Reply #57: um, you might notice that my post was a reply to the OP, not yours

[ima_sinnic]

mine simply follows yours but if you look in the top right corner of my post (or at the "overview" of the thread), you will see mine is a reply to the Original Message.

Since you asked "*" is a common way here at DU to refer to he-who-shall-remain-nameless-because-we-despise-him-so-much-his-name-shall-not-be-uttered-by-our-lips -- it also serves the purpose of being invisible to bots that scan message boards for subversive references to the fraudulent little turd currently fouling up the Wh1te H0u$e.

"et al." does indeed mean "and all"; i.e., * et al. means * and all of his goons, cronies, and payola-grubbing, @$$-kissing, greedhead slimeball politician friends and connections thru * Sr. who have bailed out his worthless @$$ ever since he was a rugrat.

Also since you asked, your depiction of Chavez is expectably distorted. He didn't "shut down an independent network that was critical of his suppression of civil liberties." For you to say that just proves either that you are not paying attention or that you wish to spew ridiculous propaganda. He chose not to renew the license of a network that was not in the public interest, that had been tolerated for several years while doing everything in its power to subvert his administration and openly call for his overthrow. Please get your facts straight. The FCC has also declined to renew broadcast licenses from time to time because of violations of licensing requirements. Why have licenses if their criteria do not have to be adhered to? If a station here in the U.S.--let's say NBC (which I know is unrealistic, but just to give an example) started calling 24/7 for *'s 0verthr0w/a@@a@@1nat1on -- do you think they would keep their license for long? would that be "tyrannical"?

Chavez is not doing anything that is not written into their constitution. He has proposed an end to term limits. If the people approve it, what of it? That is their choice. We didn't have term limits either, until FDR won 4 elections in a row, ending his presidency only because he died in 1945--the usual conservative shitbags, whose ONLY concern in life is profit, despised him for the Social Security and other New Deal programs and made sure to get a term limits amendment that would prevent any such "socialist" from "taking over" again--of course this has backfired on them since they would have wished Saints Ronnie & Ge0rge Jr. could be president for life (in fact, there have been rumblings in their camp of doing away with term limits and even open tyranny so one of their greedhead monsters could take over once and for all). Unlike Stalin, Chavez has worked tirelessly and selflessly for the poorest, neediest, and most vulnerable in Venezuela. He has turned that country's oil profits into beneficial social programs.

I don't admire Chavez because he is "an enemy of my enemy"; I admire him because he is a true progressive, he IS "of The People"; he is innovative. He is also courageous and a showman.

I will look for your links about Chavez's "oppression" of the Venezuelan people. In the meantime, I expect crickets chirping for an indefinite period because that is just so much empty, unfounded BLATHER.