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