Hugo Chavez's gift to Obama: L.A. pillage

Nothing to fear......I understand Obama gave Chavez 3 years worth of posts from John D.

Obama should have given Hugo a copy of our Constitution in return. That would have tossed a ringer in his propaganda photos. I think that book is required reading at Columbia U. Great source for those who have a apology complex for arrogant Americans. I just "tingle all over" with this innovative emerging Obama doctrine. Can anyone explain it?

John D. is still alive? My goodness! Most of us already turned from caterpillars to butterflies and hardly come in here anymore.

I guess some things never evolved. . .into bigger better things. And, insist of being the same o' thing! LOL

I'm sure the messiah Obama feels quite comfortable within this socialist gathering. What the hell were the American voters thinking?

Chavez and those of his ilk wouldn't understand the our Constitution.

They love to blame the U.S. for their own failures and those of their friends in spite of the fact that they are the failures. Attacking nor demeaning the success of others does not do anything constructive for the world, but it does convince me that many are just whiners and excuse makers.

Bubba P,

The White House's copy of the US Constitution is in the shop for restoration. It seems the last tenants didn't take very good care of it.

It's a great book. Anyone interested in the history of the Americas should read it.

There really isn't anything innovative about gladhanding appeasement.

He's seem like the new kid in school who is running around hell-bent of being liked, while not worrying about bothersome little things like respect and control, context and boundaries involving real threats to our future as a nation.
Everything seems to be a propaganda exercise for the perpetual campaigner.

Maybe the manchurian candidate is closer than we think...but that's ok because it's becoming agonizingly apparent that the majority of people don't care....

Hugging Hugo, Buddying up to Fidel, these are but a precusor to the bowing down that he will do with China and Russia.
God bless America

It's smart to talk to the baddies. Chavez has made much of his dislike for America the last eight years and Bush was dumb enough to give him plenty of material to work with. Good reason for Obama to talk to him: to start to neutralize that crap.

Chavez is also a nasty dictator. Though, hardly as nasty as the wretched Saudi monarch whom Bush and Cheney kissed on the lips the last eight years. Venezuelan woman are not property of their husbands and don't get stoned to death for adultery after being raped. And Venezuelan girls are not married off at age 8 to 40-something men.

What a trifecta. Comrads Chavez, Castro and Obama.
These corruptors of democracy agree that America is always the problem. Birds of a feather flock together.

Give Mr. Chavez one of our U>S> coins and have him read what is on both sides. LIBERTY, E PLURIBUS UNUM,AND IN GOD WE TRUST.AND EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS, B.H.O. SHOULD ALSO READ AND EXPLAIN WHAT IT MEANS. i THINK BOTH OF THEM ARE ON THE SAME PLANET AND ITS NOT EARTH.

Hey Wingnuts!

Why don't you send Chavez a bunch of tea bags?

That'll show'em!

Kissing up to socialist tyrants, one after another, while slamming large segments of our own country. Yes, we have a book, too. It's called: "President Obama, the Audacity of Hopelessness."

(Obama)Hugging Hugo, Buddying up to Fidel, these are but a precusor to the bowing down that he will do with China and Russia.
God bless America
Posted by: Steve Ashcraft | April 18, 2009 1:48 PM
.

Empty of better ideas -- of any ideas -- of how to remain relevant, the reactionary wing (see above) of what's left of the Republican party has chosen to quit faking respectability and get back to doing what they do best: cranking up the hate to eleven.

Goading the passive aggressive Wingnuts ticks them off and then they drop their mask and reveal their ugly selves to the public.

Brilliant move, Mr. President. Don't call them names. Just do harmless stuff, like talking to people (Chavez). That knocks the Wingers off their rocker because they've come to love Bush's failed shoot first ask questions later foreign policy, they don't know how to act any other way.

Pass the Popcorn!

Talking to your 'enemies' (assuming Chavez is one) is smart foreign policy. If you think you punish someone by ignoring them and letting them do all the things you don't want them to do, then you're fooling yourself. Basically, that was the Bush foreign policy when he couldn't just bomb them into oblivion. The right-wing clowns have convinced themselves this was 'victory' and 'fighting for freedom', instead of the geopolitical equivalent of holding their breath until they turned blue.

The Repugs have never learned this: you keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

billy, do you detect an increase in dissatisfaction in the Swamp chatter about Obama's leadership, especially this new coddle diplomacy with the haters of America? Maybe some doubt? Be cool now, Janet is monitoring the left wing laptop cyber extremists.

Sounds like sniveling little bubba Porter has turned into a full blown paranoid tinfoil nut who thinks he's seeing 'terrorists' hiding around every corner.

That's what happens to Wingnuts who spend to much time living in the fantasy world that Druggy Rush and Glenn Beck created for them.

Watch out for the black helicopters, little bubba.
I just called in a strike on your house.

Let's see the BO apology tour has done Canada, Europe, and Latin America. Can the penguiins in Antartica be far behind?

Did BO tell Hugo that he already has a copy?

* * * * *
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | April 18, 2009 1:40 PM
.
First of all, bubba simply suggested that Obama give Chavez a COPY of the Constitution, not Obama’s copy. Obama may as well have given Chavez his copy of the Constitution, because Obama isn’t going to use it.
.
Don’t be too sure the Constitution isn’t headed for another trip through the ringer under Obama’s administration. Remember, the Constitution is more than the Bill of Rights. It also contains seven Articles, six of which still contain restraints on the federal government. For too many years now, both parties have treated these restraints as “advisory only” and often ignored them. Obama doesn’t look like he’s going to reverse this trend either - constitutional scholar or not.

Keep your friends close and your "enemies" closer.

Chavez owes his populism from being the leading anti-Bush, and now Obama's graciousness makes his wild rants ring hollow.

Obama knows his strength and does not need to be a bully, his focus is always to the decency of the people of the countries whose leaders he is interacting with. Never mistake a people with the petty dictators running around, when Bush labeled some countries "axis of evil" it was worse than Chavez calling him the devil. Bush insulted nations.

bubba...You're kidding right? More? It has just been the same since day 1. Maybe like a feeding frenzy you feed on each other so you think there is more. But thats OK...knock your selves out. You really are just talking to yourselves anyway.........those numbers....dropping right?

"Empty of better ideas -- of any ideas -- of how to remain relevant, the reactionary wing (see above) of what's left of the Republican party has chosen to quit faking respectability and get back to doing what they do best: cranking up the hate to eleven. "

One has to love how Democrats now try to play off the fact that the Republicans are a party of pure hate. Of course this is the same Democratic party who every election pulls out the "Republicans are racists/fascists" When the Democratic party speaks out it is them using their rights to free speech, when Republicans speak out they are hate mongers.

The hardcore Democratic party members with their never ending tunnel vision may want to wake up to the fact that your party is just as guilty of all the things you accuse the Republicans of that your party is just as likely to push failed policies as the Republicans.

In fact the hardcore Republicans and Democrats by opening their big mouths tend to emphasize why the Independent numbers have continued to swell. Nobody in their right mind wants to define themself as active member of either party since the leadership of both are both a bunch of hypocrital morons.

Hugo Chavez is playing the American Media! He is betting on them to dog out President Obama for accepting the Book! Hugo Chavez isn't stupid. He is using the Corporate media to go after President Obama. Now, watch our media play footsies with Chavez against our President, as soon as he returns home. They will, of course take the bait, and Chavez will be leading the media by the nostrils again. Even Hugo Chavez can set his watch by the gullible American Corporate media.

John W,

Reread Bubba P's post. "Should have" is not a suggestion.

But then, based on the rest of your monotribe, your translation skills seem to be lacking right across the board. Your inferred comparison of O's 1Q to Bush's eight years of constitutional abuses is lunacy. I'm betting Biden knows he's part of the executive branch. I'm betting the EPA, DoJ, among others, will do their jobs and won't have to be brought to court to do so. A majority feel the same way and felt the same way on Election Day.

Actually, smart money would, once again, be on The "Hope-a-Dope" really... since it's worked so well so far upon so many.

Though, hardly as nasty as the wretched Saudi monarch
Posted by: DeColb | April 18, 2009 2:32 PM

DeKolb Isn't that the same fellow our moronic God freak of a President bowed to last week ? Yes, I believe it was. I predict within a year our moron of a President will have this country looking like a Mad Max movie. He will prove to the world just how stupid, and uninformed, the American electorate can be.

Barack and Hugo-

Well, they've got a lot in common. Both are narcissists with some racial victimhood complex and lie habitually-

Both also displayed contempt for Democracy/intolerance of any opposition once elected and a comprehensive ignorance of all economic manners... willing to drag a bountiful nation into the abyss to fulfill their wacked-out socio-economic fantasies rather than attempt to solve problems in a logical, proven manner.

So these two have plenty to yap about-

I think I respect Chavez more- he might be a misguided socialist twit, but at least he's honest about it.

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/

Any of you Republicans who are Catholic might want to pay close attention to today's first reading.

"The community of believers is of one mind, and noone considers posseions to be their own. If one acquires property he is to sell it and distribute the proceeds according to the needs of the community."

-Acts of the Apostles

So the Bible pretty much endorses socialism. But, of course, you skip over that part.

One socialist-
One dreaming socialism.

* * * * *
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | April 19, 2009 7:04 AM
.
1. “Should have,” when used in the present tense to comment on past acts that did not occur, is very much suggestive of an alternate course of action. My translation skills are not lacking.
.
2. It is an abomination for someone to use the word “monotribe” in the same sentence in which one bashes another’s English skills. “Monotribe” is not a word. It is an ignorantly formed babuism from someone who doesn’t know the meaning of the word “diatribe.”
.
3. I did not compare George W. Bush’s last 8 years to Obama’s 1st Quarter. I wrote, “For too many years now, both parties have treated these restraints as ‘advisory only’ and often ignored them.” That wasn’t a reference to the last eight years. That was a reference to the past 73 years, during which both Republicans and Democrat’s shelved the Constitution.
.
4. I don’t expect any better from Obama than during the last 73 years because Obama is a party ideologue. His views of the Constitution are distorted by his ideology. He fully embraces the “New Deal,” “New Frontier” and “Great Society” model of the federal government. In his estimation, there is nothing wrong, much less unconstitutional, with one large, central government taking on the bulk of governmental functions throughout the United States. This view entirely ignores federalism, i.e., the distribution of powers between the federal government and the States, as well as the corresponding idea that the federal government is supposed to be specialized and “limited.” Federalism and limited government are hard wired into the Constitution. Democrat ideology isn’t.

It is quite humorous what the right-wing controlled media has done to the american public through the cold war and up until now, planting preconcieved thoughts about political agendas for which they truly have no idea about. They made you hate communism, whose sole aim is to create equality and fairness between people and distributing wealth, they made you hate socialism without you having any true understanding of what socialism is. But in this day and age the desperate right controlled media has no true control over the people no more, with youtube and other internet sources providing a humourous and satirical views towards the joke that is RIGHT-wing media. Although never been fond of american presidency, Obama sheds a new hope and true change in your political agenda. When you insult him by calling him a socialist, our hearts grow fonder to realise that the strongest country in the world has finally voted in a leader who truly seeks fairness and equality and attempts to eliminate the emperialistic jaws that have took a large chunk of our humanity and selfworth and led us down the road of greed, unfairness, racism, and ultimately killing each other for money and power. but i doubt he is a socialist, however anything close represents a true change in the american public which is making you conservative fools shiver from fear.

* * * * *
Posted by: David J | April 19, 2009 9:55 AM
.
I don’t know which version of the Bible you use, but it doesn’t resemble Acts of the Apostles (“Acts”) 4: 32-35 of any Bible, Catholic or otherwise, that I have ever seen.
.
And, speaking of skipping over stuff, David, you have entirely skipped over the fact that the communal arrangement described in Acts 4 and 5 was entirely voluntary among believers, and not the product of any hierarchical coercion. Verse 4:32 indicates the property was consensually pooled as a result of a donative intent freely shared. This is reinforced by verse 5:3-4, in which Saint Peter condemned Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, for the pretense of giving the whole price of their home to the community when, in fact, they had held some of the money back. Peter told Ananias (and I paraphrase), “It was yours to sell or not, and after it was sold, the money was yours to give or not; so why are you lying?” The clear message in this passage is that giving was entirely voluntary.
.
But giving is not at all voluntary in a socialist system of government. The encapsulating slogan of socialism is, “To each according to his need; from each according to his ability” - and no ifs, ands or buts about it. That’s a pretty far cry from the communal arrangement of believers in ancient Jerusalem. Go ask people in Cuba how voluntary their participation is, or what would happen if they criticized the system. Go ask people in Denmark how free they are to avoid paying 70% or higher of their income in taxes.
.
In the second place, I find it singularly abhorrent that you would compare the arrangements of the original Christian community, inspired by the spirit of God, to a system of government worked out by secular humanists, inspired by atheism. The above-quoted passages from acts described a commune of “believers” united spiritually, and not the entire population of Jerusalem. Distinctions need to be drawn when they apply. As a Catholic (if you are one), you should be ashamed of yourself for the comparison. John-Paul II fought vigorously against the secular humanist system of which you now find yourself a champion.

Posted by: John W. | April 19, 2009 3:17 PM
*************
1. "Could have" infers a suggestion, "should have" does not.

2. I used monotribe to not raise your windbaggedness to the level of diatribe.

3. Given the topic of this thread and my initial post, I thought you were sticking to the topic, not flying off into irrelevancy. Now I'll know better, thanks for the tip.

4. see #3.

OK, you may step off the podium now.

Funny the party that claimed to tear down that wall....have placed one in the middle of America.

* * * * *
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport | April 19, 2009 6:38 PM
.
1. You are nit-picking. “Should have” may connote a suggestion, in context, any time it proposes an alternate course of action and does not constitute a demand for a particular action, or criticism for failure to take that action. That is especially true, where, as here, it was not directed at the putative actor (i.e. Obama); but rather to third party observers (i.e. us) as a commentary after the fact.
.
2. Monotribe is an ungrammatical term. The prefix “dia-” in diatribe doesn’t refer to the number “two,” in which case a mono-tribe is not a proper diminutive.
.
3. We were talking about Obama and the Constitution. My comments were perfectly relevant and on-topic.
.
4. See # 3, above.

Parnoid, would you believe that the Army Reserves train in their BlackHawks just a mile from the farm at an old grass airfield and pass over my large America flag all the time. It a great site for them to see!

* * * * *
Posted by: bill r. | April 19, 2009 7:29 PM
.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, bill. A Republican once told/suggested that someone else tear down a wall; but the Republicans never claimed to have torn it down. The people enslaved in their own prison tore down their own wall.
.
In any event, I don’t think wall building is an apt metaphor for what we are seeing. I would rather think that what is happening is that a chasm is opening to divide this country. In that regard, it isn’t just one party doing the digging either. I think a lot of people are responsible for the divide. Trying to take this country into a direction that offends the conscience, good sense and identity of people will divide them too.

John W,

Somehow "monotribe", as in monologue (one voice), monoraul (one channel), and monotonous (boring and wearing) seemed to fit better than the usual diatribe.

Windbaggedness, also trumped up, seems to fit too. Whooosh!

John W.......it seems to me I remember there being demonstrations after the 2000 elections after Bush claimed victory. I believe Hannity claimed it was nothing but unamerican sore losers. Now it seems we strap a few unamerican sounding titles to it like marxism, communisim, and presto we now have sore losers that use unamerican sounding names.

"Peter told Ananias (and I paraphrase), “It was yours to sell or not, and after it was sold, the money was yours to give or not; so why are you lying?” The clear message in this passage is that giving was entirely voluntary."
Posted by: John W. | April 19, 2009 4:07 PM

So you, "paraphrased". Well, so did I.

I could have written the whole thing word for word, but the slight "embellishment" (if you'd like to call that) was used to make a point.

I won't argue that the Bible passage is more regarding "charity" as opposed to government action. Of course it is. But that doesn't make the idea copmpletely unlike socialism. In a way God, Christ and the apostles' are the "government" of Christianity, and their "laws" do command that members who have more are "required" to give to those who have less so that "there is noone needy among them". So, certain acts of charity is "compulsory" to be a good Christian member.

Does Bill Gates consider himself a Christian? He certainly does good things with his "foundation", but we know most rich people set those up for tax benefits as well as charity. Gates could probably easily purchase hundreds of houses for needy people without putting a dent in his lifestyle. That is what the Acts passage is about.

Are you also aware, that the great Catholic Saint Thomas More's novel "Utopia", based on the communal society described in the Acts of the Apostles, is often considered to have inspired what became modern socialism?

I would consider myslef to be a "social democrat" to some extent. Where charity falls short, the government has an obligation to "step up" and do their best to ensure noone is needy.

But, ideally, the governments involvement would largely be in making sure every single child has top-notch education. That is, the kids of say the south and west side of Chicago are entitlled to the same quality of education that kids in Wilmette and Winnetka receive.

It may take time. But once the kids are given the "tools" to carve out a good life for themselves and their families. The need for "charity" would diminish.

This country is in a lot of trouble. Now that we have a so-called president that wants to buddy up with our enemys and release terrorists, release top secret data we are reallyt in trouble. Obama will single handed open us up for attack, I am sure the n Koreans and Chinese are eating this up. All you Obama supporters will ask for forgiveness before his term is up, but not from me