something to say".

 

 

I've got something to say:

 

[font:Arial]COCK A DOODLE

 

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/font]

[counterfeitfake]

What's the debate here? So what if Chavez did get into power through a legitimate vote. This would not be the first time a populace made a bad decision. He's taking his country down a road that we've seen countries go down before, and the road has a very inevitable destination. How many times do you need to see it? If you really want to argue, try to tell what makes this time different.

[mattp]

Time will tell whether or not it works out for Chavez or for Venezuela. Meanwhile, I find it telling that those who support "democracy" are so often in support of the original idea for the Iraq invasion while being so outraged at the results in Venezuela or Palestine, and who get so incensed that they result to name calling and demagoguery whenever someone refers to the fact that GW may not have been properly elected originally.

[Dechristo]

The filter of personal perception, boundaries of offense, and limits of understanding subjectively decides whether anyone has "something to say".

 

 

I've got something to say:

 

[font:Arial]COCK A DOODLE

 

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/font]

 

Now, this is NOT just cock and bull.

[tvashtarkatena]

Consider it a form of democracy by proxy. We decide for the little brown people who cannot make sound, informed choices of their own.

[Dechristo]

Consider it a form of democracy by proxy. We decide for the little brown people who cannot make sound, informed choices of their own.

 

very salient for those who lament the outcome of any free election determined by those of undesirable ilk... be it appearance or intellect.

[tvashtarkatena]

Oh yes, the carefully crafted, simplified "those" who exist only in your imagination.

Edited January 11, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Dechristo]

yeah, those, hose.

[tvashtarkatena]

You've got man boobs.

[Dechristo]

and they get one vote each

[tvashtarkatena]

Would Kevbone be a third vote?

[Dechristo]

third boob

[JayB]

Time will tell whether or not it works out for Chavez or for Venezuela. Meanwhile, I find it telling that those who support "democracy" are so often in support of the original idea for the Iraq invasion while being so outraged at the results in Venezuela or Palestine, and who get so incensed that they result to name calling and demagoguery whenever someone refers to the fact that GW may not have been properly elected originally.

 

Outraged? Interesting choice of words. Pretty much all that anyone has done is point out the inevitable consequences of choices that voters in another country have made.

 

If the people of Palestine want an Islamist death-cult dedicated to the eradication of Israel to run things, that's fine, but we're under no obligation to subsidize it or support it in any fashion whatsoever. They cast their votes, they live with the consequences of that decision. If they'd rather starve than recognize Israels right to exist, so be it.

 

In the case of Venezuela, they've elected a guy who's explicitly stated his intentions to try to make socialism work - One.....More.....Time - and the outcome will be economic ruin and political subjugation for all Venezuelans, except for functionaries within Chavez's party, who will make out quite well.

 

Making these observations is one thing, outrage is another.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[foraker]

In the case of Venezuela, they've elected a guy who's explicitly stated his intentions to try to make socialism work - One.....More.....Time

 

Reminds me of a quote about economists: "Well, it works fine in reality, but does it work in theory?"

 

Someone's always convinced the last guy didn't get it right or was corrupt and that won't happen this time.

[Dechristo]

the ignominious frailty of magnaminity

[mattp]

Boy. You really know how to rebut somebody, Jay.

 

Soften the phrase "being so outraged" and replace it with the phrase "being so stridently vocal about how they disapprove" if you like. But the fact is, there would appear to be some hypocrisy or discord in the positions I describe, wouldn't there?

[JayB]

Not understanding you here, Matt. We're obligated to praise someone who, upon being democratically elected, announces his intentions to take actions that will undermine and destroy the very political freedoms that a democratic system is supposed to preserve? "Now I'm no Hitler fan, mind you, but you can't dispute the fact that the guy *was* democratically elected before he turned Germany into a totalitarian state, so to scorn Hitler is to scorn Democracy itself." This seems to be the essence of your argument, here. "I'm not in favor of eradicating the Israelis myself, but the Palestinian people voted Hamas into office, so they're beyond reproach in my book and we'd better keep our mouths shut about the whole eradication thing, lest we attack the very principle of democracy."