Hugo Chavez= Attention Whore!

thats how politics in the capitalist system works.... LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES... do i gorgot to say that politicians are all FUCKING LIARS!!!!
 
The devil is bush

hsub si lived eht

you see?!

It only works one way
 
kathybates.jpg


George Bush is the Devil!!!
 
Sebastian said:
thats how politics in the capitalist system works.... LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES... do i gorgot to say that politicians are all FUCKING LIARS!!!!
Click to expand...

Hungarian?
 
Sebastian said:
thats how politics works.... LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES... do i gorgot to say that politicians are all FUCKING LIARS!!!!
Click to expand...
Fixed.

As much as I can. Still can't translate it into English.
 
That's the best description of Chavez i ever heard. Beats all the political science specialists descriptions of him i had to endure until now. An attention whore.

For the UN it is a democratic institution, in part. It operates in an open fashion, with discussions and consensus, and it has institutions with democratic operative principles, like the General Assembly, and others where hierarchichal (also called aristocratic) principles have the lead, like the Security Counsil.

It's basically what the states want it to be, with some states having more power than others to get their views through. Not very diferent from our daily life, if you think of it.
 
It's not Democratic though. It gives equal say to Totalitarian regimes (North Korea, Belarussia), Authoritarian regimes (Venezuala, PRC, Iran) and Democratic regimes (USA, India, France, USA). It gives a voice to the worst governments in the world, a pulpit from which to preach their filth.
 
John Uskglass said:
It's not Democratic though. It gives equal say to Totalitarian regimes (North Korea, Belarussia), Authoritarian regimes (Venezuala, PRC, Iran) and Democratic regimes (USA, India, France, USA). It gives a voice to the worst governments in the world, a pulpit from which to preach their filth.
Click to expand...

The problem there, too, is that "democratic regime" isn't really a defined thing. It'd be fairly easy to argue that countries like Russia and the US are undemocratic in nature and exclude them from the UN.

But calling the UN "undemocratic" isn't by any measurement a derogatory remark. It's not *meant* to be democratic, it's not the thing's raison d'etre, and the vitriolic tone in which John Uskglass speaks of its known policy of including "bad" nations (hah, such a ridiculous concept!) as well as Chavez' "insults" flung at it simply shows a lack of understanding of what the UN entails, not a flaw of the UN.
 
Bush may not be Jewish, but he IS a dirty scheming bastard who uses the office of President to line his own pockets. Plus, he's dumb as a box of rocks, sans rocks. And sans box. And sans air filling the gaps between the rocks. I see nothing wrong with a foreign dignitary throwing dignity to the winds and calling a spade a spade. It's his opinion, and the opinion of a large number of American citizens.

Why is it if Chavez (or any other non-American, for that matter) calls Bush names, he's an attention whore, or a dumbass, or whatever, but if an American trash-talks Bush, they're simply "exercising the right of free speech"? It seems to me to be a bit of a double standard.

Granted, Chavez did go overboard, and did make an ass of himself to people all across the world, but the only difference between his opinions and mine are that he holds a political office, which gives what he says more weight with other people.
 
John Uskglass said:
It's not Democratic though. It gives equal say to Totalitarian regimes (North Korea, Belarussia), Authoritarian regimes (Venezuala, PRC, Iran) and Democratic regimes (USA, India, France, USA).
Click to expand...


It gives voice and equal votes to everyone, thus making it a Democratic institution. When you vote in an American election you will vote freely as guys that defend a christian dictatorship, a populist dictatorship, a theological state, the democratic party, the republican party, etc. The fact that you and those that are diferent from you vote too is what makes the system democratic, so there's a mix up on your conclusion John. But side by side with the fundamental democratic sub-system there's an aristocratic sub-system, embodied on the Security Counsil, wich makes it diferent from a purely democratic system. It's part of the radical foundations of the UN, and changing this would lead to the usefulness of the Covenant.

Now you might say that besides the tens of organizations that take part of the UN system (like the World Bank, FMI, WHO, UNESCO, the Telecominications regulatory bureau and so on) the UN is pretty irrelevant. But i do remember Bolton saying just that during the prelude to the Iraque war, and when he needed the UN to advance the US-French Lebanon peace plan he had to "change his mind" real quick.

A very inefective body, the UN, but not irrelevant. And with some degree of democratic engagement, and as you know democracy is pretty flawed, but overall we couldn't leave without it, could we? And again with a degree of extreme realism, with the Security Counsil, but in the end that realism won the Cold war, so it's a small price to pay, don't you think?
 
Briosafreak wrote:
A very inefective body, the UN, but not irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Not irrelevant indeed. Would you care to know some of the interesting things they would like to accomplish? Go to a search engine and look up "Agenda 21", if you haven't already. You'll have to do a lot of reading to find out what it's all about, but it's the kind of thing that makes conspiracy theory nuts seem almost reasonable.
 
The only Agenda 21 i know is a sustained development project that a few NGO's are trying to push since 92, nothing really important, is that what you were talking about?
 
Talisien said:
Bush may not be Jewish, but he IS a dirty scheming bastard who uses the office of President to line his own pockets. Plus, he's dumb as a box of rocks, sans rocks. And sans box. And sans air filling the gaps between the rocks. I see nothing wrong with a foreign dignitary throwing dignity to the winds and calling a spade a spade. It's his opinion, and the opinion of a large number of American citizens.

Why is it if Chavez (or any other non-American, for that matter) calls Bush names, he's an attention whore, or a dumbass, or whatever, but if an American trash-talks Bush, they're simply "exercising the right of free speech"? It seems to me to be a bit of a double standard.

Granted, Chavez did go overboard, and did make an ass of himself to people all across the world, but the only difference between his opinions and mine are that he holds a political office, which gives what he says more weight with other people.
Click to expand...
What?
All Chavez ever does is get in the news because of his really anti-American outbursts and policies. He is an attention whore. Most people who criticise Bush aren't called attention whores at all, though, so your complaint makes no sense.

Besides that, Bush is not that dumb. He graduated from Yale, for CHrist's sake.
 
Sander, how can anyone who calls a press comference to tell the world about going on a "crusade into the Middle East, to fight the infidels" not be stupid? And as for graduating from Yale, well... So he's got a degree; rectal thermometers have degrees,too, and you know what you do with them. You can know everything about everything, and still be stupid. And as for Chavez, I don't know about his actions before the whole "Bush is the Devil" thing, I've never really read much about him in the papers or seen him on TV.

Briosafreak, if you can, get a hold of the actual text of Agenda 21. It used to be available online, I found it through Yahoo search. It basicly says that the UN will try to control all of the roads in every country, in a so-called effort to help under-developed countries catch up with the others. Of course, in the "fine print", the plans will also slowly phase out lots of smaller roads, eventually with an eye towards moving humanity into bands along super highways, and allowing nature to reclaim lots of the world in an effort to slow pollution and fight global warming. All very high-sounding, but it will give the UN control of all ground-based movement in the world. Think toll road, but you have to pay as soon as you leave your driveway. Do you really think all of that money would go towards humanitarian projects?
 
Talisien said:
Sander, how can anyone who calls a press comference to tell the world about going on a "crusade into the Middle East, to fight the infidels" not be stupid?
Click to expand...
Straw man, he never said that.

Aside from that, he is the president of the United States for two terms now, has succesfully dealt with all of his opponents and is still popular enough in the States even though his policies are very controversial.
He is intelligent because he manages to do that what he wants to do: remain president. The fact that you find his demeanor and policies (that are mostly conjured up by people other than the president) stupid does not in any way mean he is stupid.
It is all part of a nicely crafted image. He may be pictured as the Texas boy who made it big, but in his first play for governor he lost because he was depicted as the smart, rich kid from Yale who knew nothing of Texas country life.
Talisien said:
And as for graduating from Yale, well... So he's got a degree; rectal thermometers have degrees,too, and you know what you do with them.
Click to expand...
Gee, what a great argument. You have me there, Talisien.
Talisien said:
You can know everything about everything, and still be stupid.
Click to expand...
Yes, but knowledge in itself does not get you a degree in anything at Yale. Application of knowledge does.
Talisien said:
And as for Chavez, I don't know about his actions before the whole "Bush is the Devil" thing, I've never really read much about him in the papers or seen him on TV.
Click to expand...
Your point being what, exactly?

Talisien said:
Briosafreak, if you can, get a hold of the actual text of Agenda 21. It used to be available online, I found it through Yahoo search. It basicly says that the UN will try to control all of the roads in every country, in a so-called effort to help under-developed countries catch up with the others. Of course, in the "fine print", the plans will also slowly phase out lots of smaller roads, eventually with an eye towards moving humanity into bands along super highways, and allowing nature to reclaim lots of the world in an effort to slow pollution and fight global warming. All very high-sounding, but it will give the UN control of all ground-based movement in the world. Think toll road, but you have to pay as soon as you leave your driveway. Do you really think all of that money would go towards humanitarian projects?
Click to expand...
I'm extremely certain that Briosafreak knows a lot more about the UN than you do.
I'm also surprised that you find this whole super highway thing a feasible idea. There's a reason why there are small roads: people need to get to their houses which are not located directly on highways. If you build super highways so that you can get to every house almost directly from them, you'll end up with the same roads, but with more lanes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top