Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

First of all, here's the article



Second of all, here's his face

http://files.blog-city.com/files/O05/150158/p/f/hugo_chavez.jpg

more

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/20/chavez.un/index.html

and more


http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/americas/09/20/chavez.un/newt1.wed.chavez.ap.jpg

aside from that, how is anyone supposed to take this guy seriously? I can understand criticism of the U.S., but this guy is not speaking in a manner of which would be considered appropriate from a world leader. and he wants a seat on the U.N. Security Council??

I suppose our president is no better; he's always talking about "evil" nations and such, but I think that Chavez and Ahmadinejad are just saying these things to sort of put the same spin on things as we have. We called their counties evil and corrupt? so they call ours evil and corrupt...which calls into question...are either really AS corrupt as the other says? I'm not knowledgeable enough about either the U.S. government or the Iranian (or Venezuelan) gov't to know for sure. All I know is that their accusations sound ridiculous and exaggerated to me...so does that mean our criticisms of other countries might be ridiculous and exaggerated as well?

I swear he is the new Manuel Noriega! Why do these guys always look the same?

the baret



...oh was that rhetorical?

General Assembly president Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa was laughing and covering her mouth as to not make it noticeable as Chavez went on with his spiel. She wasn't the only one holding back laughter either, from what I hear.

Not only is that anyone will take him seriously, but no one will agree with him. He is trying to ally with many countries in South America to go against the US but of course, we laughed and let him cry for it.

Actually I think hes tapping into a large part of the world that is disatiesfied with US foreign policy.

Dissatisfied is one thing. Going on a tangent about how the leader of that country is the devil? That's a bit extreme. I can agree with someone who dislikes our policies, but when you decend into equating Bush with Satan I tend to ignore you. I have a feeling that a lot of people do the same thing.

Originally posted by Alliance
Actually I think hes tapping into a large part of the world that is disatiesfied with US foreign policy.

It is only a shame that the person who has the nerve to stand up and say it is less then, well, authoritative. Sadly I heard someone liken him to a sober Boris Yeltsin (for comedy purposes.)



Yes, I mean I equate Bush with a fool, and aggressive one, but there is no way he is devil material.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Dissatisfied is one thing. Going on a tangent about how the leader of that country is the devil? That's a bit extreme. I can agree with someone who dislikes our policies, but when you decend into equating Bush with Satan I tend to ignore you. I have a feeling that a lot of people do the same thing.

Err, it's called using a metaphor.

How is it any different from Bush's whole 'Axis of Evil' crap?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Err, it's called using a metaphor.

How is it any different from Bush's whole 'Axis of Evil' crap?

Some people don't seem to mind when Bush makes broad, inaccurate metaphors that serve no purpose, but dislike it when others do the same to him.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Dissatisfied is one thing. Going on a tangent about how the leader of that country is the devil? That's a bit extreme. I can agree with someone who dislikes our policies, but when you decend into equating Bush with Satan I tend to ignore you. I have a feeling that a lot of people do the same thing.




Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
It is only a shame that the person who has the nerve to stand up and say it is less then, well, authoritative. Sadly I heard someone liken him to a sober Boris Yeltsin (for comedy purposes.)




Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Err, it's called using a metaphor.

How is it any different from Bush's whole 'Axis of Evil' crap?

It's far different from Bush's little "Axis of Evil" crap. Chavez straight-up called him "El Diablo", and in Spanish that's not something you joke around with. It's quite an accusation.

I more or less agree with Kinneary; it was just an angry rant.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's far different from Bush's little "Axis of Evil" crap. Chavez straight-up called him "El Diablo", and in Spanish that's not something you joke around with. It's quite an accusation.

I more or less agree with Kinneary; it was just an angry rant.

Perhaps, but then there are parts of Europe where Hitler and things associated with him and the Axis aren't joking matters either, in fact are near taboo so bad the memories are.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's far different from Bush's little "Axis of Evil" crap. Chavez straight-up called him "El Diablo", and in Spanish that's not something you joke around with. It's quite an accusation.

Of course it's not! It's exactly the same. Chavez obviously chose his rhetoric to mirror that of the Bush Administration's. Labelling whole nations as part of an 'Axis of Evil' - by a sitting president - is not a light-hearted 'little' joke either!

Honestly, how can you not see this?

Besides calling Bush "The Devil", Chavez also said Bush was an "alcoholic and a sick man", not sure what metaphor he was implying there. His speech was nothing more than an angry emotional rant and world leaders should not go on those.

Oh, if anyone cares, every time you purchase gas from a CITGO gas station you are putting your money directly in Venezuela via Petroleos de Venezuela (who owns CITGO) and they in turn finance Hugo Chavez.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Of course it's not! It's exactly the same. Chavez obviously chose his rhetoric to mirror that of the Bush Administration's. Labelling whole nations as part of an 'Axis of Evil' - by a sitting president - is not a light-hearted 'little' joke either!

Honestly, how can you not see this?

because bush pisses rainbows and craps sunshine. if he does it its ok. hail satan...i mean go dubya!

He (Chavez) is an idiot. Now, while I admit that Bush's intelligence is something that needs to be questioned, a world leader should never stand up and call someone a devil. For the record, I think Bush is an idiot also.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/chavez.ny/index.html



I'm glad to see Dems and Reps can come together about something.

There are probably several hundred Bush speeches I could quote and ask the same question regarding him. That being said I take Hugo Chavez about as seriously as Barney the dinosaur. However the apparently he believes the U.S. tried to oust him in a coup which is somewhat mitigating.

"If there's any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans"

Oh please, if Pat Robertson can go on TV and call for Chavez to be assassinated then I can be as critical of Bush as I like.

I COULD STILL SMELL THE SULFUR!

IT WAS DARK-SIDED IN HERE!

That's nice deary.

Originally posted by Kinneary
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/21/chavez.ny/index.html



I'm glad to see Dems and Reps can come together about something.

How absurd. When the actions of the US president are effecting the world, both those nations allied or not, then I think it is more then justified poliiceans and commentators criticise.

I notice you aren't coming up with a quote where some US commentator is bagging Tony Blair or John Howard after they praise Bush. Oh wait, it is ok when he gets toadying praise from other nations, just not when people criticise.

Are you suggesting the world is free to bow and scrape at Bush's feet, but we have no right to criticise him for his bad speeches or decisions that extend beyond the US?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
There are probably several hundred Bush speeches I could quote and ask the same question regarding him. That being said I take Hugo Chavez about as seriously as Barney the dinosaur. However the apparently he believes the U.S. tried to oust him in a coup which is somewhat mitigating.

"If there's any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans"

Oh please, if Pat Robertson can go on TV and call for Chavez to be assassinated then I can be as critical of Bush as I like.

Only Pat Robertson takes Pat Robertson seriously.

Originally posted by Robtard
Besides calling Bush "The Devil", Chavez also said Bush was an "alcoholic and a sick man", not sure what metaphor he was implying there. His speech was nothing more than an angry emotional rant and world leaders should not go on those.

Well, let's see...Bush publicly labels whole nations as 'evil', but that's OK. Chavez labels Bush as evil, but that's not OK because he said it in public? Right...I love reading arguments that have no foundation in logic.

As for the alcoholic/sick man thing, what is it that you don't get? Bush has stated that he was a "heavy drinker", and that he was 'saved' from this by Lord Baby Jesus:

"There is only one reason that I am in the Oval Office and not in a bar. I found faith. I found God." Bush speaking at the Yale Commencement in 2001.

So, there we go; Chavez was speaking the truth, albeit in an intentionally provocative manner.

Originally posted by BobbyD
He (Chavez) is an idiot. Now, while I admit that Bush's intelligence is something that needs to be questioned, a world leader should never stand up and call someone a devil. For the record, I think Bush is an idiot also.

Whatever Chavez might be, he is certainly not an idiot as he has achieved exactly what he intended with the reaction to his speech. Is the reason that you think Bush is an idiot due to exactly the same reason as Chavez, or are you looking at all the other overwhelming evidence to support that belief?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Well, let's see...Bush publicly labels whole nations as 'evil', but that's OK. Chavez labels Bush as evil, but that's not OK because he said it in public? Right...I love reading arguments that have no foundation in logic.

As for the alcoholic/sick man thing, what is it that you don't get? Bush has stated that he was a "heavy drinker", and that he was 'saved' from this by Lord Baby Jesus:

"There is only one reason that I am in the Oval Office and not in a bar. I found faith. I found God." Bush speaking at the Yale Commencement in 2001.

So, there we go; Chavez was speaking the truth, albeit in an intentionally provocative manner.



Whatever Chavez might be, he is certainly not an idiot as he has achieved exactly what he intended with the reaction to his speech. Is the reason that you think Bush is an idiot due to exactly the same reason as Chavez, or are you looking at all the other overwhelming evidence to support that belief?

Bush labels whole nations evil? Care to quote a source, I do not recall him saying that? Bush does drop the "Evil" bomb to many times in my opinion, personally, he should not use that world at all, but he applies it to other governments and regimes.

Ok, he was/might have been an alcoholic, that is past tense either way, what don't you get? Besides saying "sick man" he also labeled Bush a racist, either of those were not necessary... Like I said, world leaders should not go on emotional angry rants, simple as that. If Chavez is seeking a seat in the U.N., he's going about it the wrong way, people in the U.N. were laughing as he vented.

Originally posted by Robtard
Bush labels whole nations evil? Care to quote a source, I do not recall him saying that? Bush does drop the "Evil" bomb to many times in my opinion, but he applies it to other governments and regimes.

He's labelled Iran, North Korea, and Iraq as part of an 'Axis of Evil'. You didn't know that?

Originally posted by Robtard
Ok, he was/might have been an alcoholic, that is past tense either way, what don't you get? Besides saying "sick man" he also labeled Bush a racist, either of those were not necessary.. Like I said, world leaders should not go on emotional angry rants. If Chavez is seeking a seat in the U.N., he's going about it the wrong way.

If you're an alcoholic, it doesn't just stop. That's why he doesn't drink anymore.

Bush's foreign policy and his immediate 'response' to Katrina could be used as evidence to support him being a racist.

Chavez was using that opportunity to voice his opinion on what many people think about Bush, but are scared to say because of the fear of possible reprisals.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
He's labelled Iran, North Korea, and Iraq as part of an 'Axis of Evil'. You didn't know that?

If you're an alcoholic, it doesn't just stop. That's why he doesn't drink anymore.

Bush's foreign policy and his immediate 'response' to Katrina could be used as evidence to support him being a racist.

Chavez was using that opportunity to voice his opinion on what many people think about Bush, but are scared to say because of the fear of possible reprisals.

He isn't labeling all of Iran, North Korea and Iraq and it's people as evil, he is referring to their governments (which I think he shouldn't do). Difference if Chavez had said something along the lines that the U.S government was corrupt and such.

Yea I know, alcoholism is for life, no need to insult a recovered addict, it's petty.

Yes, Bush hates black people because he was in direct control of the hurricane and he had direct control of Louisiana. Sorry that is a typical moonbat reaction and that wasn't Bush's fault. I do not care for Bush, but the State and it's governor is responsible ultimately for the care of it's people. The main stream media pretty much said the same thing at the end. Another thing, whites and others were also affected by Katrina.

I know why he was saying it, but it was a petty personal attack on an individual. As a world leader, he should refrain from that. In my opinion, he lost credibility when he vented.

Originally posted by Robtard
He isn't labeling all of Iran, North Korea and Iraq and it's people as evil, he is referring to their governments. Difference if Chavez had said something along the lines that the U.S government was corrupt and such.

His label implicates the people. As for the second part: seriously, what?

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, Bush hates black people because he was in control of the hurricane and he had direct control of Louisiana. Sorry that is a typical moonbat reaction and that wasn't Bush's fault. I do not care for Bush, but the State and it's governor is responsible ultimately for the care of it's people. The main stream media pretty much said the same thing at the end.

A state-of-emergency situation requires the head of state to act. It's, like, his job. Bush was absent without leave in regards to both Katrina and 9/11.

Originally posted by Robtard
I know why he was saying it, but it was a petty personal attack on an individual. As a world leader, he should refrain from that. In my opinion, he lost credibility when he vented.

If you know why he was saying it, then the intention was not petty. He did it to provoke a discussion.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
His label implicates the people. As for the second part: seriously, what?

A state-of-emergency situation requires the head of state to act. It's, like, his job. Bush was absent without leave in regards to both Katrina and 9/11.

If you know why he was saying it, then the intention was not petty. He did it to provoke a discussion.

You could look at it that way if you really wanted, but he is implying their governments. Axis means 'the powers that be' in a nation, a.ka. the government/leading body. What didn't you get? It would have been different if Chavez hadn't brought it down to a personal level and restricted his disapproval to the U.S government and it's policies.

Like I said, even the MSM with the exception of the far radical left has pretty much said Katrina's aftermath was not Bush's fault.

He was saying it to vent his personal anger towards Bush and insulting another world leader as a world leader is petty. People were laughing at him in the U.N., if he had the intention of stirring deep discussion, he failed.

Originally posted by Robtard
You could look at it that way if you really wanted, but he is implying their governments. Axis means 'the powers that be' in a nation, a.ka. the government/leading body.

'Axis' does not mean 'the powers that be in nation'! In the context it is used, it refers to the connecting line between the countries.

Originally posted by Robtard
What didn't you get? It would have been different if Chavez hadn't brought it down to a personal level and restricted his disapproval to the U.S government and it's policies.

Obviously, Chavez used colloquial terms, but most people grasped what he was insinuating.

Originally posted by Robtard
Like I said, even the MSM with the exception of the far radical left has pretty much said Katrina's aftermath was not Bush's fault.

Absolute rubbish. If by 'MSM', you mean Fox, then it is a laughable summation anyway. Media sources all over the world saw great fault with Bush's response.

Originally posted by Robtard
He was saying it to vent his personal anger towards Bush and insulting another world leader as a world leader is petty. People were laughing at him in the U.N., if he had the intention of stirring deep discussion, he failed.

Obviously, this is not true. Chavez's comment have been widely circulated all over the world.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
'Axis' does not mean 'the powers that be in nation'! In the context it is used, it refers to the connecting line between the countries.


Obviously, Chavez used colloquial terms, but most people grasped what he was insinuating.

Absolute rubbish. If by 'MSM', you mean Fox, then it is a laughable summation anyway. Media sources all over the world saw great fault with Bush's response.

Obviously, this is not true. Chavez's comment have been widely circulated all over the world.

Like I said, take it the way you want to take it. I do not believe he was condemning all the people from peasant on up in those nations when he said "Axis of evil."

Singling out a person is not informal, calling somone an "alcoholic", "racist" and "sick man" is direct. As is calling someone the "Devil" himself, not just 'a devil' as in evil.

No, by MSM I mean the majority of the major news agencies. Yes, the initial knee jerk reaction was "It's Bush's fault!", as time went on and more and more facts came out, it proved otherwise.

I am not doubting what Chavez said didn't reach the far corners of the world, but the rallying response he hoped for failed I think.

Originally posted by Robtard
Like I said, take it the way you want to take it. I do not believe he was condemning all the people from peasant on up in those nations when he said "Axis of evil."

Like I said, his label implicates them all. How would you feel if you lived in a country that one of the most powerful men in the world has labelled as 'evil'?

Originally posted by Robtard
Singling out a person is not informal, calling somone an "alcoholic", "racist" and "sick man" is direct. As is calling someone the "Devil" himself, not just 'a devil' as in evil.

As I've said a few times already, he used those terms to draw attention. He succeeded.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, by MSM I mean the majority of the major news agencies. Yes, the initial knee jerk reaction was "It's Bush's fault!", as time went on and more and more facts came out, it proved otherwise.

Again, this isn't true. On the recent anniversary of the storm, there were still many people pointing the blame at Bush and his administration.

Originally posted by Robtard
I am not doubting what Chavez said didn't reach the far corners of the world, but the rallying response he hoped for failed I think.

Again, this shows that you don't really understand why he said what he did. I've tried to explain, but you don't seem to be getting it.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Like I said, his label implicates them all. How would you feel if you lived in a country that one of the most powerful men in the world has labelled as 'evil'?

As I've said a few times already, he used those terms to draw attention. He succeeded.

Again, this isn't true. On the recent anniversary of the storm, there were still many people pointing the blame at Bush and his administration.

Again, this shows that you don't really understand why he said what he did. I've tried to explain, but you don't seem to be getting it.


I'd be pissed he called my government "evil" if I cared about my government, but I wouldn't take it personal.

Of course people still blame Bush, people often knee jerk and blame Bush for any mishap, no matter how ridiculous. Fact is though, the levees broke due to decades upon decades of neglect, Bush had nothing to do with neglect that happened before he became president. His response to the aftermah was lacking, but it wasn't solely his fault.

I understand clearly what he said, he made personal attacks on the leader of another nation and as a leader himself, he should have refrained from such petty insults. Say Chavez was being metaphorical, but his insults weren't metaphorical. What is Metaphorical about "racist", "sick man" and "alcoholic"?

Nothing he said changes anyone views of Bush or America, those who despise Bush still despise him and those who love Bush still love him. All the rest in between only saw a world leader resorting to petty insults on another world leader. People in the U.N. were laughing.

i love how people try to exonerate bush for doing the exact same thing. blatant hypocrisy.

Originally posted by PVS
i love how people try to exonerate bush for doing the exact same thing. blatant hypocrisy.

I take it that was directed at me in at least some degree... Has Bush ever insulted another world leader directly and in such a petty fashion as Chavez did? Has Bush accused another world leader of being an "alcoholic, "sick man" or racist? I have said I do not approve of Bush's "evil" bombs, I am not exonerting him of anything.

I'd be pissed he called my President the "Devil" if I cared about my President, but I wouldn't take it personal.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'd be pissed he called my President the "Devil" if I cared about my President, but I wouldn't take it personal.

OK? I am neither pissed nor do I care what Chavez said, his worlds have not changed my opinions of Bush. I am merely pointing out Chavez's flaws in saying such things as a world leader in regards to another world leader.

I didn't imply you were pissed or that it did change your opinions. I just paralleled your sentence to illustrate the parallel between what Bush did several years ago and what Chavez did recently.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I didn't imply you were pissed or that it did change your opinions. I just paralleled your sentence to illustrate the parallel between what Bush did several years ago and what Chavez did recently.

There is a huge difference between a nations leader condemning the actions/policies of another nation than a leader taking petty shots on another world leader on a personal level, never mind he did it at the U.N. no less. Don't you see the difference?

Originally posted by Robtard
I take it that was directed at me in at least some degree... Has Bush ever insulted another world leader directly and in such a petty fashion as Chavez did? Has Bush accused another world leader of being an "alcoholic, "sick man" or racist? I have said I do not approve of Bush's "evil" bombs, I am not exonerting him of anything.

no, bush just calls them "hitler", implying that they are a racist genocidal madman among other unsavory things...but never called anyone an alcoholic. does that matter?

now, i never said that chaves was justified, i find such a move irresponsible no matter who does it (although i agree that he is satan incarnate, though im not a world leader thankfully)

im sorry, but you as well are being a blatant hypocrite. wipe the red white and blue hypocritical delusion of inherent godliness and immunity out of your logic and you'll see the truth of it. we have a president whos version of diplomacy is to call another world leader evil, right down to their core. maybe he's right, and maybe chaves is also right, but both should learn to stfu, especially bush since he's in charge of far more than some bloated banana republic.

Originally posted by PVS
no, bush just calls them "Hitler", implying that they are a racist genocidal madman among other unsavory things...but never called anyone an alcoholic. does that matter?

now, i never said that chaves was justified, i find such a move irresponsible no matter who does it (although i agree that he is satan incarnate, though im not a world leader thankfully)

im sorry, but you as well are being a blatant hypocrite. wipe the red white and blue hypocritical delusion of inherent godliness and immunity out of your logic and you'll see the truth of it. we have a president whos version of diplomacy is to call another world leader evil, right down to their core. maybe he's right, and maybe chaves is also right, but both should learn to stfu, especially bush since he's in charge of far more than some bloated banana republic.

I believe he called President Ahmadinejad "Hitler" for his frequent anti-Jewish remarks and his denial of the holocaust. Am I wrong here? But again, he should not have made that reference as a leader.

We both agree here as any move as this by a world leader is poor tactics.

"wipe the red white and blue hypocritical delusion of inherent godliness and immunity out of your logic" Like I said, I am no fan of Bush and I do not believe America can justify anything over any other nation just because it is America...

well, then we agree






...and bush is satan

Originally posted by PVS
well, then we agree






...and bush is satan

I guess so




...I do not like the man, I did not vote for him and if by some lube-less @ssfck of our laws he should be able to run a third term, I wouldn't vote for him. But, I do not think he is Satan or evil incarnate.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'd be pissed he called my government "evil" if I cared about my government, but I wouldn't take it personal.

Of course people still blame Bush, people often knee jerk and blame Bush for any mishap, no matter how ridiculous. Fact is though, the levees broke due to decades upon decades of neglect, Bush had nothing to do with neglect that happened before he became president. His response to the aftermah was lacking, but it wasn't solely his fault.

Your responses aren't very coherent, but no matter. When I said Bush's response to Katrina was lacking, do you know what I meant? I meant 'response'. Got it?

Originally posted by Robtard
I understand clearly what he said, he made personal attacks on the leader of another nation and as a leader himself, he should have refrained from such petty insults. Say Chavez was being metaphorical, but his insults weren't metaphorical. What is Metaphorical about "racist", "sick man" and "alcoholic"?

Ahh, you see that bit I said about being metaphorical? Yes? Do you see that I didn't say the 'racist', 'sick man' and 'alcoholic' part was metaphorical? Are you beginning to see the light? You see, I said the 'el diablo' bit was metaphorical. Got it?

Originally posted by Robtard
Nothing he said changes anyone views of Bush or America, those who despise Bush still despise him and those who love Bush still love him. All the rest in between only saw a world leader resorting to petty insults on another world leader. People in the U.N. were laughing.

Again, Chavez's intentions were publicity-related. It wasn't an attempt at currying favor. How could you possibly think it was?!?!

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Your responses aren't very coherent, but no matter. When I said Bush's response to Katrina was lacking, do you know what I meant? I meant 'response'. Got it?

Ahh, you see that bit I said about being metaphorical? Yes? Do you see that I didn't say the 'racist', 'sick man' and 'alcoholic' part was metaphorical? Are you beginning to see the light? You see, I said the 'el diablo' bit was metaphorical. Got it?

Again, Chavez's intentions were publicity-related. It wasn't an attempt at currying favor. How could you possibly think it was?!?!

You're constant replies with their demeaning undertones grow rather tiring, not because I am personally offended, but the repetitiveness is childish.

If you cannot understand my responses, I can't help it, sorry. Actually, you said "and his immediate 'response' to Katrina could be used as evidence to support him being a racist." not lacking, you implied he was racially motivated.

Alright, so one little part of his speech was metaphorical, big deal. But as I pointed not, he said "is" the Devil as in "the Lord of all evil", "Master of lies" that is personal and petty. Now try to justify the "sick man", "alcoholic" and "racist" aspects of his deep metaphorical rant as they not being personal insults towards Bush.

Ok, then if he didn't do it to offend Bush as it was "metaphorical" and he didn't do it to rally support, why did he do it?

Originally posted by Robtard
You're constant replies with their demeaning undertones grow rather tiring, not because I am personally offended, but the repetitiveness is childish.

If you cannot understand my responses, I can't help it, sorry. Actually, you said "and his immediate 'response' to Katrina could be used as evidence to support him being a racist." not lacking, you implied he was racially motivated.

Alright, so one little part of his speech was metaphorical, big deal. But as I pointed not, he said "is" the Devil as in "the Lord of all evil", "Master of lies" that is personal and petty. Now try to justify the "sick man", "alcoholic" and "racist" aspects of his deep metaphorical rant as they not being personal insults towards Bush.

Ok, then if he didn't do it to offend Bush as it was "metaphorical" and he didn't do it to rally support, why did he do it?

I'm sorry for the 'demenaing undertones' of my replies, but it is also rather tiring when you fail to grasp my explicit meaning. Yes, his response to Katrina could be used as evidence to support him being a racist. I have never said otherwise. Yes, Chavez intended to insult Bush, but that wasn't his ultimate intention; publicity was. As for the final part of your post; again, the answer is publicity.

I hope everything is crystal clear now.

I don't take anyone seriously, so I'm all set.

Originally posted by PVS
because bush pisses rainbows and craps sunshine. if he does it its ok. hail satan...i mean go dubya!

Ahahahahaha!!

Originally posted by PVS
well, then we agree






...and bush is satan

Don't give him that much credit, he's not nearly as clever as satan.

I can't take him seriously because his last name is Chavez............

Originally posted by Britrogue
I can't take him seriously because his last name is Chavez............

CHAV-ez. I get it.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
CHAV-ez. I get it.

I get it, too...Because he's not French, right? Hahaha. Good one.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
I get it, too...Because he's not French, right? Hahaha. Good one.

Wait, what?

I thought it was funny BECAUSE he was French.

Oh, right. Now I see.

I think I'll just laugh at my self from here on in...

"...we're both a part of the same hypocrisy..." -michael corleone

I'd love it if Bush and Chavez held hands, danced, and then actually said that. I think I'd actually take a photo. Or maybe even a video. A video-photo. Do they exist?

i bet we'll have that within the next decade

Yeah, that's progress for you.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Whatever Chavez might be, he is certainly not an idiot as he has achieved exactly what he intended with the reaction to his speech. Is the reason that you think Bush is an idiot due to exactly the same reason as Chavez, or are you looking at all the other overwhelming evidence to support that belief?

Then if he (Chavez) is not an idiot, he certainly fails in the art of diplomacy and tact, which is necessary for a world to leader to accomplish anything outside of his country with the rest of the world. He (Chavez) didn't say anything new that the rest of the world doesn't believe already. I can be passionate in front of a group of hundreds also and say that the capital of France is Paris, but that would mean nothing. My reasons for thinking Bush is an idiot are irrelevant to the topic.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Then if he (Chavez) is not an idiot, he certainly fails in the art of diplomacy and tact, which is necessary for a world to leader to accomplish anything outside of his country with the rest of the world. He (Chavez) didn't say anything new that the rest of the world doesn't believe already. I can be passionate in front of a group of hundreds also and say that the capital of France is Paris, but that would mean nothing. My reasons for thinking Bush is an idiot are irrelevant to the topic.

So here it is again: Chavez achieved exactly what he intended with his speech.

I really can't fathom how anyone can think he was going for anything other than shock and news coverage. Seriously, do you really think he was trying to be tactful and diplomatic? Seriously?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
So here it is again: Chavez achieved exactly what he intended with his speech.

I really can't fathom how anyone can think he was going for anything other than shock and news coverage. Seriously, do you really think he was trying to be tactful and diplomatic? Seriously?

Following you now...I think.

If you're asking me if his sole purpose was to be a blowhard and get his X minutes of world fame & fortune, and be on news telecasts everywhere around the world? My answer is confusingly, I don't know. But you do raise an interesting point...again, if I'm following you. Are you saying he just merely wanted to be a thespian...and let that side out of him that's been trapped all his life?

Of course. His whole performance was theatrical. It served the purpose of gaining a lot of coverage, and offering a parallel to Bush's own theatrics and posturing. Like PVS insinuated, they are both playing the same game.

Originally posted by BobbyD
Following you now...I think.

If you're asking me if his sole purpose was to be a blowhard and get his X minutes of world fame & fortune, and be on news telecasts everywhere around the world? My answer is confusingly, I don't know. But you do raise an interesting point...again, if I'm following you. Are you saying he just merely wanted to be a thespian...and let that side out of him that's been trapped all his life?

He already has his X minutes because he's a world leader.

I doubt it was theatrics; he really meant what he said.

No he is a ********* clown wanna be important political leader....he ought to think about his country, what good does it to be th 4th largest oil exporting country with no one to export too cause those clown cant be trusted and he would use his countries oil reserves to "hijack" oil negotiations bullocks the peoples of his country that could really be aided by the money brought in by oil sold...........but mr Prez Venezuela thinks that that money suits him better than the needed people of Venezuela

I can take him seriously. He's an awesome prez. Close as I think anyone is going to get to my vision of a perfect figurehead.

Personally, I'd have called Bush by name and told him he was an ******* to his face, if I had been in his position, but he got his point across.

He wants to be Huge I think