shhhhh....dont' mention that.
they're one of our great allies in the war on terror.
they, though nuclear armed themselves, will help us stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Is this similar to a president who actually lost both the popular vote and probably lost the electoral vote being hoisted to power on the petards of conservative allies in the judiciary and his own brother in the governor's seat and then claiming that America has a great democracy? I'm just a little confused about that.

From their POV, it is great. Great for them, that is.

Yay Freedom!!!!

Pocket Ninja: Is this similar to a president who actually lost both the popular vote and probably lost the electoral vote being hoisted to power on the petards of conservative allies in the judiciary and his own brother in the governor's seat and then claiming that America has a great democracy? I'm just a little confused about that.

"Our democracy is great" says Pakistani U.S. president, who took power in an armed a bloodless coup in 1999 2000.

See? It's not that similar at all.

Pocket Ninja: Is this similar to a president who actually lost both the popular vote and probably lost the electoral vote being hoisted to power on the petards of conservative allies in the judiciary and his own brother in the governor's seat and then claiming that America has a great democracy? I'm just a little confused about that.

Except for the "brother in the governor's seat," this could be a rant against Abe Lincoln.

/39.9% of the vote in 1860

Fluff Girl: Pocket Ninja: Is this similar to a president who actually lost both the popular vote and probably lost the electoral vote being hoisted to power on the petards of conservative allies in the judiciary and his own brother in the governor's seat and then claiming that America has a great democracy? I'm just a little confused about that.

"Our democracy is great" says Pakistani U.S. president, who took power in an armed a bloodless coup in 1999 2000.

See? It's not that similar at all.

Gotta love Fark, always at the height of fashion...

Pocket Ninja: Is this similar to a president who actually lost both the popular vote and probably lost the electoral vote being hoisted to power on the petards of conservative allies in the judiciary and his own brother in the governor's seat and then claiming that America has a great democracy? I'm just a little confused about that.

That president was also re-elected by the people.

ScubaDude1960: Pocket Ninja: Is this similar to a president who actually lost both the popular vote and probably lost the electoral vote being hoisted to power on the petards of conservative allies in the judiciary and his own brother in the governor's seat and then claiming that America has a great democracy? I'm just a little confused about that.

Except for the "brother in the governor's seat," this could be a rant against Abe Lincoln.

/39.9% of the vote in 1860

From Wikipedia: Lincoln gained 1,865,908 votes (39.9% of the total), for 180 electoral votes; Douglas, 1,380,202 (29.5%) for 12 electoral votes; Breckenridge, 848,019 (18.1%) for 72 electoral votes; and Bell, 590,901 (12.5%) for 39 electoral votes

Lincoln had a simple majority of the vote, as opposed to an absolute majority (50%+). Lincoln won the election fair and square, unlike Bush who had the election handed to him by the Supreme Court.

Suicidal Writer:

That president was also re-elected by the enough people.

How's that working out anyway?

Suicidal Writer:

That president was also re-elected by the people.

And thus, the terrorists DID win.

voting with guns is still voting.

The Pakistani General who siezed power in an armed coup in 1999, who has bankrolled terrorists in the Kashmir region who later bombed the Indian Parlaiment, and who recently had the entire Pakistani Supreme Court placed under house arrest, and whose political opponents all end up exiled, or mysteriously dead, remains a strong "ally in the war on terror" and a "friend of democracy".

The dictator of Uzbekistan, who used to be the Soviet Governor of Uzbekistan before he became the dictator-for-life of the newly-independant nation, has boiled his political opponents alive, and has had his troops machine-gun down crowds of unarmed protestors... but was smart enough to let the US use one of his airbases, so now he's a "friend of democracy" too.

Meanwhile, the civilian in Venezuela who has won seven free-and-fair elections, and who also conceeded defeat after an exceedingly narrow loss on yet another free-and-fair election about constitutional changes, and whose opponents maintain their freedom even after attempting a coup against him, is somehow a "dictator" who threatens "democracy".

It's almost enough to make a person of average or above intelligence, begin to wonder if the United States has any interest in fostering democracy at all.

Obama said he wants to nuke them!

General Zang: It's almost enough to make a person of average or above intelligence, begin to wonder if the United States has any interest in fostering democracy at all.

(OBVIOUS)

General Zang:

Careful -- some freeper will award you a tinfoil hat for spouting such nonsense.

It was just a presidential gaffe. Total non story.

Suicidal Writer: Pocket Ninja: Is this similar to a president who actually lost both the popular vote and probably lost the electoral vote being hoisted to power on the petards of conservative allies in the judiciary and his own brother in the governor's seat and then claiming that America has a great democracy? I'm just a little confused about that.

That president was also re-elected by the people.

Incidentally, so was Musharraf.

Fluff Girl said:

Careful -- some freeper will award you a tinfoil hat for spouting such nonsense.

No, they'll save the tinfoil hat award ceremony, and the screaming fits of rage, for when I make obvious common-sense statements such as:

Maybe the reason that thousands of Iraqi civilians have taken up arms in order to fight a foreign army occupying their nation, is because they don't like the idea of being occupied by the military forces of a foreign nation.

And if you *really want to see the freepers blow a gasket like malfunctioning machines, for whom logic and common sense are like sand in their delicate gears, then say this:

Perhaps the 19 educated, middle-class individuals (15 from our "ally" Saudi Arabia) who volunteered to die horrible deaths covered in burning jet fuel on 9/11, did so because of anger over US foreign policy shenanigans in their own backyards for the past 50 years, rather than by some vague hatred of the "freedoms" of folks who live on the far side of the world.

thank god for easter.

General Zang:

It's a moot point. The freepers always disappear from threads when people with actual facts show up.

Angry Hatter: ScubaDude1960: Pocket Ninja: Is this similar to a president who actually lost both the popular vote and probably lost the electoral vote being hoisted to power on the petards of conservative allies in the judiciary and his own brother in the governor's seat and then claiming that America has a great democracy? I'm just a little confused about that.

Except for the "brother in the governor's seat," this could be a rant against Abe Lincoln.

/39.9% of the vote in 1860

From Wikipedia: Lincoln gained 1,865,908 votes (39.9% of the total), for 180 electoral votes; Douglas, 1,380,202 (29.5%) for 12 electoral votes; Breckenridge, 848,019 (18.1%) for 72 electoral votes; and Bell, 590,901 (12.5%) for 39 electoral votes

Lincoln had a simple majority of the vote, as opposed to an absolute majority (50%+). Lincoln won the election fair and square, unlike Bush who had the election handed to him by the Supreme Court.

I believe Lincoln won with a plurality of the votes cast. Not a majority (50% plus one) but the most votes of the candidates.

Ron Paul Revere said:

I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying.

I don't think you do, actually. I base this upon your next few paragraphs.

Ron Paul Revere said: However, just as fascism will come to America draped in a flag and holding a cross, such a similar (though different) achievement could conceivably come from Chavez.


Concievably? Yes. Absolutely.

It is concievable that Hugo Chavez might, some day, resort to dictatorial approaches.

The fact that (a) he has not done so even in the face of violent coup attempts by his opponents, and (b) that he has not done so even when losing extremely narrowly in a referendum on the constitution, shows that there is zero evidence that this is in any way more likely than my winning the lottery.

But, hey, we can all concieve of lots of things, if we have good immaginations.

Ron Paul Revere said: Just because he's democratically elected (Bush) doesn't preclude him from dictatorial ability or desire (Hitler). It also doesn't mean that, at some point in the future, his people won't vote away their rights because they didn't do so last time.

Again... sure.... just because someone has never raped puppies, or eaten live baby bunnies, doesn't mean that they might not harbor some secret inner desire to rape puppies or eat live bunnies.

The fact that this bit of sophistry could be applied to anyone, anywhere, at anytime, doesn't make a very compelling case against Hugo Chavez.

Ron Paul Revere said: He's just as dangerous, if not moreso, as someone who cut to the chase and went the fastest and most direct route.

Bascically, you're trying to say that someone who *might* harbor secret inner desires to rape puppies, is MORE dangerous than the guys who rape puppies every night on live TV?

Ummm.... No.

Fluff Girl said:

It's a moot point. The freepers always disappear from threads when people with actual facts show up.

Well, the dumb brain-washed Freepers do.

There's another breed of Freeper though, as well:

Folks who wholeheartedly support the same goals and agenda as the freepers, but for entirely different reasons, and who are quite capable of intelligent, nuanced, and very creative efforts to push Freeper ideas while cloaked in a veneer of respectability and logic.

Think of it as the Bishops and Rooks being sent in, when the Pawns have failed.

;)

General Zang: guys who rape puppies every night on live TV

*fap*

You all need to read Dalrymple's latest piece in the New York Review of Books on Pakistan

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21194

Sorry, no html skills, but I swear the copy and paste in your address bar is worth the effort.

The irony is that Musharraf, despite his turn towards pseudo-tyranny towards the end, was the reason Pakistan was able to have a somehow decent election after so many years. His downfall has been the result of him letting a free press develop and thrive for 7 years at a stretch. Most democratically elected Pakistani governments don't last that long to begin with in order to have any sustained effect, and the ones that do are military that prefer to use private publications as a press release outlets for the administration.

I'll admit I was a supporter of the general until last year. My thoughts on the that entire affair is best described by the letter below. Biological Ali might enjoy it for one (Dawn didn't publish it, but they published my last rant):

A faint smile came across our faces on that day in October 1999. While this marriage was thrust upon us with the nikah (new window) being read over military loudspeakers, we did not protest it. As we learned of your non-feudal and middle class background, growing up with a learned civil servant for a father, and a mother who worked for a global institution, we were filled with a sense of hope that perhaps you would be modern and sane. As you brought in a team of technocrats, with actual and relevant experience to their cabinet portfolios, we accepted that perhaps you would be in fact be better than your abusive civilian and military predecessors. As the honeymoon ended, we expected some of your hidden qualities to emerge, which first reared their head in 2002, undoubtedly resulting in your supposed idol, Ataturk, rolling in his grave. But we ignored it, as you placated us with a larger monthly stipend, and we ran off to buy ourselves something pretty. As you insulted and slandered the victims of our tribal jirgas and justice system to the Western media, we rationalized it as eccentricity and as passionate commitment to defending our family. Last March, we saw a striking example of your jealousy and your possessive side, and we waited for it to die down. Alas, your condition only worsened, and while we attempted counselling with Dr. Rice, we weren't too thrilled at her suggested stop-gap solution of introducing a mistress into the equation. Your jealousy reached new bounds when you refused to let us talk to anyone about your behaviour, and insisted we always believe your side of the story. Then you started locking us in the basement, which you laughably insisted was for own safety, perhaps wishing we would fall victim to Stockholm syndrome. Now, as you let us out to demonstrate to the neighbourhood that you are no tyrant, there are sadly only three words left in this marriage - talaq, talaq, talaq (new window).

From my never updated blog (new window)

alybaba: You all need to read Dalrymple's latest piece in the New York Review of Books on Pakistan

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21194 (new window)

Sorry, no html skills

The Fark button bar. I use it. So should you.

/I'm IlGreven and I approved this message.

Yeah, I just noticed it in my second post, hence the links.

/forgot all my html
//maybe I wouldn't have if my family stayed in India
///heh

In fairness, didn't Washington lead an armed coup of sorts in 1776?

Ron Paul Revere said:

It's not a matter of might. His desires show through his proposed reforms, which you quite consequently seem very relieved to be able to point out were voted down.

Actually, I hadn't said that I was relieved that they had not passed.

I am relieved, though, but perhaps not for the reasons that you are.

I beleive that the proposed reforms were flawed on many levels, but that many of the proposed reforms were brilliant.

Personally, I objected to the proposal to extend Presidential terms indefinately, because I felt that it was a bad idea in the context of Venezuelan democracy, and especially bad in the context of trying to create a self-sustaining Bolivarian revolution.

As long as the ongoing process of change in Venezuela depends upon reliance upon the popularity of one man, then that process is ultimately doomed to failure. Only when the Venezuelan people take hold of the process and make it something that is pushed forward by everyone, rather than some sort of gift bestowed upon them by a single charismatic figure, will the Bolivarian process have been a success.

However, the majority of the proposed changes were brilliant, and were designed to decentralize authority, taking power away from the central government and putting it into the hands of local communites. These are the sort of changes needed in Venezuela, to ensure that what Hugo Chavez started, is capable of lasting beyond his presidency.


Ron Paul Revere said: Imagine the argument we'd be having now if they'd passed. Just consider that for a moment. ;)

It doesn't take much immagination. You'd be claiming that the narrow victory was evidence of election fraud, and proof that Hugo Chavez was a dictator in all but name.

I'd be saying that you were wrong, and that the people had freely voted for the proposed changes... as flawed as I thought some of the proposals were.

You would point to the ongoing disruption caused by US-backed opposition riots after the porposals narrowly passed, as evidence that the "will of the people" had been subverted in Venezuela, and you would be expressing your support of overt US military moves against Chavez.

I would be saying that those opposition folks causing the disruptions were trying to sieze victory by force of arms, when they hadn't had the numbers at the polls to legally take victory in a democratic way.

You would respond that I was blind to the dangers of dictatorship when it came from the Left, and then you'd further question my commitment to democracy and freedom.

See, that didn't take much immagination at all.

Ron Paul Revere said: As of right now, it's correct to say that he's not dangerous (yet). My point is that in the future, he may well be as dangerous if not moreso than the likes of Musharaff. Time will tell.

My neighbor, who is ten years old and plays with plastic soldiers, isn't dangerous (yet). However, in the future, he may well be as dangerous if not moreso than the 30-year-old convicted burglar and part-time drug dealer who lives down the block with his three pit bulls and his scruffy crew carrying concealed unregistered handguns. Time will tell.

Perhaps I should call the police, and explain to them my fears about the potential DANGER posed by the ten-year-old neighbor... and also explain to the police my reasons for hiring the part-time drug dealer and his crew as my "allies" in the effort to protect the neighborhood from that (potentially) dangerous neighbor kid?

;)

Ron Paul Revere said: However, to say that potential doesn't exist is to be as blind as those on the right who say "DEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDUMMZZ!"

All snark aside, there is truth to the statement that Hugo Chavez is more dangerous than General Musharraf, IF... and it's a huge IF... you make certain assumptions before hand.

(a) You have to assume that "danger" means a threat to "American interests".

(b) You have to assume that "American interests" means the short-term and near-term profits of large multinational corporations that happen to maintain offices within the United States.

(c) You have to assume that the level of "danger" is increased proportional to the difficulty of removing the person from power should they no longer obey orders from the US.

(d) You have to assume (probably correctly) that it is more difficult to remove a popularly-elected democratic leader of a sovereign nation, than it is to topple an unpopular dictator who is propped up by foreign support.

(e) You have to assume that Hugo Chavez (correctly) enjoys vast popular support among the people of Venezuela, even though his own supporters weren't willing to approve some of the more short-sighted reforms among the package of reforms he submitted for vote.

If you assume (a)+(b)+(c)+(d)+(e), then YES:

A democratically-elected President who enjoys broad popular support in a medium-sized peacefull resource-rich nation is definatelly much much more "dangerous" than an unpopular military dictator who wields nuclear weapons, and who openly supports terrorists in Kashmir, and whose intelligence services had links to the group that bombed the Parlaiment of the neighboring nuclear-armed state, and who says that he just can't seem to find the guy who has been hiding in his own territory since fleeing there from Tora Bora.

However, that statement is only true, if one has made those five assumptions beforehand.... and I would like to point out that assumption (b) is the deal-breaker that renders the entire equation incorrect, and assumptions (a) and (c) are sort of shaky as well.

ChasKrall: I believe Lincoln won with a plurality of the votes cast. Not a majority (50% plus one) but the most votes of the candidates.

That's what I said.

Simple majority = plurality

Don't forget the coup Musharaff pulled off this past winter when he disbanded the supreme court, had the Justices confined to house arrest, voided the constitution and then put a totally new constitution in it's place that strips the parliment and judiciary of any oversight powers, among other things.

It's a simple mistranslation. He actually said "My democracy is great".

So their democracy is as bogus as ours now?

/yawn

Kitenge: He seized power in a bloodless coup! All smotherings.

Homer: [gently] Just like Jimmy Carter.

Perhaps "democracy" means something different when translated from Pakistani.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."