If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Atlanta)   Jimmy Carter reminds us why he's America's greatest useful idiot, praises Hugo Chavez for his support for the poor of Venezuela - because being pissed on and told it's raining is a vast improvement over merely being pissed on   (atlanta.cbslocal.com) divider line 97
    More: Followup, President Jimmy Carter, Venezuela, useful idiots  
•       •       •

441 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Mar 2013 at 10:56 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-06 12:21:08 PM  
It's time to dust off the Bad Leader Scale again. We might quibble somewhat with the exact placement. In fact, from my original scale ...

I'd put Khomeini at an 8. Dubya at a 2. Chavez at 3. Later Ghadaffi at a 6 or 7. Assad at a 6 or 7.

Can be removed via democratic means:
1: James Callaghan, Jimmy Carter
2: Herbert Hoover, Lord John Russell
3: Richard Nixon, George W. Bush

Dictators that aren't major threats to their neighbors or limit their support to weapon drops:
4: Hugo Chavez, Hosni Mubarak, Ghadhaffi now
5: Fidel Castro, Augusto Pinochet, South Africa apartheid
6: Enver Hoxha, Ayatollah Khomeini, Suharto
7: Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin

Threats to regional or world security or exceptional achievement in the field of being murderous
8: Saddam Hussein, Benito Mussolini
9: Hideki Tojo, Mao Zedong
10: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot
 
2013-03-06 12:23:07 PM  
Many people fail to realize that alliances with the poor or powerless can lead to social advances, as opposed to that class being considered a group that at best needs top down management.

For example, in the history of England there were often power struggles between the King and the Nobility and the Kings would sometimes enlist the commoners to be on their side. A good example is the evolution of "King's laws". Traditionally if a commoner had a legal dispute it was brought before the local land owning Noble who judged it. However that situation could easily be abused when the Noble could judge his friends on charges of robbing and killing. Making certain crimes only judgeable by the King or his agents ended part of this abuse.

It was common to call a king "the protector of the people". What is lost in this short phrase is that the protection included protection from the Nobility.
 
2013-03-06 12:24:30 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't understand this criticism of Chavez. The Venezualian people supported him because he gave them stuff. This is bad? Isn't this exactly O'Reilly's critique of Obama? Why is it horrible of O'Reilly to say it about Obama, but everyone is right to say it about Chavez?

Chavez may have done many horrible things, but giving stuff to poor people wasn't one of them.

/not my original thought, comes from L'Hote.


Giving stuff to the poor is precisely what made him evil in the eyes of conservatives. That's why Pinochet is considered a hero.
 
2013-03-06 12:30:20 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't understand this criticism of Chavez. The Venezualian people supported him because he gave them stuff. This is bad? Isn't this exactly O'Reilly's critique of Obama? Why is it horrible of O'Reilly to say it about Obama, but everyone is right to say it about Chavez?

Chavez may have done many horrible things, but giving stuff to poor people wasn't one of them.

/not my original thought, comes from L'Hote.


He cut the oil companies take from 84% to ONLY 70%. He is the devil.

He also took over John Kerry's Heinz factory when they shut it down AND KEPT PRODUCING KETCHUP.

He is inded the devil.
 
2013-03-06 12:32:11 PM  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h874BPSnbWc


I love Jimmy Carter threads.  Play him off, keyboard Gene Marshall.
 
2013-03-06 12:32:17 PM  

ongbok: Satanic_Hamster: Subby; Chavez was good for Venezuela's poor.  Not defending his methods, corruption, and anti-democratic actions, but you can't honestly say he didn't do a lot to improve the lives of the country's poor.

He did stop the super wealthy and foreign corporations from raping the country. His methods in doing so and quieting his opposition may not have been desirable, but if he didn't take the steps that he did, his opposition probably would have killed him a long time ago.

Another thing is that when he was ousted in a coup, the people of Venezuela demanded that he be put back into office.


Democracy is a biatch some times.
 
2013-03-06 12:32:29 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't understand this criticism of Chavez. The Venezualian people supported him because he gave them stuff.


If he had so much support, why did he have to rig elections?
 
2013-03-06 12:32:39 PM  
Yes Subbo. We know you're still buttmad as hell over Romney's 47% speech getting leaked out.
 
2013-03-06 12:33:09 PM  
Hey subby: I love how despite everything we know about conservatives, every demonstrably, catagorically, breathtakingly stupid, stupid, stupid thing they say and believe and support, they feel comfortable using the antiquarian term "useful idiot" to describe liberals.
 
2013-03-06 12:34:18 PM  

Lost Thought 00: PC LOAD LETTER: The report I have from Venezuelans I personally know is that Chavez's government likes to imprison opponents and kill people. They are all middle class (or more) and think he's pretty much a monster dictator. I was pretty surprised. I thought he was bad, but I didn't think this was going on to the extent they claim.

They may not be the most unbiased of sources. Just think how certain people feel about Obama because he raises their taxes a little bit to pay for healthcare for the poor.


This is entirely true, but this sounded more like other folks who lived under actual oppressive dictatorships. Not sure how much I believe, but I think there's some truth here.
 
2013-03-06 12:35:52 PM  

lamecomedian: DamnYankees: I don't understand this criticism of Chavez. The Venezualian people supported him because he gave them stuff.

If he had so much support, why did he have to rig elections?


Same reason Obama did.
 
2013-03-06 12:44:10 PM  
If you're sad that Hugo Chavez is dead, then, well, good.
 
2013-03-06 12:46:40 PM  

mcreadyblue: lamecomedian: DamnYankees: I don't understand this criticism of Chavez. The Venezualian people supported him because he gave them stuff.

If he had so much support, why did he have to rig elections?

Same reason Obama did.


Derp?
 
2013-03-06 12:49:11 PM  

mcreadyblue: lamecomedian: DamnYankees: I don't understand this criticism of Chavez. The Venezualian people supported him because he gave them stuff.

If he had so much support, why did he have to rig elections?

Same reason Obama did.


i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-03-06 12:52:09 PM  

mcreadyblue: lamecomedian: DamnYankees: I don't understand this criticism of Chavez. The Venezualian people supported him because he gave them stuff.

If he had so much support, why did he have to rig elections?

Same reason Obama did.


notsureifpotato.jpg
 
2013-03-06 12:59:02 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't understand this criticism of Chavez.


Get out of town, . . . did not see that coming.
 
2013-03-06 01:06:24 PM  

Alphax: Because support for the poor is somehow bad, Subby?

 
2013-03-06 01:15:05 PM  

mcreadyblue: lamecomedian: DamnYankees: I don't understand this criticism of Chavez. The Venezualian people supported him because he gave them stuff.

If he had so much support, why did he have to rig elections?

Same reason Obama did.


ronireports.com
 
2013-03-06 01:37:12 PM  
Right, troll-mitter. I bow to your expertise in international diplomacy. Anyone with the slightest clue knows that Hugo Chavez was not the great champion of the poor he made himself out to be. A few Farkers have shared some particularly horrific stories about the conditions there, and how his detractors were treated, and I have no problem believing them.

On the other hand, it would serve absolutely no purpose for an ex-president, a statesman, to be dancing on the grave of Chavez when his charity has been directly involved in both observing their elections and vaccinating their people against debilitating tropical diseases. When you're in the business of trying to eliminate sickness and alleviate poverty on a global scale, you'll end up dealing with many asshats like Chavez, and calling them out publicly isn't going to further your goals.

http://www.cartercenter.org/countries/venezuela-health.html

Not to mention, our current government does not want to continue the Tupac-Biggie style beefin' that escalated between Hugo and Dubya. In my opinion, it was one of the silliest feuds ever. I hope that the new leader of Venuzuela will be less corrupt and more open to freedom and criticism. I hope he learns from the bad things that Chavez did and corrects them. Unfortunately, Hugo was still quite popular with many people, so it would not be very diplomatic for our leaders to speak badly of him, even if what they said was true.

By bringing up the topic of poverty in his statement, President Carter seems to want to ensure that the poor won't be forgotten by the new government, while being tactful enough to recognize that we are trying to repair our relations with Venuzuela. It's more fitting that the celebrating be left to those who were directly harmed by Mr. Chavez and his policies.
 
2013-03-06 01:45:58 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Hugo gave the oil money to the people and eliminated 75% of the poverty in the country.

that monster.


'Fraid I'm going to have to ask you to show your work on that one.
 
2013-03-06 01:53:48 PM  
Yes, subby, yes!  Let them eat propaganda!!  It's far more filling and nutritous than lousy old cake
 
2013-03-06 02:25:17 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Hugo gave the oil money to the people and eliminated 75% of the poverty in the country.

that monster.


The former is really the only reason the US hates him. The US is fine with dictators, but Chavez took away their right to run off with the country's oil - that's a big no-no, so the hit job began.
 
2013-03-06 02:55:30 PM  
Wow, so this is where the braindead partisan hacks were hiding.

I thought it was a little quiet.....
 
2013-03-06 02:58:41 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Philip J. Fry: I need a refresher.  Why are we supposed to hate Chavez?

because socialism that's why. he took oil money and gave it to the poor


After the oil money ran out, he dismantled the middle class to buy off the poor (and enrich himself).  His ponzi scheme is on the verge of collapsing because he's ran out of other people's money to steal.
 
2013-03-06 03:06:10 PM  

padraig: It really hurt American's asses that Chavez was actually, really, honestly popular in his country.

They just can't quite understand how that is possible.


It's easy to understand. You promise to give shiat to the poorest dumbest people in the country and they vote for you. It worked in the last 2 elections in the US. The beauty of it is when you can then steal over $1Billion in the process while you preside over a country with a rising murder rate and diminishing public services.

He was definitely a hero.
 
2013-03-06 03:06:52 PM  
I don't care for Chavez at all subby, but I'm tired of people living in alternate realities. Chavez more than doubled Venezuela's literacy rate, slashed the number of people going hungry by more than 90%, and made basic healthcare available to many people in a country who had previously only dreamed of meeting a real doctor. He was anti-democratic, not good for the long run economy due to a lack of investment in critical infrastructure, and frequenlty antagonized countries and companies that could have been beneficial to his attempts at helping people. He was a mixed bag at best, but to pretend that he didn't help Venezuela's underclass would be a gross mischaracterization of his record.
 
2013-03-06 03:08:16 PM  

jaybeezey: It's easy to understand. You promise to give shiat to the poorest dumbest people in the country and they vote for you. It worked in the last 2 elections in the US. The beauty of it is when you can then steal over $1Billion in the process while you preside over a country with a rising murder rate and diminishing public services.


Works better then promising to take from the poor to give to the rich, I suppose.
 
2013-03-06 03:08:31 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't understand this criticism of Chavez. The Venezualian people supported him because he gave them stuff. This is bad? Isn't this exactly O'Reilly's critique of Obama? Why is it horrible of O'Reilly to say it about Obama, but everyone is right to say it about Chavez?

Chavez may have done many horrible things, but giving stuff to poor people wasn't one of them.

/not my original thought, comes from L'Hote.


But for all the fark libs, the ends justify the means.  In other words, all the bad he's done is worth it because he helped the poor.  Less democracy is good so long as everyone is the same.
 
2013-03-06 03:12:17 PM  
Now that the apologists have had their say, about that poverty Chavez cured.

The hard facts are unmistakable: The oil-rich South American country is in shambles. It has one of the world's highest rates of inflation, largest fiscal deficits, and fastest growing debts. Despite a boom in oil prices, the country's infrastructure is in disrepair-power outages and rolling blackouts are common-and it is more dependent on crude exports than when Chávez arrived. Venezuela is the only member of OPEC that suffers from shortages of staples such as flour, milk, and sugar. Crime and violence skyrocketed during Chávez's years. On an average weekend, more people are killed in Caracas than in Baghdad and Kabul combined. (In 2009, there were 19,133 murders in Venezuela, more than four times the number of a decade earlier.) When the grisly statistics failed to improve, the Venezuelan government simply stopped publishing the figures.
 
2013-03-06 04:05:08 PM  
It is better to be pissed off than pissed on.   It is better to be pissedon than pissedin, because then you know you're being farked.
 
2013-03-06 04:48:13 PM  
Would somebody please turn loose the attack rabbits on that old fool.
 
2013-03-06 05:06:41 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Philip J. Fry: I need a refresher.  Why are we supposed to hate Chavez?

Here's a good starting point.


A shame he wasn't treated humanely, like our prisoners at Gitmo or Abu Ghraib.
 
2013-03-06 05:51:27 PM  
It's amazing how easily Americans are misled by anything that comes off of a TV.

LOL, you wonder why your country is being shelled out? Because you're too stupid to deserve it anymore.
 
2013-03-06 06:16:50 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: LOL, you wonder why your country is being shelled out? Because you're too stupid to deserve it anymore.


Coming from someone who is too ashamed to post what country he lives in, your opinion means absolutely nothing.
 
2013-03-06 08:51:08 PM  
It'd be interesting to cross match the sentiments of those who are happy with Chavez' demise against how they felt when Pinochet died. I don't believe that Chavez even comes close to Pinochet as far as being objectively awful, but he (Pinochet) sure had a lot of apologists on Fark when he died. Up thread, someone compared Chavez to Mubarak. It would be interesting to know if they had a roughly comparable human rights record - because Mubarak was our guy right up to the end, and the coverage of his abuses of human rights and democracy in mainstream press were pretty sparse from what I could tell. Where Chavez was regularly the Goldstein for our two minute hate.
 
2013-03-06 08:53:24 PM  
All of the best to the people of Venezuela. I hope your press and elections are free and fair, and that you continue on a path leading to more freedom and prosperity for all.
 
2013-03-06 08:56:02 PM  

stpickrell: So he was an utter fail on civil liberties (not just the C-/D+ Dubya was), alleviated some poverty, won reasonably fair elections, and alienated the business community completely.



I think this seems to sum up Chavez pretty decently. He was about the same than the leaders of most of the countries outside of the EU/Commonwealth/Japan/Korea/USA and better than most African leaders and the Chinese.
 
2013-03-06 08:57:28 PM  

Moopy Mac: stpickrell: So he was an utter fail on civil liberties (not just the C-/D+ Dubya was), alleviated some poverty, won reasonably fair elections, and alienated the business community completely.


I think this seems to sum up Chavez pretty decently. He was about the same as  than the leaders of most of the countries outside of the EU/Commonwealth/Japan/Korea/USA and better than most African leaders and the Chinese.


FTFM.
 
2013-03-06 09:00:17 PM  
Jimmy Carter shows some class; finding some nice things to say about a world leader who has just died, and people call him an idiot.

/Class; subby hasnt got it.
 
2013-03-06 09:03:09 PM  

Repo Man: It'd be interesting to cross match the sentiments of those who are happy with Chavez' demise against how they felt when Pinochet died.


The sooner a tyrant dies, the better.
 
2013-03-06 10:20:14 PM  
I love it.  Subby was royally outed for being a dumbshait in this thread.
 
2013-03-06 11:44:35 PM  

firefly212: He was a mixed bag at best, but to pretend that he didn't help Venezuela's underclass would be a gross mischaracterization of his record.


Short term.

He has severely damaged the infrastructure of the only industry keeping the country afloat. But for the spike in oil prices, they would be sub-Saharan levels of misery, and he did everything he could to break that.
 
2013-03-07 05:32:22 AM  

Frederick: Jimmy Carter shows some class; finding some nice things to say about a world leader who has just died, and people call him an idiot.

/Class; subby hasnt got it.


Don't sell Carter short. He also has plenty of high praise for dictators when they're still alive.
 
2013-03-07 07:10:05 AM  

Gulper Eel: Repo Man: It'd be interesting to cross match the sentiments of those who are happy with Chavez' demise against how they felt when Pinochet died.

The sooner a tyrant dies, the better.


This.

One of the things that pissed me off to no end is that Pol Pot died in his sleep, not swinging from the end of a rope.
 
2013-03-07 07:17:19 AM  

Frederick: Jimmy Carter shows some class; finding some nice things to say about a world leader who has just died, and people call him an idiot.

/Class; subby hasnt got it.


Obviously there has to be a line somewhere, though, doesn't there?  Not world leader *DESERVES* nice things to be said of them upon their death.  Whether that is or is not the case in this instance, I think we can all agree that there are some that truly deserve it, some that get it out of politeness on the part of the speaker (not speaking ill of the dead is a longstanding tradition in Western culture), and some that are clearly not worthy, and pretty much everyone thinks so.

Personally, I think that Chavez probably falls into the middle case.

Oddly enough, I haven't heard a lot of YV ham stations on the air in the last year or so.  YV is the prefix for Venezuela.
 
2013-03-07 07:17:59 AM  
sed 's/not world/not every world'
 
2013-03-07 07:31:56 AM  

dittybopper: One of the things that pissed me off to no end is that Pol Pot died in his sleep, not swinging from the end of a rope.


That's how it usually goes. I can only think of a few dictators of the past hundred years who wound up getting a taste of what they dished out: Saddam, Hitler, Mussolini, Ceausescu.

Usually they die like Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, the Kims, Arafat, Franco, Chavez, and soon Mugabe and Castro if there's any cosmic justice - stinking rich and surrounded by their cronies, and more often than not with some piety-spouting fool like Carter willing to polish their knob one last time.

I wish Hitchens was still alive to give Chavez the sendoff he deserved.
 
Displayed 47 of 97 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report