KDelphi- I see, to quote the illiterate, “one more time again”, still sans the facts.

you would say that KDelphi. Bless your pointed little head.

It’s all gonna work out….

you sure wrote alot for not caring…

By KDelphi, November 23 at 5:25 pm #

cyrena-here is another one. I looked over your post. No, you did say that it would be “stupid for Obama to say that”. Sorry..

If he didnt say it, then TalkLeft lied. Tell them. Apparently , other people believed it too..

~~~~~

Just thought I’d repost this part KDelphi, so you could look it over, and then consider (seriously)how much of a shit I’m inclined to give about this. (or how much of a shit just about ANYBODY is likely to give.).

TalkLeft LIED???? Ya think???? (I’ve never heard of TalkLeft, so I’m not accusing them of lying, primarily on account of how I don’t care).

I wish I COULD be really intense about these details, but then again…that actually WOULD be a lie. Because…I really don’t. Sorry. Ooops, that’s a lie too. Still, if I could get myself really worked up about this he-said-she-said-unless-they-lied stuff, it would be an indication that I don’t have anything else to concern myself with. Ah..the life of an elitist - NOT! So, this is admittedly not a priority.

My point was an academic one, and definitely not an ‘original’. I was simply correcting/questioning the constant never ending BS that folks are willing to spread, and BELIEVE…even though just a moment of common sense dot connections might at least suggest that they question it. Most don’t, and won’t. That’s how we manage to remain so ignorant. And, I don’t see how or why anyone finds that something to be proud of. It really isn’t.

So, that was the point of my original response. Someone (we now know you) made the claim that Obama had said that Chavez was “NOT democratically elected” when in fact he HAS been democratically elected, (twice) and Barack Obama of course knows that. One need not be a genius to know that KDelphi. Pretty much anybody can check that out. THAT’S why it would be a STUPID thing for ANYBODY to say, LEAST of all President-elect Barack Obama, because of course we ALSO KNOW…that he’s an ‘above average’ smart guy. That was my point.

Meantime, I’m more in sync with the characters in Chris Hedges latest piece here, as he gets around to writing about what many of us have been living for nearly 8 years.  Being in survival mode puts a different twist on the priorities of the day. So if I was gonna use energy obsessing, I’d do it about something else.

Did Obama really say that overthrowing and killing leaders of other countriss, was “not nice?”

LOL!

I am not really an Obama supporter, but I just dont think he would say that!Maybe you were para-phrasing>>>?

Yes, the reason you are hearing so much anti-Chavez stuff, is because the multi-nationals in the US were thrown out. The failed US/CIA policy of raping Latin America of resources is over. Chavez may not be exactly what “we” want—but it never was, and certainly is not now, any of our fricking business!

The pbs show on Chavez kept talking about the “poor” there—I dont hear any politicians her mentiioning the huge increase in poverty here! He is better for Veneziela than the duopoly has been for us.

Were did the Nazis hide after the Second World War? That should be a major clue to why the United States and its rulers do not want real democracy in South America at any time. Who invests and owns major holdings in the agricultural and industrial base there, follow the money if you can it leads to many of the rich families here, with family members living and working there. If too many country’s in South America become real democracy’s the fascists that run this country will have no were to hide physically or financially.

cyrena-here is another one. I looked over your post. No, you did say that it would be “stupid for Obama to say that”. Sorry..

If he didnt say it, then TalkLeft lied. Tell them. Apparently , other people believed it too..

“Obama said earlier in his campaign that he would be prepared to sit down to talk with Chavez. But in recent weeks he has called the leftist Venezuelan leader an enemy of the United States and urged sanctions against him.”

I posted that two days ago. Obama may have changed his mind now.Maybe one of his campaign supporters mis-spoke. But, I belive most of what I read at TalkLeft.

Apparentlyk this is how Chavez felt about it on THIS DATE:

Chavez Says U.S. Ties Would Be No Warmer With Obama
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/07/chavez_says_us_ties_would_be_n.php
Reuters North American News Service
July 16, 2008

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Wednesday his prickly relations with Washington would not improve even if Democrat candidate Barack Obama wins the U.S. presidential election in November

http://venezuelawearewithyou.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-not-much-different-from-mccain.html

As a matter of fact, it looks like there is “change”!

The Boston Globe focused on another, less newsworthy aspect of the speech: “Obama: Bush fostered Chavez rise: ‘Negligent’ foreign policy created void.” It’s a dubious claim, one belied by the chronology of Chavez’s political successes, but Obama’s denunciation of Bush’s foreign policy legacy only distracted from his own bellicose—and well-formulated—anti-Chavez rhetoric…...
.. Obama slammed Chavez’s “predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy” that “offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past.” Bolivarianism is, he said, a “stale vision.” He warned that “Iran has drawn closer to Venezuela, and just the other day Tehran and Caracas launched a joint bank with their windfall oil profits. HUGO CHAVEZ IS NOT A DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADER. But we also know that he does not govern democratically.”

All of which is true, of course. By focusing on his shaky claim that it was Bush who “lost Venezuela,” almost all press reports ignored Obama’s expressed support for Colombian President Alvaro Uribe’s controversial attack on a FARC outpost in Ecuadorian territory. After the raid that killed FARC commander Raul Reyes, The New York Times

Obama disagrees, telling his anti-Castro and anti-Chavez audience that his administration “will support Colombia’s right to strike terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders” and advising that “strong sanctions” be levied against Venezuela for its support of FARC and Chavez be diplomatically “isolated.” The latter point confused ABC News reporter Jake Tapper, who wondered, after Obama expressed a willingness to engage Chavez without preconditions, if “he will meet with the leader of a country he simultaneously says should be isolated.

This is from “Reason”

”Like Candidate Bush in 2000, Obama is still getting his foreign policy bearings, still trying to find that measured voice. When Miami Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer interviewed him last year, Obama “had trouble naming any head of state south of the U.S. border, and looked like a deer in the headlights when asked about the region’s headlines of the day.” All that, says Oppenheimer, has changed—Obama “has finally done his homework on Latin America.”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/126750.html

Here is the speech, word for word (May 23, 2008)

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obama_latin_america_speech_in.html

I did not say that that was what Obama felt right now. I do not know what he thinks of Chavez right now.But, this is about the third site I’ve read it on…I dont see why anyone woud be so upset, anyawy. Most USAns feel ath way about Chavez, anyway.

cyrena—I gave you a link.

Anarcissie,

Thanks for explaining what you meant by intervening on behalf of, or in support of another government.

KDelphi,

You wrote this….

By KDelphi, November 22 at 4:40 pm #

cyrena—you had stopped saying how stupid everyone is. I wish you would keep it that way. Here it is:

“[D]emagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum [of a failed US Latin America policy.] His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy.”

My guess is that you wrote it in response to this from me. (one sentence in a somewhat lengthy post)

“I still haven’t found anything to verify the outrageous claim from whoever said it, (troublesum? KDelphi?) that Obama claimed Chavez had NOT been democratically elected. That’s just stupid, and that’s definitely NOT what Obama is.”

Nowhere in that statement did I call anybody ‘stupid’. What I DID say, is copied again above. Re-read it if you’re confused. It’s not complicated. Somewhere along here on this or another thread, someone made the claim, that Barack Obama claimed that Chavez had NOT been ‘democratically elected.’ I am asserting that to be a FALSE claim. In the simplist of language, HE DIDN’T SAY THAT!!!

Now it *IS* stupid for ANYONE to claim that Hugo Chavez was NOT democratically elected, and that was my point. Sorry you missed it. The included point, ( the primary one), is that Obama didn’t say that, (and now we think we know what he did say, according the the AP) because he isn’t stupid. He knows better, just as the average person who pays even a little bit of attention to world news and/or geopolitical events.

Again…I didn’t refer to any *person* as being stupid, and so your reaction is inappropriate.

Meantime, there’s lots and lots of stuff going on now, at this most historic time, with so many people just trying to survive. The last thing most of us have time for is petty bullshit.

cyrena—I explained my cite of troublesum, but the message disappeared.  I took “intervene on the side of” to mean “go to the trouble of supporting or doing something for”.

cyrena—you had stopped saying how stupid everyone is. I wish you would keep it that way. Here it is:

“[D]emagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum [of a failed US Latin America policy.] His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past….”

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/24/173243/857
This is while Obama campaign told AP that, “Hugo Chavez does not govern democratically and relations between our countries will not improve unless Venezuela respects democracy and the rule of law. That is the clear message that Barack Obama will deliver to Venezuela as president.”

Anarcissie,
Thanks for quote from Obama that I questioned from Paracelsus. I haven’t read the entire thing from the link that you posted, but I’m going to, just for the hell of it. It would be interesting to know when he said this, but it’s pretty awful, regardless. So, shame on him.

Meantime, what you write here doesn’t have a reality based - connection that I can discern, though I may have missed something earlier in the thread..

•  “As troublesum says, the idea that Obama would intervene on the side of leftist governments is preposterous.”

My thought is that for Obama to INTERVENE on the ‘side’ of ANY non-US government is preposterous. WHY would anyone even *consider* such a thing, unless they really were so steeped in the mentality of US Imperial Hegemony that they don’t even consciously realize that they continue to have their own thoughtprints molded by the very ideology they claim to despise. In this case, that the US should dictate the terms and conditions of ALL International relations, and should be the ONLY geopolitical power to do so. So yep, the anarchists and the ideologues among us generally wanna have it all ways.  Things don’t typically pan out that way,  though I suppose there are exceptions to everything.

Meantime, I’ll have to read the speech from Obama, and try to figure out exactly why he would make such alarming comments.  Then again, part of these comments are correct. The US HAS been alienated from the rest of the Americas, at least over the past 8 years since the Thugs have been running their totalitarian set-up here. Rather than try to maintain even a tiny measure of neighborliness with any of these Nation States of the Americas, the US has instead been part of every COUP or other destabilization that has happened in South America over the past 40 years or more. In fact, that’s just more of the US Imperial Hegemony history.
So Obama definitely has that part right. We’ve been isolated (with the exception of the efforts to continue to maintain Columbia and a few others in the area as US satellites in South and Central America because they are Bush/Clinton/Bush holdings) from the rest of the Americas for over a decade, with a lot of time and CIA and other secret group energy involved in trying to assassinate Hugo Chavez, among other things.

I still haven’t found anything to verify the outrageous claim from whoever said it, (troublesum? KDelphi?) that Obama claimed Chavez had NOT been democratically elected. That’s just stupid, and that’s definitely NOT what Obama is. Now if Obama needs some brush up on his Latin American history, and specifically the persecution of Hugo Chavez by the radicals/neocons directed by the current admin., then I’m sure we can help him out. Otherwise, nope…I don’t expect the US to involve itself in the politics of Latin America, unless it’s to make some FAIR trade type arrangements with them for the kinds of goods that we all need.

For the past several years now, these states of the Americas have progressed overall, to about the same degree as we have declined. Hugo Chavez has been at the forefront of pursuing an independence from the Institutions of American Hegemony, (World Bank, IMF, etc) and others have followed suit and/or been assisted by him. The current and former Thugs in the US underworld have done everything they can to prevent that.

In mainstreamspeak, Anarcissie, Chavez DOES support authoritarian goverment, since only those leaders are TRUE Democrats who support American imperialism, however they came to power.  And the US imposes Freedom and Democracy historically as it is presently doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

@ Bliss Doubt

I think my earlier warnings about BO had been just just that, “You are going to be so disappointed!” Most people are sheep. They believe that evil that is in summation “n takes 1 to infinity -1” is better than evil “in summation that is n takes 1 to infinity”. In other words we are talking in infinitesimals of perceived improvement. NOW will you stop paying your taxes to the federal government? NOW will you will work for secession campaigns from Washington, DC?

@ cyrena

Re: Barak Obama

Told you so!

Here is Obama speaking in Miami:

... No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past. But the United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua. ...

“Bolivia”, of course, refers to Evo Morales, and “Nicaragua” to Daniel Ortega.  In short, anyone who opposes the U.S. ruling class and its program of world domination.

As troublesum says, the idea that Obama would intervene on the side of leftist governments is preposterous.

The text of Obama’s speech can be found here:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGCMCY

By KDelphi, November 21 at 12:53 pm #

The day Obama won the presidency, Chavez said, that he would “look forward to a dialogue with him” PE Obama’s response was “Chavez was not democratically elected”.

~~~~

This is one of the spots where you lay it on extra thick KDelphi. I mean really. Can you actually cite Obama saying something as stupid as Chavez not being democratically elected? I think…NOT!! (SOMEBODY may have said this, but it damn sure wasn’t Obama).

Gee. “People” will still just make shit up or pull stuff out of smoke filled air. Guess there’s nothing better to do these days, at least for many. Still, that’s one of your extra-loose moments.

What’s up with that?

citizen—I would agree, excpet that, the neo-liberals do not seem to realy WANT anything that is above rhetorical “change”. If I thought enough would join me in the streets, supporting a truly [progersive candidate. etc., nmo one could sopt mje.

But, as long as most as willing to “settle”—we will all have to.Unless…as you said.

I am thrilled re: Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez. But, look what happens when , even conservative Obama tries to propose anything even close to social democracy. The Dems were the biggest deniers! (“Is that a joke?”, as opposed to “Well, there are alot of very democratic social democracies, in the world, who have a higher standard of living then most of our people…”)

Now, if we could just get the CIA to stop trying to assassinate them and backing right wing militia groups…

I admit that Obama isn’t nearly as left as I would like, but I think we can play a part to move him. Franklin Roosevelt didn’t start with the New Deal, or more importantly, his understanding in later years that without economic justice there is no freedom. We must be relentless in our demand that workers, rather than corporations, be the concern of government.
Maybe this is naive, but every day Amy Goodman brings us the truth, against all odds, in her sincere devotion that, with the total picture, the people can cause change. When I saw her in East Timor standing up to the right wing death squads I thought it is time to join in the solution.
Ava Morales is the president of Bolivia, Chavez of Venezuela. Who would of thought not so long ago.
Maybe I believe because the alternative is to painful.

I’m as disappointed as anyone in Obama’s right wing posturings.

The day Obama won the presidency, Chavez said, that he would “look forward to a dialogue with him” PE Obama’s response was “Chavez was not democratically elected”.

Huh? And our presidents are?

I did not know Sen. Clinton said some of the things she did about Latin America..another strike agaisnt her, for me.

Many strikes against the Dems…

Neo-liberalsim is dead everywhere but the uS proper. Lets, as they say, “strangle it in the bathrub”!!

The “war on drugs” is like shooting your pusher for selling you a fix. The “war on terror” would be like a “war on anger”—anger just pisses me off!!

How about “war on the poor”, which is what the US Imperial is all about!

Viva Morales! Viva Chavez! and, coming soon, Viva Amerika Libre!

Thank you and bravo to you Senor Morales!  The US government has not wanted to recognize that “we” are not the IMPERIAL Dictators to the rest of the world!  These phoney “Wars on drugs, terror, etc” do nothing but keep the “colonized” countries under our thumbs.  The sad part is that this nation and many of it’s people refuse to recognize the reasons why hostages were taken in Iran when the Shah was deposed!  The reason Imperialism - this government supported a brutal dictator in Shah Reza Palavi - and though he provided this nation oil, those that opposed him were tortured and murdered.  And while women were not forced to wear the veil and were educated, that should not be the only qualifications by how this nation supports it’s “friends”!

He was a vicious dictator, and this nation’s government looked the other way as he brutalized “his” citizens especially the ones that opposed his view!  Saddam Hussein came to power in a CIA backed coup against his Uncle that was democratically elected to be President - however, he too was moving to nationalize the oil production in Iraq!  Everyone in the government knew that Saddam was brutalizing his people, where do you think that he got the biological weapons from?  HELLO!  And it wasn’t until he started talking around the Middle East about holding out on production and kicking the Americans out of all the profits.

Until we the people really understand what the government does to other people in other countries in “our name” we will not be able to demand that the policies change!  Until we the people stop deluding ourselves about our superiority over other nations we will not change!  Until we realize that there is only one world and we learn how to play together nicely with others, than and only then will we be able to show that we truly are a democracy!

The world where the southern hemisphere of this continent lived and died according to the whims of the Yankee dollar no longer exists. Unfortunately, political buffoons in the U.S. government, still operate under this bankrupt assumption. Thus they are quite shocked (shocked!) to discover that there are plenty of countries in our own backyard who willing to say Thanks but No thanks, to our idiotic drug wars, and our idiotic trade policies. Is Barack Obama mature enough to come to grips and accept reality? Or will he be the latest in a long line promoting hegemonic hubris?

“war on drugs” is an excuse to cover the going in of the USA with mercenaries, & regular troops to enslave the people to the mega Corps just like on the http://www.democracynow.org report on drilling and killing. It is used to cover up what is going on in Mexico which is a civil war protesting the taking away of their land & water rights by the American Corps by bribing their politicians; & is being repeated in the Congo where we are “sending troops” because of “civil unrest”; they RULE, the Corps & bribed politicians who can do whatever they want to & never be brought to justice: just like here in the USA. Heard of the New World Order? Behold your Gov! it is “going global” because “they have gotten away with it in the USA for years” ; Paul Bremmer after setting up the “Gov” in Iraq; poor things; they had heard of freedom: & discovered dictatorship instead, far worse ever than under Saddam Hussain. Go to yahoo archives, read graft & corruption in Iraq; set up same as it is here folks.

If you gave the crack heads coca leaves to chew most would stop smoking crack and some could go back to work. I think it would be the same for meth heads and Junkies. Just give the drug addicts their drugs !! The drug laws create the underground situations where your kids get their first taste, The taste that gets some hooked for life. We could eliminate 90% of the problem in one generation.
By regulating the drug addicts we can contain and control the “Problem”. “Medical” marijuana creates NO PROBLEMS in the states where it’s legal ! Drugs are not the problem, DRUG LAWS CAUSE ALL THE PROBLEMS! I have been addicted to coke, heroin and alcohol and have done alot of meth. Alcohol is by far the worst substance and has killed thousands of times more people than all other drugs combined. The Prison Industrial Complex is a non-producing money loser powered by drug laws (ask California !). I have been sober for five years.

If Obama appoints Clinton as the Sec of State,it would indicate that he will pursue anti-Latin Aamerican policies as usual.  Clinton has attacked Venzuela’s Chavez.

But apparently Morales is giving it a shot that Obama might change.  We’ll see if it is change you can believe in.

I agree, troublesum, Obama has made no indication that he will change the US attitude towards latin american sovereignty, and if there is an ‘olive branch’ involved, it will be the Palestinean’s olives, stolen by the illegal settlers, and given to the same old scumbags that the US has always hung around with.

Obama will get involved in Latin America the same way most US presidents have done in order to insure the continued enslavement of the people.  The idea that he would intervene on the side of leftist governments is preposterous.  He’s not exactly a great champion of human rights.  He hasn’t said a word about the current situation in Gaza.