Obama Signals Four More Years of Bad Relations With Latin America

Truth to tell, we probably don't deserve one that good, but the rest of the world does!

for all of Latin America, working so hard to ensure that they never again fall under the influence of the Western powers which created so much hardship and tragedy for that region of the world.

Someone recently suggested that Obama consult Chavez on what to do about our own terrible economy. I agree as he has reduced poverty by almost 50% in just over a decade.

What a foolish comment to make and how disappointing coming from a Democrat.

s

It's the same old "Leftism bad, kill Arabs, support resource-rich tyrants" shit we've had for the last sixty-odd years.

~snip~
Yes, there have been abuses of authority in Venezuela, as in all of the hemisphere - as President Obama should know. It was Obama who defended the imprisonment without trial for more than two-and-a-half years, and abuse in custody, of Bradley Manning, which was condemned by the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on Torture. It is Obama who has refused to grant freedom to Native American activist Leonard Peltier, widely seen throughout the world as a political prisoner, now in a US prison for 37 years. It is Obama who claims the right, and has used it, to kill American citizens without arrest or trial.

Venezuela is a middle-income country where the rule of law is relatively weak, as is the state generally (hence the absurdity of calling it "authoritarian"). But compared to other countries of its income level, it does not stand out for anything in the realm of human rights abuses. Certainly there is nothing in Venezuela comparable to the abuses by Washington allies such as Mexico; or Honduras - where candidates for political office, opposition activists, and journalists are regularly murdered. And much of the scholarly research on Venezuela under Chavez shows that it is more democratic and has more civil liberties than ever before in its own history.

By contrast, we in the United States are not doing so well by comparison to our own history and income level. We have suffered a serious loss of civil liberties under the administrations of George W Bush and President Obama. And of course if we count the victims of US crimes abroad - the civilians and children killed by drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan, for example - President Obama, the one with the "kill list", has little standing to criticise almost any foreign president.

~snip~
When President Obama met with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff he said:

"It gives me an opportunity as well to remark on the extraordinary progress that Brazil has made under the leadership of President Rousseff and her predecessor, President Lula, moving from dictatorship to democracy..."

So, if Obama (and his staff) didn't even know that Brazil's dictatorship came to an end more than a decade before Lula was elected in 2002, how can he be expected to know anything about Venezuela? I mean, Brazil is a big country, bigger than the continental US and the sixth largest economy in the world.

Really sad no President since Kennedy has dared take conscientious steps to separate this country from the filthy history created by his predecessors regarding the countries south of the US border, (and within our borders regarding brown, black, and leftist peoples).

not even by proxy: ie. mercenaries, drones, "revolutionaries"....

as "revolutionaries".

any other nation so long as we have the NDAA, the Patriot Act, the Fisa Bill, Homeland Security, invasions of other countries, Drone attacks killing innocent citizens in their own countries, Guantanamo Bay not to mention Bagram and all of our other detention centers.

I wonder how they have the gall to criticize someone who has done more good for his country than any US President in decades and after all the slaughter of innocents the world has witnessed in other people's countries.

"To these governments, Obama’s broadsides about Chávez’s 'authoritarian policies' and 'suppression of dissent' have a bad smell...". --from the OP

RCTV in Venezuela not only hosted the rightwing coup regime that had kidnapped the elected president and suspended the constitution, the courts, the national assembly and all civil rights, and they not only told the public outright lies (that Chavez had resigned) and broadcast falsified video footage (Chavistas shooting rightwing protestors), on behalf of the coup, but they also FORBADE ANY CHAVEZ GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL FROM APPEARING ON TV, and furthermore incited rightwing mobs to hunt down government officials and 'arrest' them!

Would you renew the license of such a media conglomerate to continue operating on the PUBLIC airwaves? No government in the world would do so. And the Chavez government, in the PUBLIC INTEREST, did not do so.

When Chavez refused to renew those jerkwad traitors' broadcast license, and began discussions on measures that the government might take in the spirit of the "Fairness Doctrine" that we once had here (that the Reagnites got rid of), the corpo-fascist media here and there began screaming about "free speech" and other 19th century crap they DON'T believe in and actively try to deny to the rest of us. "Free speech!" I tell you! "Free speech" to overthrow democratic government and brainwash the poor majority with "Big Lie" propaganda. "Free speech" to make the rich richer, to promote corporate resource wars and slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent people (Faux News: War as entertainment); "free speech" to blast utter shitfaced lies into every home in the world!

On. Our. PUBLIC. Airwaves.

So, WHO "suppresses" free speech? In Venezuela, it was the corporate media moguls, led by RCTV, who suppressed the speech OF THE ELECTED GOVERNMENT and of ALL THE PEOPLE who supported and voted for that government! NO pro-government protests or spokespeople were allowed on TV! No Chavez government officials were allowed on TV!

That is one of main reasons that the Irish filmmakers in Venezuela at the time of the coup called their documentary "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised." They were referring to the corporate blackout of the news (they ran cartoons) during critical hours of the unfolding coup plot, and to the corporate media lying on behalf of the coup and hosting of the coup declarations but they were also referring to the BLACKOUT OF DISSENT--to the leftist democracy revolution that was occurring in Venezuela, with the election of the Chavez government--nothing but hostile coverage, if any coverage at all, of the ELECTED government and its millions of supporters. "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised." The elected government ITSELF will not be televised. Its overthrow will not be televised--merely declared and a "president" APPOINTED. And the million Venezuelans who poured into the streets of Caracas to protest the coup will, of course, not be televised. Cartoons will take their place.

It is just utterly laughable--darkly so--that the corpo-fascist press here and there dares to accuse Chavez of "suppressing free speech." He and his government--in response to the will of the people--have done more than any other government in the world to EXPAND free speech--funding and providing training for hundreds of new community-run radio stations, vastly improving the inclusiveness of political life in Venezuela--to women, to the indigenous, to Afro-Venezuelans, to all previously excluded groups; greatly improving public participation and voter turnouts; getting Telesur off the ground (news service for all of LatAm independent of corporations); creating community councils to funnel federal funds to local projects decided upon by the local community; LISTENING TO and HEEDING grass roots groups on all kinds of issues--from women's health to workers' rights to housing needs to the fabulous Venezuelan Children's Orchestra (now expanded all over the country, to every community). The Chavez government has DOUBLED college enrollment and has wiped out illiteracy in Venezuela. They print the Constitution on grocery bags, for godssakes! They WANT people to READ it! They WANT people to know their rights and to assert their rights.

Our "Fairness Doctrine" obliged those getting licenses to use our PUBLIC airwaves to broadcast BOTH sides of political issues and controversies, and to provide PUBLIC SERVICE--such as broadcasting all of the political conventions and other important civic events. It also forbade media monopolies--one humungous private corporation controlling information on TV and radio, in newspapers, magazines, books and movies, or controlling a region, or five of them controlling all information in the country.

We are now suffering horribly from the loss of the "Fairness Doctrine"--and the importance of the "Fairness Doctrine" has never been better illustrated than during our plight over the last decade, as fascist policy after fascist policy has been foisted upon us, including unjust war, the torture of prisoners, the looting of our public coffers by war profiteers and multi-billionaires, and, currently, the dismantling of Medicare and Social Security, the complete takeover of our health care system by private insurance profiteers, vicious attacks on labor unions and public education, and on-going war, including the "war on drugs" in direct contempt of the will of the people, and anonymous U.S. government assassinations around the world by drone aircraft.

Typically, our woes are foreshadowed by events in Latin America. Our plight at the hands of vicious, war profiteering, corporate media moguls was foreshadowed in Venezuela in 2002 when media moguls directly tried to overthrow Venezuelan democracy. We should learn from this WHY the "Fairness Doctrine" was important in the first place, and WHY that horrible murderer (Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemela) and first slayer of our democracy, Ronald Reagan, got rid of it. We need to remedy this, among other things we need to remedy (first priority: get rid of the corporate-run 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines). And we can look to Venezuela as a prime example of REAL "free speech": "free speech" for EVERYBODY, "free speech" for the poor, "free speech" for the excluded, "free speech" for workers, the elderly, the sick, the homeless, those burdened with onerous debt and other victims of the banksters, the war profiteers and the 1%.

Free speech only for the 1% is NOT free speech at all. It is tyranny.

you don't even make an attempt to present accurate information.

...with all your "accurate information" about the rightwing coup plotters and their corporate media colluders in Venezuela.

The next morning, after Chávez had been taken away but had not resigned, a Venevisión morning program hosted some of the military and civilian coup leaders. The guests on the show thanked the private media channels for their integral role carrying out the coup. As powerful businessman Pedro Carmona became the de-facto president of Venezuela, all the private media owners were present in the palace cheering loudly as the new president dismantled the democratic institutions that Chávez's government had put into place.

http://upsidedownworld.org/main/venezuela-archives-35/2059--media-in-venezuela-facts-and-fiction

my understanding is RCTV can no longer broadcast in venezuela even on cable.

No one has ever refuted it, they just let it slide. Yet they keep repeating it for some bizarre reason. Over and over again. I don't understand it. I've refuted it so many times... RCTV was a niche player. What's really fucked up about it is that Carter visited Gustavo Cisneros just as Chavez was threatening to shut down Venevision too, then Venevision changed its program.

they would have been raided and shut down and jailed for life as enemies of the state, if not sentenced to death.

Please stop spreading nonsense here. Most Democrats followed these events from the day of the Bush Administration backed coup against a democratically elected president of a sovereign nation. We should be ashamed of what was attempted by that Right Wing administration. Why are you supporting this btw? The world and all of Latin America know the truth and it's no wonder the US is regarded as the biggest threat to world peace around the globe. Chavez otoh, enjoys huge popularity in Latin America and in Venezuela and around the world. I thought only Republicans defended Bush's policies towards Chavez who has led Latin America to independence from Right Wing Western backed dictatorships.

I remember back in 2002 when every Dem supported the Venezuelan people's overturning of the Bush backed coup and their refusal to return to Western backed dictators and right wing puppet governments. What happened?

Stop presenting your nonsense. What am I supposedly supporting?? The truth that Venevision and not RCTV hosted the coup leaders. Yes, I do support that fact. You don't make any sense.

And indeed, the RCTV was closed "because it supported the coup" comment is just thrown out there as a lie to defend billionaire Gustavo Cisneros. Ironically this is well known by Lat. Am. forum posters.



I think the RCTV deflection is willful dishonesty, myself. If you close RCTV because of the coup, you close Venevision as well, then at lest you're honest. But no, Boligarch Cisneros must be protected, even Carter went to visit to protect him.

their countries with the people who do all their work for them. They don't want to pay them what they deserve for their hard work, nor do they want to make room so the suffering of the masses can be aleviated.

They want them to suffer in absolute silence, and they will shriek like banshees until they get everything back, with them firmly in charge, just the way they had it.

Why?

Billionaire Gustavo Cisneros loves you for it at least.

Ran cartoons all day as the failed coup was taking place.

at a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere.

I didn't see it then, or I would have posted it:

Anti-Chavez Media Mogul to Speak at House Hearing

June 11, 2010
By admin

Write or Call to Demand a Fair Hearing – On June 16 the House Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere of the Foreign Affairs Committee will hold a hearing entitled, “Press Freedom in the Americas.” Anti-Chavez Representatives Connie Mack (FL) and Eliot Engel (NY) have invited Venezuelan right-wing media mogul, RCTV owner Marcel Granier to testify.

~snip~

Letters can be sent to any member of Congress at:
Rep. __________________
US House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The House Switchboard number is 202-224-3121.

Sample Letter:

Dear Representative __________:

I am writing to you today as a voting citizen of the United States to express my deep concern about the lack of balance being demonstrated by the US Congress, and in particular by the House Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere. A hearing scheduled to be held on June 16th entitled, “Press Freedom in the Americas” demonstrates a disturbing lack of understanding and knowledge about Venezuela in particular. The reason for my concern is that Mr. Marcel Granier, President of RCTV, has been invited to testify. It is well-known that he was involved in the April 2002 unsuccessful coup against elected President Hugo Chavez, in which media owners and outlets sadly played a paramount role in denying the public truthful and balanced information.

To be specific, Mr. Granier not only personally supported the overthrow of the democratically elected government, but in the days preceding the coup, RCTV ran ads encouraging the public to take to the streets and overthrow the democratically elected president. Once Chavez was forcefully removed from office, the station continued to collude with the coup government by conducting a news blackout! In fact, one of the managing producers of Venezuela’s highest-rated newscast, the RCTV program El Observador, testified that he was instructed directly by Marcel Granier, on the day of the coup to show “No information on Chávez, his followers, his ministers, and all others that could in any way be related to him.”(1) This is publicly known and in fact, his participation as a media owner was not uncommon. For this very reason, this coup d’etat is referred to by academics in the US and Venezuela alike as the first media coup in our hemisphere.

To have Marcel Granier testify in our US Congress about press freedom, a right that he has denied openly to his own countrymen at a time of national crisis, is nothing less than absurd and downright shameful. I strongly urge you to reconsider his participation and instead invite an expert who has defended and upheld press freedoms in the hemisphere.

Sincerely,

Your Name

(1) “Venezuela’s Media Coup” by Naomi Klein, The Nation, February 13, 2003.

~~~~~
From Sourcewatch:

CIA links

In August 2007, Chris Carlson reported that: "The president of Venezuela's RCTV, Eladio Larez, is no stranger to the CIA. In fact, Eladio's contact with the agency goes back nearly twenty years. Back in 1989, Larez helped the CIA funnel money through Venezuela to the Nicaraguan opposition as they worked to topple the Sandinista government through massive violence and destabilization. Larez was actually so kind as to set up a fraudulent foundation in Venezuela, called the National Foundation for Democracy, as a front organization to receive money from the CIA and pass it on to fund the operations of a major opposition newspaper in Nicaragua."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/RCTV

~~~~~
From Wikipedia, regarding the private media participation in the coup:

~snip~
Media role

Mainstream Venezuelan media outlets such as El Universal, El Nacional, El Nuevo País, Globovisión, Televen, CMT and RCTV supported the coup. At the same time, the anti-Chávez opposition's point of view was reflected in the reports of many international media agencies and organizations.

In the run up to the coup, the private media had supported the anti-government demonstrations. The 11 April edition of El Nacional was headlined "The Final Battle Will Be in Miraflores". In March RCTV had given blanket coverage to anti-government demonstrations whilst not covering pro-Chávez ones altogether. On 11 April, the anti-government march, the message "remove Chávez", and the call to redirect the march to the presidential palace in Miraflores, were "widely announced, promoted, and covered by private television channels, whose explicit support for the opposition became evident." A steady stream of unpaid ads asked Venezuelans to participate in the insurrection. Andrés Izarra, then the managing producer of RCTV's El Observador, later told the National Assembly that he had received clear instructions from owner Marcel Granier that on 11 April and following days he should air "o information on Chávez, his followers, his ministers, and all others that could in any way be related to him." The coup plotters, including Carmona, met at the offices of TV network Venevisión. After Chávez was detained, protests by Chávez supporters, including riots and looting which led to 19 deaths, broke out in parts of Caracas. RCTV sent its reporters to quiet parts of town for "live shots of tranquility" and ignored the events.

At the beginning of the coup, opposition-controlled police shut down Venezolana de Televisión, the state television channel, whilst police efforts were made to shut down community radio and television stations. As a result, the news that Chávez had not in fact resigned was largely kept out of the Venezuelan media, and spread by word of mouth; only one Catholic radio network continued to broadcast the developing news. Chávez was able to get word out that he had not in fact resigned, via a telephone call to his daughter, who, via switchboard operators at Miraflores still loyal to Chávez, was able to speak first to Fidel Castro and then to Cuban television. The Attorney-General attempted to make public Chávez' non-resignation via a live press conference supposedly to announce his own resignation; most of his statement was cut off, with Venezuelan networks returning to the studios.

Venezuelan television media failed to broadcast news of Chávez supporters retaking of the Miraflores palace; the four major television networks stopped providing news reports altogether. The St. Petersburg Times reported that "RCTV was showing Walt Disney cartoons. Venevisión ran a daylong marathon of Hollywood movies: Lorenzo's Oil, Nell and Pretty Woman. Another station, Televen, told its viewers 'to stay indoors,' treating them to baseball and soap operas. Globovisión, the country's top 24-hour news station and CNN affiliate, spent much of the day rebroadcasting upbeat footage of Chávez' ouster. An announcer repeatedly cautioned viewers, 'We are living in times of political change.'" The heads of Venevision, RCTV and Globovision, as well as the publisher of El Nacional, met with Carmona at Miraflores. The head of Globovision reportedly called to CNN in Atlanta "to request the U.S. network join the blackout." Two of the three major newspapers (El Universal and El Nacional) cancelled their Sunday editions, allegedly for safety reasons. (The third major newspaper, Últimas Noticias, printed a limited Sunday edition accurately reflecting events; some tabloids and regional television stations also covered the news.) When CNN announced the rebellion against the coup of a key military division in Maracay (commanded by General Raúl Baduel), "CNN expressed amazement that the press were saying nothing." After Chávez loyalist forces had re-taken Miraflores, the military coup plotters drafted a statement demanding the restoration of democracy; it had to be read to CNN studios since no Venezuelan media would broadcast it. Only by 8 o'clock on 13 April was the reinstalled government able to inform the people of the situation, via domestic (state) television channels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat_attempt

~~~~~
From Wikipedia:

~snip~
RCTV licence

In 2006, President Chávez announced that the terrestrial broadcast license for RCTV—Venezuela's second largest TV channel—would not be renewed. The channel's terrestrial broadcasts ended on 28 May 2007 and were replaced with a state network. RCTV is accused of supporting the coup against Chávez in April 2002, and the oil strike in 2002-2003. Also, it has been accused by the government of violating the Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television. The director of the station, Marcel Granier, denies taking part in the coup. RCTV is still broadcasting via cable and satellite and is widely viewable in Venezuela. This action has been condemned by a multitude of international organizations. However, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) questioned whether, in the event a television station openly supported and collaborated with coup leaders, the station in question would not be subject to even more serious consequences in the United States or any other Western nation. In a poll conducted by Datanalisis, almost 70 percent of Venezuelans polled opposed the shut-down, but most cited the loss of their favorite soap operas rather than concerns about limits on freedom of expression.

In May 2007, international media coverage of the events surrounding the RCTV's licence revocation almost universally reported it as a "shut down" or "closure" of an "independent" voice, when, in fact, RCTV was only revoked of its licence and equipment to broadcast on national airwaves but continues to broadcast by cable and satellite. The events were given wide coverage in the international media, arguably creating the image that there was widespread chaos and unrest in the country, when most of the protests only took place in the major cities. Many media outlets in the United States portrayed the government decision to not renew the broadcast license as a "dictatorial" act that was "muzzling opposition voices" and "attacking the media." Fox News in the United States gave especially distorted coverage of the events, claiming that Hugo Chávez had "shut down the media all across the country" when in reality RCTV was the only channel to lose its broadcast license. Many other opposition media outlets continue to operate in Venezuela, including the major newspapers and TV channels, making up the clear majority of the Venezuelan media.

In subsequent international coverage of Venezuelan media, the RCTV licence episode is sometimes presented accurately, at other times mischaracterised as above - for example AFP declared in June 2009 that "The government refused to renew RCTV's license in May 2007 because of its critical news coverage."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_representation_of_Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez

after such disrespectful statements while he's on his deathbed!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/22/chavez-obama-a-poor-ignor_n_177814.html

Kind of a cheap shot on Obama about not being able to protect the victims of Sandy Hook when Chavez' Venezuela makes Iraq look tame don't you think?

quote of comments

But, actually, what Chavez said was *not* exactly the way Reuters put it. Context matters. Chavez said that, accusing him Chavez (as Obama did) of being an "obstacle to progress" in Latin America and an "exporter of terrorism" (actual words used by Obama, who -- again -- offended Chavez first!), demonstrated ignorance. That he had to get himself better informed. "The least one could say," Chavez added, "is that Obama is showing to be ignorant" of the facts about what's going in Latin America.

However, the *main* point Chavez made was his demanded that the U.S. president respect Venezuela: "If Obama respects us, we will treat him with respect." Thanks to Reuters, etc., Chavez's response to Obama's accusations got muted into an out-of-nowhere, gratuitous insult.

Here's the video (in Spanish). It's the second video, labeled "Sobre Cuba y Obama." So, you be the judge:

http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/yvke/noticia.php?21806

escuchalo..

with the insult. Chavez actively supported the FARC. ETA was training in Venezuela. For Chavez, "respect' is defined by his terms. Obama isn't going to bow to Hugo like a marxist on DU.

It's atrocious.

adapted Bush's policies towards Latin America. Fortunately Chavez has nothing to fear in Latin America. He is one of the most respected leaders in that part of the world. Chavez extended his hand to this president after his election. Most of us who supported Obama were hoping for a change of policies towards Latin American leaders who were democratically elected by their own people. After Bush people expected that change. How disappointing that we worked so hard only to see Bush's ignorant policies continued. Maybe next time when we elect a Democrat things will begin to change. Certainly Obama's adaption of Bush's policies towards Latin America have had little success as the region will no longer tolerate the brutal interventions they endured from the West for decades.

Viva Chavez!

to say the least.

http://www.rpp.com.pe/2011-10-28-ollanta-humala-mejor-ubicado-que-pinera-en-el-latinobarometro-2011-noticia_417253.html

s

That's a good sign.

I truly think that Castro, Chavez, Correa, and the like believed that they were going to be able to dictate to Obama US policy.

and don't know why any rational person would get in such high dudgeon over the remarks.

And yes, Chavez has spewed a number of insults towards Obama over the years. Guess the Chavistas think those remarks should be forgotten, now that he's about to croak.

Always perceiving statements as threats and insults. They can't even allow Obama to nominate his own representatives as ambassadors. Obama has actually been pretty good at ignoring the immature tantrums of those leaders.

and and understanding of the region.

All you have to do is look at Honduras to see how poor the administration is at dealing with tantrums of fascist thugs. In this case saying little when an elected and popular president was overthrown.

The incompetence and disrespect towards Latin Americans and their history is a real problem, don't be blinded by the Hugo show.

Hideous group of criminals have stolen the country from the people. They destroyed and reversed every bit of progress the elected President and the citizens made toward a newer, and far better place, and dropped it all into the pit of hell, where only the truly powerful evil people benefit, and the US stands firmly behind this horror show.

I never hear anything about Honduras in the media, just comments about Chavez. Well there was the story about US anti-drug campaigns a while ago and the mention that Honduras is now the most violent country in the Americas. I wonder if there are regrets or simply more justifications.

only a short time before the filthy coup against Zelaya.

I'm sure you remember "Moonface" or "Moonpie" or "Moondance" or whatever, who lives in San Pedro Sula with her former death squad husband, and the constant barrage she threw up here raving about how much she hates President Mel, and trying to destroy what people might think of him in the LatAm forum.

It was a non-stop character assassination, very loud and underhanded.

When the coup accomplished the restoration of the criminal government empire, and returned control of Honduras to the tiny group of elites (criminals) and even put former death squad Batallion 316 leader Billy Joya in charge of their police, THEN she felt her work was done here and she disappeared.

Apparently, as all trolls do, she hoped to slander and smear the progressive so totally no one would want to bitch about their illegitimate coup, dirty, murderous human rights violations, and tortures, and pure evil which cotinues to this day.

You are so right: we have NEVER heard a peep from our own corporate media about this huge scale travesty, despite the fact Honduras is actually almost a neighbor to the U.S., and is supported by heavy U.S. financing.

Complaining about non-stop character assassination while demonstrating non-stop character assassination.

I don't think you have a secure foundation from which to take your pot shots at me.

You make it too easy.

had with this poster. I hope that was alerted on. Thanks for that information. Women like to know who they are dealing with so they can decide who to ignore and who is worth, from the pov of a woman, engaging.

Naivete is not gender-specific. I am quite an equal opportunity responder, as many can attest.

And once again DU's resident LatAm pedant is factually wrong, since I never have -- and never would -- label someone using such pedestrian terms as "old biddies".

"Hissified biddies" might be more my style.

without the use of gender specific epithets even here on DU. It is a sign of weakness and insecurity to have to resort to name-calling of any kind but it shows a real sense of insecurity to have to find gender specific epithets for women.

Don't worry, women don't bite, they really aren't much different from men in the IQ department, no matter who thinks so. Some, believe it or not, are even smarter!

Btw, women around the world are very impressed with all Chavez has done to promote women in office in Venezuela and to push for equal rights. He has been way ahead of his Western counterparts who tend to talk a lot but don't get much done.

Viva Chavez! Champion of Women's rights among other things.

.

women around the world write "Mrs. Hugo Chavez" over and over in the margins of their textbooks.

Just fyi, woman are capable of more than just swooning over men and 'dreamy' isn't a word you'll find in the vocabulary of most intelligent women today.

'Dreamy', I don''t think I've ever heard that word in real life, the only time I ever heard it was from those old, cold war movies from the fifties.

I don't think so.

Except for this post accusing you of course.

I wouldn't expect that poster to back it up though.

It wasn't even controversial as far as I was concerned.

electing leaders Obama doesn't like. Seems he needs to start respecting the people who are most likely to know what is good for their countries. So much improvement since more Left leaning leaders have been given the trust of their people.

Why anyone on a Dem board would want to see that region return to being run by Right Wing puppet governments is a mystery to me.

Why anyone on a Dem board would want to see that region return to being run by Right Wing puppet governments is a mystery to me.

Now, don't take what I am about to say the wrong way as I am happy with the wide range of views on this board, but I find it comical that people routinely question why people who hold mainstream democratic party views and support or Democratic president are routinely asked why we are on a "dem" board by people who don't hold mainstream democratic party views and don't support our Democratic president.

no idea what your comment means. Was it meant for someone else?

which is why I asked for clarification being that you directed it to me.

Iow, as I said, your comment made no sense to me, especially because it did include a quote from me.

You question why someone would post on a Dem board. I pointed out how silly it was that you and others routinely ask that of the side that is in line with the President and the Democratic party, while your side is out of line with the party.

I am cool with that, but it's quite ironic that you question why WE post on a dem board.