Why is it in a bastion of deep thinking such as in DU,

[tavalon]

so many people aren't able to hold seemingly conflicting views simultaneously. I won't use the primaries as my example because that is just too raw. Let's use Saddam Hussein and Hugo Chavez. Very few people even here were able to hold the simultaneous understandings that Saddam Hussein was a very evil man and we were wrong to topple his government. Many people here assume that Hugo Chavez is all goodness and light and their reasoning for that? Well, Bush et al., hates him, so he must be good. Good, hell, great! Um, a little critical thinking and ditching the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend might be a good thing to use in that situation. Lather, rinse, repeat.

So, why is it that so many of us here are such black and white thinkers, almost on par, though not in the same way, as freepers? Is it the high level of passion that shuts down the higher reasoning ability?

Edited to add: I did not mean the title of this as a diss, I meant it as a compliment. I've been exposed to so much deep thoughtful conversation here.

[frogcycle]

1. simplemindedness is not reserved to the right

[Breeze54]

2. "a bastion of deep thinking such as in DU" is an insulting OP topic.

Why would you start out insulting all the members of DU with your topic headline??

Are you smarter and wiser and oh, so much more superior than all the other contributers here? :shrug:

Get bent!

[tavalon]

29. See above

I adjusted my OP to reflect that I didn't mean to insult, but rather compliment DUers. I don't think of myself as smarter or wiser than others here, more nuanced than some, yes, but I've learned and continue to learn way too much here to carry a mantle of "better than thou".

[Breeze54]

31. I don't see any 'edit' but it came across as

condescending and I take offense to that. We have enough
shitheads here trying to be 'all that and a bag of chips'.

Enough already. :eyes:

Every opinion matters and counts.

[tavalon]

41. Edited to add: I did not mean the title of this as a diss, I meant it as a compliment. I've been exp

Since you couldn't see it, I pasted it into the subject line.

Better?

[annabanana]

3. I don't think he's "all goodness & light". . . I just don't

think he's as bad as B*shCo WANTS me to think he is. . .

[sendero]

4. you are the one with the problem.

... if you think everyone can be put in the category of "good" or "bad", you are a simpleton.

[tavalon]

8. And you

have really poor reading comprehension. What say you reread my OP?

[EFerrari]

5. I'm supposed to be the loudest mouth Chavez supporter here

and I don't think he's the second coming, nor am I interested in him because he and Junior are antagonists.

But, I agree that binary thinking doesn't make for good discussions. It's those spaces in between that do.

[The Straight Story]

9. You? Naw....get outta here!

:rofl:

"But, I agree that binary thinking doesn't make for good discussions. It's those spaces in between that do."

A kick for an excellent comment by you my friend. And we can disagree on things and be civil. Kudos for that as well.

[EFerrari]

13. . . .

:spank:

:rofl:

[tavalon]

12. Unlike the fellow who called me a simpleton

you got exactly what I was trying to point out. I'm surprised by the high level of binary thinking that goes on here and I'm wondering why that is? I get so much more useful, thought provoking information from the nuanced thinkers but I have to wade through so much of the binary to get the good stuff. I'm not even reading the primary stuff right now because it's so full of the absolutism that is so not helpful to the discussion.

[EFerrari]

16. When I find myself doing it, it's a matter of time.

It takes less time for me to type a response than to think one.

lol

:hi:

[The Straight Story]

18. I ain't arguing with that

;)

[EFerrari]

21. Some of us need keyboard brakes.

:)

[The Straight Story]

24. My brakes are squealing

And my foot is on the gas :)

[Boojatta]

48. "I have to wade through so much of the binary to get the good stuff."

Is your ignore list already at the maximum allowed size?

[Marrah_G]

45. Really?

:rofl: I never would have guessed you were a Chavez supporter ! ! !

One of your finest qualities ( in my opinion) is your ability to have a debate without anger and lashing out. Even when you disagree you are the first to hold out your hand in friendship and note that we all have common ground even when we disagree on a topic. I like that about you.

:hug:

[JVS]

66. I would have thought that honor to go to Chavezspeaksthetruth

:shrug:

[blondeatlast]

6. "...bastion of deep thinking such as DU." I always think of this place as a rowdy neighborhood bar

full of people who have the flimsiest common thread imaginable: a deep and abiding dislike for what's happened to this country.

We're smarter than the average bears--but just as human.

How's that for a mixed metaphor?

[The Straight Story]

10. DU is my bar, and you are my whiskey

:)

[tavalon]

14. It's probably a much healthier way to view this place

Thank you. I will muse on that.

[Swamp Rat]

15. Where's my beer?

dammit! :beer:

[blondeatlast]

34. I bought the last round.

No, really--that's the night you didn't show up. :evilgrin:

[lonestarnot]

35. Brrrr to cold for beer, I'll take a hot toddy please.

[bobbolink]

7. Or the all-time great one... if you are critical of Hill, then you "hate" her.

Yup, we do just as good at the black/white divide as the "other side".

:(

[The Straight Story]

11. Human nature my friend

We attack that which we see as a threat, and then defend to no end that which we think will make us better. Sometimes to our own detriment.

[bobbolink]

19. It didn't used to be this way.

We've been taking cues from the Neocons.

Or nasty sitcoms.

Don't know which is worse, but it needs to end.

We aren't doing ourselves or our country any favors.

No, I don't think it's just "human nature", and that not only excuses it, but allows it to continue, and escalate.

People didn't used to talk to each other this way.

I'm old enough to know that.

[MadMaddie]

17. That's kinda of a generalization isn't it?

I don't agree with everything that Chavez has done but he has not even reached the evil as the top 10 Worst dictators in 2002 and this year 2007.

Do you notice that Saudi Arabia and North Korea are on both lists? Then if they are so dangerous why is the Adminstration threatening them with attack and other subversive actions?

Saddam was evil and so were the following leaders in 2002
http://www.barossa-region.org/Australia/World-s-10-Worst-Dictators.html
1. Omar al-Bashir, Sudan. Age 61. In power since 1989. Last year's rank:
2. Kim Jong Il, North Korea. Age 62. In power since 1994.
3. Than Shwe, Burma. Age 72. In power since 1992.
4. Hu Jintao, China. Age 62. In power since 2002.
5. Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia. Age 81.
6. Muammar al-Qaddafi, Libya. Age 62. In power since 1968 plus 1.
7. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan. Age 61. In power since 1999.
8. Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan. Age 64. In power since 1990.
9. Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe. Age 80. In power since 1980.
10. Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea. Age 62. In power since 1979.

How About 2007?
http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_02-11-2007/Dictators
1) Omar al-Bashir, Sudan
2) Kim Jong-il, North Korea
3) Sayyid Ali KhamEnei, Iran
4) Hu Jintao, China
5) King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia
6) Than Shwe, Burma (Myanmar)
7) Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe
8) Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan
10) Bashar al-Assad, Syria

[tavalon]

22. I'm watching him closely

if elections stay fair and open there, then he is as great as the Bushies want us to not to believe but there is a potential for him to go down the road that Castro did. As well, Chavez seems awfully arrogant and I don't like arrogance in leaders, it often leads to poor leadership. Venezuelans love him, though, and they are far more aware of what he does than we are here.

But really, I just used him (and Saddam, no one has jumped on me for the Saddam part) as an example of a place where the binary thinking gets out of hand. I could have used any of our candidates, but I wanted the focus to be on the question of the way many of us get around these impassioned topics, than with the examples.

[MadMaddie]

25. Your question was valid.....no doubt

The one thing that does come to my mind is why is this administration so gung ho to take him down? Everything they do has a selfish and greedy reason....I am sure it is the oil and that they can't control it.

Chavez is arrogant no doubt....and he may try to corrupt the elections...we should always keep our eyes on him.

[tavalon]

26. Oh yeah, it's the oil, it;'s always the oil

I swear the neocons are just one trick ponies.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. "10 Worst dictators"?

Chavez cannot make the list of "dictators" as he isn't one.

[Robb]

20. With thinking like that, clearly you are against us.

And, since you might not remember which one I am, :sarcasm:

[tavalon]

23. LOL

Thanks.

[lvx35]

27. The problem with these "evil men" is that they always seem to be sitting on mountains of oil.

And the evil men in other places don't get much attention. I mean we've got a genocide happening in Darfur, GENOCIDE, and all all these people are out here screaming about Hugo Chavez banning beer trucks from serving on the street, or holding a democratic referendum on term limits. It doesn't make sense and the greed behind vilifying him is apparent. Same with Saddam Hussein. Why in the fuck should I have to explain the difference between somebody being a bad man and killing them? I think Bush is a bad man, but I don't advocate for the assination of presidents. I think Saddam was a bad man, but I don't advocate for wars of aggression with countries who haven't attacked us.

[tavalon]

28. You just described my point of view exactly

[Breeze54]

30. I stand with Joseph Kennedy!

Chavez may not be your cup of tea but he is helping with cut rate home heating oil
more than the * regime is doing! He's cutting the low income energy assistance program!

He rocks in my book and in Rep. Joseph Kennedy's book. I stand with Joseph Kennedy!

[Chrisy5558]

36. I agree with you

I agree with you that Chavez is at least helping the people who live in the North with home heating oil this winter when the cost of oil is so expensive that many families can't afford to heat their homes.

Our own government doesn't seem to care.

Instead of us being dependent on a foreign country and leader I would like to see us develop different engery sources that can get rid of our dependence on oil. I would like to see us energy independent.

Our own government seems to fail on that front too.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Where is that wonderful picture of the strawman?

"Many people here assume that Hugo Chavez is all goodness and light and their reasoning for that? Well, Bush et al., hates him, so he must be good."

Really? The only 'many' I see making that claim with any seriousness are the cadre of staunch cold war anti-socialists here who, like you have just done, invent reasons for why we on the other side support chavez and the democratic socialist movement in latin america that are peculiarly easy to attack.

[tavalon]

40. Would you like to talk about my actual point

which was that too many people become binary thinkers here when the heat is on. I chose Saddam Hussein and Hugo Chavez as examples because I thought people would be able to see them as examples without losing the actual question where they wouldn't be able to if I used the current hot buttons, those being any of the current Democratic primary candidates. I'm seeing so much knee jerk black and white thinking around here lately and that's what I actually wanted to talk about, not Hugo.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. I did. You invented an argument to attack to make your point.

Once again: please show me the serious argument made by supporters of Chavez that their support is based on "Bush Bad, Bush Hates Chavez, Chavez Good". The only folks I see making that claim are, like you, people asserting that others hold that opinion. Your example was false.

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. Or that Chavez might be really good for most Venezuelans while being a power-hungry dick?

Those are, like, opposite thoughts, no? Dissoi logoi as the old Greeks used to say, yeah?

Are you able to hold both those beliefs at once? If not, tsk tsk, by your own standards.

[tavalon]

39. Yes, I can hold both of those simultaneously and as well,

I can hold that my post was about nuance, not Hugo Chavez.

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. Fine with me

I'm all for contradictory thoughts and nuance.

:hi:

[QC]

38. delete--wrong thread

[IsItJustMe]

44. To honest about it, I have not read a whole lot of praise for Saddam Hussein around here or have I

seen too many people here turn Chavez into a Saint.

With that being said, I think your post has a lot of smoke and mirrors going on in it.

Saddam was not a nice guy, but then again, there are 20 countries in Africa alone where nice leaders are not to be found. But Saddam had oil. Get it. Some of us do. Read between the lines. See the entire picture.

Chavez is not a saint. But then again, he also has oil. Get it. You don't realize it, but thats the only reason you are talking about him right now. Get it.

Our news media, along with the wing nuts, are telling us who is nice and who is not nice. Get it.

Who will you be complaining about tomorrow? Who will be your enemy tomorrow?

On edit: I predict that the next person you will be complaining about will also have oil. Why? Because that's who our media will be covering.
Who is not thinking outside the box here?

[tavalon]

47. The point of my post was not Chavez or Hussein, it was black and white thinkers here at DU

which you missed completely.

But, you aren't the only one. I didn't get much substantive discussion around my actual topic.

[seabeyond]

46. i can hold black and white as one and hurts my head, not... lol

i hear ya on it.

[I work for workers]

49. It's because of how message boards work in general, and the rules on this one

in particular.

People on internet forums tend to be much more willing to engage in heated argument then they are in real life. That's part of what makes these sites so much fun. I come here because I can't find this kind of discussion off of the internet, at least not on a regular basis. At the same time, people in heated argument often gravitate towards extremes (I forget my Psych 100, but there is a term for this) and message boards are the prefect climate for this behavior.

I'd suggest it gets particularly bad here because this site is heavily moderated in a very biased manner. People who run their logical conclusions to the left are free to do so, people who go to the right face the mod hammer. This makes sense considering Du is a progressive message board, but the end result is that most of DU's extreme members are at one far end of the spectrum. Political message board extremists are usually eager to shout down the opposition, and DU is no exception. Because the site is made up of extremists and moderates, the moderates become the new right and are shouted down the way radical right wingers would be if they were allowed to post here.

[EFerrari]

50. I don't know how to tell you this, but the average DUer is

a middle aged, moderate, white woman.

And today's "moderates" are somewhere to the right of Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon.

[Hippo_Tron]

67. To the right of Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon on SOME issues

The whole Richard Nixon was more liberal than Bill Clinton thing may hold true if you only consider one aspect of Nixon's presidency. Yes Nixon did not fight to reverse the New Deal/Great Society programs passed under Democratic Presidents and didn't fight against their expansion with from a Democratic Congress.

He also dragged out the Vietnam War for another four years, started a secret war in Cambodia, actively fought against civil rights, illegally wiretapped and intimidated civil rights and anti-war groups, and appointed right wingers to the Supreme Court.

Nixon was liberal in the sense that he didn't spend any political capital trying to dismantle the welfare state. In every other respect he was just as much of a fascist as Reagan and Bush.

[OregonBlue]

78. Having read a number of your posts, I suggest that you are not particularly moderate but

actually right of center. It would appear this is entertainment for you, not serious discussion.

[Perry Logan]

51. Political thinking is inherently black and white.

[Spike89]

52. Polarization happens

I just stumbled on an article about this (and posted about it). It's a pretty interesting article on the effects of special interest group behavior and the polarization and homogenizing effects. The Chronicle Review Volume 54, Issue 16, Page B9

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=w218t7yc6kv2lhqvrq4450bllm36hgjc

[MrMickeysMom]

53. Critical thinking in politics is definitely not black or white...

Had I ever taken a debate course in highschool, perhaps the course outline would have spelled this out (I'd love to see someone share that here, or tell me where this is found in the archives).

I only learned later in life that in order to have a meaningful debate you have to abide by a set of rules. I feel they should be- 1) address the point of debate 2) try to avoid the temptation of using false arguments.

Boy, is THAT ever hard when the Moon is in the 7th House and Mercury aligns with Mars! (my 60's joke).

:rofl:

We could really learn something here, neh?...... Naaahhhhh..

[some guy]

54. There are some good posts on this thread.

There are also posts which underscore the point you're trying to make.

Maybe part of the problem is that people simply don't read closely; they skim a post, glean some words, combine them and arrive at their opinion of what they think the post is expressing. Then form their response on that basis.

When I first came to DU, there were a lot of intereting and thought-provoking ideas expressed here. I think the number and quality of those ideas still exists, but because the community has grown, there is also a greater number of less interesting expression here. The sheer volume of original threads has increased, so reading to find the "good" threads takes longer, and we spend less time and effort reading each individual thread.

Let me address your hypotheticals.

Saddam Hussein. If you look at Iraqi society in the late 1980s, he did use the nation's oil wealth to provide a fairly modern society for the country. They had good health care and hospitals. Good education. In many ways, a more equitable society than his neighboring countries. Certainly, he was a "stroing-man" ruler, but look at that country without him in power. The shiite-Sunni conflict is very violent. His opressive rule may not have been ideal, but it did keep that level of violence in check. It should be remembered that the borders of the nation were not seetled by the people living there, but imposed by the West, primarily the British.

Hugo Chavez. Most of the people here who support him point to the efforts he is making to improve the lives of the poorest in Venezuela, and his speaking of moving toward a more socialist and egalitarian society for the people of Venezuela, and their neighbors. Perhaps you could read a little more closely the arguments people here make in support of him. :)

:hi:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. As an Anarchist, I'm not overly fond of leaders of any stripe.

The best that can be said of any of them is "some are not as bad as others".

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

[conspirator]

74. I like this quote from the space 1999 sci fi series:

"It's better to be your own man than a fool in someone else's dream"

[Truth2Tell]

56. I completely agree with you

and I also completely disagree with you.

[rAVES]

57. People only like Chavez because he hates Bush? Wrong

I'd also like to point out the flaming Irony that is this OP...

[tavalon]

60. For some people, that is, in fact, the sum total of their argument

BTW, since the Chavez thing has chapped so many butts, I'll tell you what my personal opinion of him is. I actually like him but am watching closely because I see the potential for him to turn into another Castro, leader for life. But what he's doing right now is some really progressive, good stuff for the workers of his country. I discerned that from reading foreign sources and gleaned none of my understanding of Chavez and the complex political system of that region from Faux "news".

[Warren Stupidity]

64. No it isn't. It is a made up argument, a straw man.

You keep repeating this nonsense. At best all you will find in the archives is an offhand comment to that effect. Instead, those of us here on DU who have fended off the endless fact-free attacks on Chavez and the democratic socialist movement in Latin America, have generally done so with facts, with reasoned arguments, with anything but your depiction of our purported binary thinking. Instead you have used the rightist attack here against us, their strawman attack, as if it typified our arguments. When confronted with this point in this thread, you have been evasive, claiming that this was not your point, and yet you keep repeating it. Perhaps you ought to go dig into the endless Chavez threads and find out what we actually were saying rather than taking our opponent's characterization of our arguments as valid.

[tavalon]

65. Whatever

You don't have a clue what I was trying to say and clearly have no interest in figuring it out.

[Warren Stupidity]

69. And there you go again.

Up thread you once again assert "For some people, that is, in fact, the sum total of their argument" and then when called out on it evade the issue.

You keep repeating the strawman argument used against us. Why don't you stop doing that?

[warren pease]

58. It's become a very binary world...

As the Commander Guy said, "You're either for us or against us." Well, I've been against everything this vile nest of vipers stands for since they committed grand theft election in 2000. Actually, long before that with the rise of Reaganism, but 2000 put me firmly on the binary track.

Thus, by that compass, everything democrats have done to further the BushCo agenda is by definition disgusting and counterproductive. The rare instances of democratic push-back against BushCo are by definition noble and productive, infrequent and largely pathetic though they are. The Uniter has polarized the entire country and, as an added bonus for the right wing, the progressive movement as well.

People are seriously pissed off these days, and when compromise is defined as bending over and taking another screwing from the GOP, compromise loses its good name in a hurry.

And I doubt I'm alone in this. In fact, I've seen positions harden and become less negotiable over the past seven years, particularly on progressive internet blogs and forums such as this one.

I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing; rather, I think it's an acknowledgment of how things have been shaped and contorted by BushCo and their mass media collaborators.

I think it's also clear that the federal government has declared war on the citizenry -- spying, snitching, watching, breaking and entering, arrest without charges or attorney, mass privatization, defunding social programs, upward transfer of remaining wealth through the tax code and insane weapons spending, infinite detention, private armies, asset seizure at the whim of the unitary executive, various blueprints for imposition of martial law (NSPD-51/HSPD 20), the insulting and sinister HR 1955/SB 1959 (created and sanctioned by democrats, of course) and the whole tired litany of unconstitutional frauds perpetrated on the American people under the guise of that eternal scam, the war on terror.

It's hard to be neutral when you're on the receiving end of this kind of unrelenting assault. So if they're going to declare war against me and mine, then back atcha, fuckers.

To me, it's hardly surprising that more people are seeing things in black and white. Shades of gray are for reasonable times in which the main actors are rational and at least minimally civic-minded. This batch of con artists and mass murderers are dedicated exclusively to further enriching their cronies and themselves, and everybody who doesn't aid or abet that agenda can go straight to hell.

And the worst insult of all is this sorry bunch of democratic enablers in congress. You expect nothing but greed, corruption and scandal from the GOP. But with democrats falling all over themselves to out-patriot, out-supportourtroops, our-repress the GOP, it's become a little hard to take. With democratic leadership like this, who needs republicans to make life miserable?

That's what I think, anyway. Your mileage may vary, as always.


wp

[tavalon]

61. Thank you for your reasoned, and dare I say, nuanced discussion

of my actual topic. You didn't even mention Chavez and for that alone, I thank you.

[warren pease]

75. Sorry for the omission...

Chavez, socialism, dictator, left-wing fascist, why does he hate america?, socialism, dictatorship, redistribution of wealth, socialist, will of the people, elected, CIA, dictator, socialism, red menace, commie pinko anti-capitalist, american business interests, dictator, commie, elected...

Hussein, terror, 9/11, terror, secular, orange threat level, terror, 9/11, gassed his own people, terror, orange threat level, WMDs, aluminum tubes, terror, mushroom clouds, cakewalk, flowers and candy, liberators, museum, artifacts, destroyed, terror, 9/11, Al Qaeda in Iraq, fight them over there, terror, gassed the Kurds, 9/11, terror...


OK, that should wrap things up.

wp

[MedleyMisty]

63. Yeah - I do tend to react with disgust whenever someone says the words moderate or middle

or compromise, because when you're talking about compromising with the neocons you're basically saying, "Hey, let's find a middle ground between fascism and democracy."

[warren pease]

76. "middleground..."

Not between fascism and democracy, I don't think, because that implies that they're capable of rehabilitation and that their vision extends all the way to self-government. I'd put their balancing point about midway between fascism and genocide.

Any outcome that falls short of the complete subjugation of a given population, bringing all the joys of corporate enslavement that go with it, is off the table, as Ms. Nancy likes to say.

On the one hand, it takes a lot of expensive infrastructure to control a large, geographically dispersed population. Particularly one that's armed, dangerous and seriously pissed off. On the other, it sure would be a lot easier if around 80 to 90 percent of them were no longer around.

Worked pretty well on north american indigenous peoples from around 1500 to the first half of the 20th century, and recently updated and improved in Iraq. Why not go with the tried and true?


wp

[LeftishBrit]

59. I've sometimes felt the same...

I fully agree that Saddam was an evil man *and* that it was wrong to topple his government.

I also think that Ahmadejinad is an evil man *and* that it would be wrong to bomb or invade Iran.

I think that Chavez is a very flawed man and leader *and* that he is much better than anyone whom Bush would like to see in his place.

I also sometimes find it strange that people, both on the right and the left, sometimes equate 'anti-Bush' or more generally 'anti-American-Right' with 'left-wing'. Of course, left-wingers and liberals and centrists and moderate conservatives are against the American Right; but so are some far-RW rivals. For example, I find it strange that support for Muslim theocrats (except in Saudi Arabia, where they are pals of Bush) is occasionally considered both by some right-wingers and some left-wingers as a left-wing cause. It is no more left-wing to support the Muslim Right than the Christian Right. Nor are far-RW nationalists and isolationists left-wing even if they oppose this war; and to think otherwise is to risk getting into some very ugly company,

[Eric J in MN]

62. Hugo Chavez isn't torturing people like Saddam Hussein,

...and Chavez didn't start any wars.

[Hippo_Tron]

68. I think part of it is anger about the way that Chavez is portrayed in the US media

I'm not a huge fan of Chavez. But he and his policies are certainly a topic worthy of intellectual discussion by the media and by Americans. The problem is that as usual, the media has no interest in intellectual discussion.

The problem is that they have no interest in intellectual discussion. The US media just tries to get you to hate Chavez by calling him anti-American. That's all that they feel you need to know.

If I had a TV show I would invite economic and political experts on to discuss and debate the Chavez regime in an intelligent manner so that people could decide for themselves what they think of Chavez. Of course that would probably get my show canceled in five minutes.

[tavalon]

70. I think part of my personal anger in this subject

is how some people have willfully refused to look at my actual point and instead fixated on Chavez. Hell, I should have used Clinton and Obama instead. Maybe people would have had more useful conversation if they weren't so distracted by my examples, which was, btw, the reason I chose Chavez and Hussein instead of Clinton and Obama. If I'd known my points would have been ignored in favor of the examples, I could have used any examples that are polarizing.

[mmonk]

71. It's all about corporatism and empire.

You need to look through that prism. To even idicate there is a similarity bewteen Hussein and Chavez is ridiculous. Hussein was inserted by the CIA. Chavez was brought to power by Venezuelans (in spite of US imperialism in the region). While it's true he tried a coup earlier in his life, he came through the process legitimately after he was pardoned.

[CJCRANE]

72. Just putting on my deep thinking hat

:dunce:

There we go.

What was the question?

[Toots]

73. Even Hitler did some good things

Sp what is your point other than to start some sort of flame war? I believe everyone here can rationalize that every person has some good and some bad. It is how they average out that makes the difference and also how Law, both International and Domestic, fit into the equation..

[mdmc]

77. a nice, thoughtful OP

:kick: