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 29
    More: Followup, President Jimmy Carter, Venezuela, useful idiots  
•       •       •

439 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-06 11:56:12 AM
4 votes:

Britney Spear's Speculum: Chavez pissed off the right wing oil tycoons in this country. He wasn't bad at all


False. 

He was a charismatic leader, and he reduced poverty by 50% in his country. Good things.

But he did them by raping the democratic process in the country, building  personal power base, and crapping all over his foreign policy. Getting on better terms with Panama and the Antilles is a good thing, but doing so at the expense of your biggest trading partners is folly in the long term.

If he was so bad, the people would have kicked him out long ago. If he was so good, he wouldn't have had to play games with the constitution to stay in power the way he liked. A truly great leader empowers those around him, and is able to hand off the reins to other capable hands without hanging on to the bitter end.
2013-03-06 10:57:59 AM
3 votes:
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.
2013-03-06 01:37:12 PM
2 votes:
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 11:07:03 AM
2 votes:
because being pissed on and told it's raining is a vast improvement over merely being pissed on

Which is exactly what trickle-down economics says.
2013-03-06 10:59:56 AM
2 votes:

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
2013-03-06 10:59:02 AM
2 votes:
Hugo gave the oil money to the people and eliminated 75% of the poverty in the country.

that monster.
2013-03-06 10:58:47 AM
2 votes:
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.
2013-03-06 10:58:16 AM
2 votes:
Because support for the poor is somehow bad, Subby?
2013-03-06 03:12:17 PM
1 votes:
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 03:06:52 PM
1 votes:
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 12:21:08 PM
1 votes:
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 12:16:40 PM
1 votes:

ongbok: 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.


And you could VERY correctly claim he over did his actions against multi-national corps.  But thing is, how much can you blame them?  Foreign corps. have screwed over developing countries for hundreds of years.  They shouldn't be shocked that occasionally people will get pissed off enough to fight back.
2013-03-06 11:40:09 AM
1 votes:
He's a communist, in the circa 1980 Soviet/Chinese sense of the word.  Communism does help the poor, in the sense that nobody (circa 1980; I'm not talking about earlier purges and "Great Leap Forward" and the like that killed hundreds of millions) starves to death, but innovation and freedom are curtailed, and few people (other than a few politically connected elites) are not "upper lower class".
2013-03-06 11:31:06 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-03-06 11:24:58 AM
1 votes:
because being pissed on and told it's raining is a vast improvement over merely being pissed on

Yet when Reagan does the same thing it's somehow heroic and worthy of statues and manly tears.
2013-03-06 11:23:25 AM
1 votes:
At least he didn't call them worthless moochers and the bane of society like the contemporary GOP.
2013-03-06 11:14:49 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-03-06 11:12:40 AM
1 votes:
You know subby, just because Chavez hated America doesn't mean he was a cartoon supervillian
2013-03-06 11:06:58 AM
1 votes:

Jackson Herring: 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.

Of COURSE you can. Don't you know that Jimmy Carter is a Democrat and Chavez was a "liberal"? You can say anything you want because liberals are bad, QED


And that's what it's all about.  Reading conservative blogs today, it's "OK, Chavez died and good riddance. And now: 8 paragraphs of liberal bashing!!  Hate them!!  Hate them until your eyeballs bleed!!".
2013-03-06 11:04:47 AM
1 votes:
So...Chavez was an American capitalist?
2013-03-06 11:04:29 AM
1 votes:

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


He really didn't even do that horrible of things. For his third election he gerrymandered the districts in the country so that the election was more favorable towards him and his win margin would be even larger.

I swear, there something or someone here that I could have sworn did the same thing. I wish I could put my finger on it.
2013-03-06 11:03:59 AM
1 votes:
Mussolini made the trains run on time.
2013-03-06 11:02:50 AM
1 votes:
We have a real crisis coming in this country. We are rapidly running out of Bogeymen. Osama, Ghaddafi, and Chavez all dead. Castro at death's door. Ahmadinejad out of office later this year.

Who will the right use to spread fear? Who will be the new face of evil?
2013-03-06 11:02:22 AM
1 votes:

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


Because the people elected him on a platform of running his country's economy on a moderately different system than the system the USA has chosen to use, and he didn't completely fail at it.
2013-03-06 11:02:19 AM
1 votes:

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


Because he didn't conveniently die when we decided Salas Römer should be Venezuela's leader.
2013-03-06 11:01:50 AM
1 votes:

kingoomieiii: DamnYankees: Why is it horrible of O'Reilly to say it about Obama, but everyone is right to say it about Chavez?

Because when O'Reilly says it, he's lying.


He's not, really. He was accurately describing the situation - people voted for the candidate they thought would be better for then. He just thought it was a BAD thing, and he used pejoratives to describe the situation when it should have been described positively.
2013-03-06 10:59:59 AM
1 votes:

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.


But the media has always told me that 100% of the things that Hugo Chavez did were bad!  Not one thing he did benefited anyone in his country, ever!
2013-03-06 10:59:04 AM
1 votes:
I need a refresher.  Why are we supposed to hate Chavez?
2013-03-06 10:58:36 AM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report