TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Hugo...doing it again.
Pages (21): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 »

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The problem is Shakka, if Chavez is a dictator, what is the solution if the people vote for him?

I guess one possible answer is, it's not my fucking problem. Usually dictatorships end in violent revolt. Maybe that'll be the solution, but who knows how long it could take.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I guess one possible answer is, it's not my fucking problem. Usually dictatorships end in violent revolt. Maybe that'll be the solution, but who knows how long it could take.

Well that certainly is one solution!

The contradiction is that you're opposing someone you consider to be a dictator but, presumably, you support his ousting from power. But what are democractic leaders replaced with when they are ousted from power? Dictators.

So the contradiction the anti-Chavez lot have is that they supposedly oppose a dictatorship, yet the only possible alternative is to replace it with another dictatorship (only this time, one opposed to the will of the people!)

I disagree with a hell of a lot of economic policies of right wing governments (like the Conservatives in the UK, or both parties in the USA), but whilst ever the people have the right to vote for the party they want to lead them, then it is a democracy, whether you agree or not...democracy (as far as the definition extends to our version of democracy) is rule by the majority, which means there will always be a minority opposed to that government.

There will always be people opposed to Chavez's economic policies but he is not, by definition, a dictator until he abandons the democratic process (something the Venezuelan opposition have alread done - a dictatorship in the waiting?). If his policies fail, if the country ends up in ruins, then its sad but it would not have been the work of a dictator...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Socialism = economic equality = equality of opportunities There is NO equality of opportunity under capitalism Do you not understand that in a capitalist society, the more wealth you have the more opportunities you have. As capitalism requires an unequal distribution of wealth, that equates into an unequal distribution of equality. Economic freedom does not, and never will, lead to equal opportunities (economic equality). Economic freedom means individuals are allowed to consolidate wealth at the expense of other individuals in society. This gives the wealthier individuals more opportunities in life than those with less wealth. Socialist polices aim to offset that phenomena by redistributing wealth more evenly (yes, through taxation) so that those less wealthy individuals can still have the same amount of opportunities as those at the weathiest echlons of society. For example, education standards at state schools will be as high as at private schools. Under capitalism, if a rich person and a poor person need a kidney transplant, the rich person will get one because they can afford it. Under free health care they both get a kidney transplant because they both have equal opportnities...

Did you ever stop to think that people don't deserve to be all equal?
For example, why should a hard working small business owner have to pony up for the sloth that doesn't contribute to society at all?
How exactly is that, 'fair'?

In a text-book-Star Trekkie-Utopia, socailism sounds great, however human nature just doesn't work that way.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Did you ever stop to think that people don't deserve to be all equal? For example, why should a hard working small business owner have to pony up for the sloth that doesn't contribute to society at all? How exactly is that, 'fair'? In a text-book-Star Trekkie-Utopia, socailism sounds great, however human nature just doesn't work that way.

I guess you're referring to what others have called "equality of outcome". That's not what I'm arguing for at all. I'm arguing that in our society, to a fair extent, the richer you are the more opportunities and privaliges you have. I don't think that wealth should be a factor whatsoever in access to opportunities or vital services, and my economic beliefs aim to offset this inequality.

But that doesn't mean everyone will be equal. It doesn't mean everyone will be paid the same or prohibited from innovation, entrepenuership of earning more money than everyone else through merit. All it means is that everyone has the same opportunities and wealth should not be a factor when accessing vital services such as health or education (which I believe society has a duty to provide to all)

Of course there are people that are lazy and take advantage of social security - that cannot be helped. But the fact is the majority of people who are forced to claim benefits are very likely to be undereducated and stuck in a rut.

If you give everyone the same opportunities then it's then up to them to make the most of it...but as it stands now, you need wealth to access all opportunities and capitalist societies dictate that wealth is concentrated with the few meaning the rest do not have the same opportunities

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r In a text-book-Star Trekkie-Utopia, socailism sounds great, however human nature just doesn't work that way.

And you have not once listened when I say I do not support communism. I support social democracy, so until you get that through your head, and stop using arguments against communism to argue against my beliefs then you're gonna get nowhere in this debate.

Stop creating arguments in your head to argue against and please just listen to what I tell you I believe in...

Does this give anyone else the warm fuzzies?

I win!

Not so fast!

Nah they're poor!

I pull out my top trump: Bobbie Mugabe!

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX

No offense, but Mothra isn't even in the same league as those others.

Mr. Carter with authoritarian Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.. before the Iranian Revolution..





This is after the CIA sponsored a coup against the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRIME MINISTER Mohammed Mossadegh, who became popular after nationalizing the oil industry, then monopolized by Britains Anglo-Persian Oil company, now BP. Mess with US/UK oil, and get couped or bombed..

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov No offense, but Mothra isn't even in the same league as those others.

no offense taken,

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX no offense taken,

Glad you're not offended but don't think the same can be said for these two...

quote:

Shutting Up Venezuela’s Chávez By ROGER COHEN Published: November 29, 2007 CARACAS, Venezuela Roger Cohen It was a fascist general in 1930s Spain who coined the phrase “Viva la muerte!” or “Long live death!” Essentially meaningless, the words captured the cult of soil, blood and savagery that coursed through European Fascism, in its Francoist and other forms. President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela hates fascists; they are central to his repertoire of insults. But he has not hesitated to deploy the imagery of death to bolster his leftist brand of petro-authoritarianism, now operating under the ludicrous banner of “Fatherland, Socialism or Death!” The slogan looks almost quaint in its anachronism. Chávez would no doubt claim Cuban revolutionary, rather than Spanish fascist, roots for it (Fidel Castro also invoked fatherland and finality). The bottom line is this: Latin America’s oil-gilded caudillo is getting serious about ruling for life, just like Franco and Castro. I might add Vladimir Putin to that list. Like the Russian leader, Chávez has already used gushing oil revenue, a pliant judiciary, subservient institutions and the galvanizing appeal of vitriolic anti-Americanism to concoct a 21st-century, gulag-free authoritarianism. But even Putin has not contemplated going as far as Chávez now intends to take his “Bolivarian revolution.” Venezuelans will vote Sunday in a referendum that would remove all limits on presidential re-election, grant Chávez direct control over foreign currency reserves, allow him to censor the media under a state of emergency declarable at his discretion, expand his powers to expropriate private property and create the second formally socialist nation in the Americas alongside Fidel’s. “The measures amount to a constitutional coup,” said Teodoro Petkoff, who edits an opposition newspaper. Certainly, they would prod Venezuela from an oppressive rule comparable to Mexico’s under its once impregnable Institutional Revolutionary Party toward the dictatorial absolutism of Cuba. Unlike other votes during Chávez’s nine-year presidency, and unlike the assured victory of Putin’s United Russia Party in voting the same day, the referendum is not a foregone conclusion. Overcoming inertia, opponents led by students have energized a “No” campaign. A general once close to Chávez has denounced a looming coup d’état. Polls suggest a close outcome. But awash in petrodollars — oil accounts for about 90 percent of Venezuelan exports — Chávez commands formidable resources. They are centered in the armed forces; a huge nomenklatura scattered across the bureaucracy and newly nationalized industries; the so-called Boliburgesía (Bolivarian bourgeoisie) of traders grown rich working the angles of a corrupt system; and the poor whom Chávez has helped and manipulated. Certainly, the oil money Chávez has plowed into poor neighborhoods (at the expense of an oil industry suffering chronic underinvestment) has reduced poverty. The United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America said last year that the extreme poverty rate had fallen to 9.9 percent from 15.9 percent. But more than spreading socialist ideals, Chávez has spread a form of crony capitalism, dedicated to his greater glory, that has imbued the economy with all the resilience of a house of cards. Foreign investment has plunged, scared off by nationalizations. A huge disparity between the official and black-market exchange rates has encouraged get-rich-quick schemes for favored “Chávistas” while erecting endless barriers to trade. Price controls on staples have made eggs unavailable. This week, you can’t find chickens. Chávez’s socialism delivers subsidized gasoline and glittering malls but no milk. Latin America has been here before, with the disastrous import-substitution and highly regulated models of the 1960s and ’70s. Most of the region has moved on, but not Chávez, who trumpets “growth from within,” whatever that is. The World Bank’s recently released “Doing Business 2008,” a ranking of the ease of conducting commerce, places Venezuela 172nd out of 178 countries. Despite this, the country does huge business with the United States, as its fourth-largest crude oil supplier and a big importer. Chávez’s “socialism” and his chumminess with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad do not extend to cutting off the “imperialist empire.” Chávez is too shrewd to sever his lifeline. A possible conclusion would be that he’s harmless — a wily barracks-bred buffoon whose leftist rhetoric is just a veneer for a petrodollar power play. Perhaps that’s why the United States — and Latin American nations — have been so muted, or silent, before Chávez’s attempted “constitutional coup.” Oil speaks. But Chávez’s grab for socialist-emperor status is grotesque and dangerous — as Fascism was — a terrible example for a region that has been consolidating democracy. King Juan Carlos of Spain got it right when he recently interrupted Chávez’s trademark verbal diarrhea with a brusque: “Why don’t you just shut up?” Venezuelans should watch that regal routine on YouTube — it’s even been set to music — and follow suit on Sunday.

Source

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Glad you're not offended but don't think the same can be said for these two...

Well for one, Mothra was usually a good guy. I would hardly be on alert if we were at Mothra levels. If anything, I would feel more comforted.

Wow......

quote:

Chavez calls Catholic cardinal who criticized him "...a thug, stupid, mentally retarded sycophant defender of dark interests.'' Then it gets interesting quote: By CASTO OCANDO El Nuevo Herald Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez delivers a speech during a rally in Caracas on Tuesday. Venezuelans will decide Dec. 2 whether to approve constitutional changes that would let Chavez run for re-election indefinitely, extend presidential terms from six to seven years, and create new types of property to be managed by cooperatives and communities, among other changes. RODRIGO ABD / AP Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez delivers a speech during a rally in Caracas on Tuesday. Venezuelans will decide Dec. 2 whether to approve constitutional changes that would let Chavez run for re-election indefinitely, extend presidential terms from six to seven years, and create new types of property to be managed by cooperatives and communities, among other changes. » More Photos * Chat live with Andres Oppenheimer between 9:30 and 10:30 a.m. * More coverage of Venezuela * Chavez cuts off contacts with Colombia Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez's habit of verbally attacking his enemies appears to have backfired in his dealings with one of the country's most prestigious institutions -- a Catholic Church critical of the president. Even as he clashed in recent days with King Juan Carlos of Spain and President Alvaro Uribe from neighboring Colombia, the populist Chávez and top government officials were unleashing the worst crisis in church-state relations in decades. Chávez threatened reprisals -- and even prison -- against Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino as church officials publicly criticized constitutional revisions proposed by the president -- and to be approved or rejected in a Sunday referendum -- as ``morally unacceptable.'' In a speech televised to this predominantly Catholic country, Chávez branded Urosa Savino as ''a thug,'' ''stupid,'' ''mentally retarded,'' ''sycophant'' and defender of ``dark interests.'' But rather than shying away from confrontation with a popular and powerful president, the church fired back. ''Let them jail the cardinal and we'll see what happens in this country. . . . They are not going to shut us up with actions of that type,'' Msgr. Ovidio Pérez Morales, president of the Venezuelan Episcopal Conference, said this week. The group is made up of the country's bishops. BISHOPS HOLD STRONG The bishops have taken a stronger tone in their criticism of the government in recent days, leaving aside the prudence that characterized the church's public pronouncements for decades. Msgr. Roberto Luckert, first vice president of the conference, charged Wednesday that the Chávez government is populated by ''a number of bums and corrupt persons'' and that corruption in the Chávez government is a ``rottenness that stinks not only in the country but at the international level.'' And after Jorge Rodríguez, the Venezuelan vice president and a trained psychiatrist, blamed the church Tuesday for the death of a 19-year-old worker during a street protest, Luckert replied: ``He who works with crazy people; something of those crazy people sticks to him.'' ''We bishops must respond to the president's gross manner,'' Luckert told El Nuevo Herald. Urosa Savino got backing from his colleagues in the College of Cardinals, especially Honduras' Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga, who on Saturday complained that the Venezuelan church was in danger. ''It would not be unusual that a religious persecution would be launched under any pretext, because totalitarian systems start in that manner,'' declared Rodríguez Maradiaga, one of the most influential cardinals in Latin America. Analysts say such a frontal clash with the Catholic hierarchy could do Chávez more damage than good among followers of his ''21st century socialism,'' which promises to improve the lot of the country's poor. ''Experience in Venezuela has shown that one never wins confronting the church,'' said political analyst Manuel Felípe Sierra. ``One thing is to confront the spokesmen for the church and another is to confront the church as an institution with great prestige.'' SWITCHED SIDES Chávez's belligerence already has cost him the support of some within the church. ''We don't want violence, blood . . . but if the Chávez government is going to force us into street confrontations, we will be there,'' said the Rev. José Palmar, once an enthusiastic Chávez sympathizer but who in his weekly newspaper column has become a sharp critic of government corruption. Criticism also has come from traditionally liberal church figures such as theologian Pedro Trigo and well-regarded centers of Catholic studies such as the Gumilla Center and the Andrés Bello Catholic University, which have worked for decades in poor neighborhoods -- the strongest base of Chávez support. ''The church is . . . pretty well united around its bishops,'' said the Rev. Arturo Peraza, a Jesuit who directs SIC magazine, the most influential of the country's Catholic publications. The main criticism of Catholic sectors that are close to Chávez's pro-poor ideology, he added, is of the government's ``lack of capacity to respect others and the political dissidence.'' They also complain about a sharp spike in crime and insecurity under Chávez, he said, and the continuing shortage of housing and public-health services for the poor while Chávez has spent heavily on oil resources during almost a decade in power. Few believe the Chávez confrontation with the church leaders will develop beyond a war of words. ''Since he's a demagogue, he always tends to talk too much,'' Palmar said. ``If it jails the cardinal, it would be showing itself to be a fascist and communist government.' http://www.miamiherald.com/top_stor...ory/324817.html and then Hugo Chavez accuses CNN of putting out a hit on him quote: CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Wednesday CNN may have been instigating his murder when the U.S. TV network showed a photograph of him with a label underneath that read "Who killed him?" The caption appeared to be a production mistake -- confusing a Chavez news item with one on the death of a football star. The anchor said "take the image down" when he realized. But Chavez called for a probe in an interview on state television, where he repeatedly reviewed a tape of the broadcast, questioning why the unconnected photograph and wording were left on screen for several seconds. "I want the state prosecutor to look into bringing a suit against CNN for instigating murder in Venezuela," he said. "... undoubtedly it is part of the psychological warfare." The anti-U.S. president often denounces plots to kill him without providing much detailed evidence. On Tuesday, he said a sniper trained his gun on him at a political rally this month. Chavez has singled out CNN for biased reporting in what he says is a U.S.-sponsored campaign in the foreign media to destabilize Venezuela. CNN says its coverage is objective. In power since 1999, Chavez on Sunday faces his tightest vote battle to date. Venezuelans will decide whether he can run for re-election indefinitely in a referendum that polls show is a dead heat between the "Yes" and "No" camps. Well-known for wild accusations and harsh insults, Chavez usually focuses his attacks against the United States during campaigns. With the Bush administration avoiding being drawn into a spat, he has become involved in disputes with Spain and Colombia and repeatedly lambasted the Roman Catholic Church. Some political analysts and Wall Street economists say the fights appear to be a tactic that burnishes his nationalist credentials and also helps distract voters from debating some of the unpopular details in his proposed reform package. (Reporting by Fabian Cambero, writing by Saul Hudson, editing by Vicki Allen) http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/ne...ed=False&rpc=92 and then this Hugo Chavez to private businesses: Stop opposing me or I'll take all your stuff quote: Weakened Chavez becoming more dangerous Updated, & bumped posted at 9:11 pm on November 27, 2007 by Bryan Send to a Friend | printer-friendly Hugo Chavez is threatening domestic opponents with confiscation of their property if they continue to fight his effort to be voted into office for life. The Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, today threatened to strip the country’s industrialists of their assets if they continued to oppose his indefinite presidency. Chávez faces a vote at the weekend on his proposals to change 69 articles of the constitution, including scrapping the limit on the number of terms a president can serve. Venezuela’s largest business chamber, Fedecámaras, to which thousands of large and small businesses belong, has called the planned reforms an “illegal act”, and called on voters to oppose their passage “by every possible legal means”. Arrests and indefinite incarceration can’t be far behind. But the threat that Chavez poses isn’t limited to the area within Venezuela’s borders. He’s also a threat to his neighbors. An IBD editorial sums up the growing danger that Hugo Chavez poses to Colombia. The backdrop is negotiations between Colombia and the FARC, which Chavez had been mediating until Colombian President Alberto Uribe learned that Chavez was working with the terrorists. Uribe fired Chavez. In theory, a mediator should persuade two sides to each give up something to achieve a common end. The only one who gave up anything, however, was Uribe, who watched Chavez cavort with terrorists before TV cameras, giving them a legitimacy in Caracas they never had known. Even worse, Chavez proved to be acting as an agent of the terrorists. Uribe’s sudden cutoff of the mediation effort at a hastily organized press conference last Wednesday suggested disturbing new information. On Sunday, Chavez confirmed it: “I think Colombia deserves another president, it deserves a better president,” he said. That followed a discussion in a U.S. prison between extradited FARC terrorist Ricardo Palmera, aka “Simon Trinidad,” and another mediator and Chavez ally appointed by Uribe, Senator Piedad Cordoba. They discussed “a transitional government” with the terrorist as a bargaining chip for the hostage swap. On Monday, Chavez repeated what he had in mind to make sure Uribe understood. “Reconciliation is impossible,” he said. “We have to wait for a new government in Colombia we can talk with. I hope it arrives sooner rather than later.” No wonder Uribe lashed out, saying Chavez was less interested in mediating than in overthrowing Colombia’s government. That may have sounded far-fetched, but it’s what the guerrillas have been fighting for since 1964, and Chavez’s admiration for them is no secret. Uribe, who has come down on the guerrillas harder than any other Colombian leader, is the president they want gone. “You seek continental domination” Uribe said, and “a Marxist FARC government” to replace Colombia’s elected one. He also pointed out that it was prime time for Chavez to be trying this, with the Venezuelan’s public support at home flagging just one week before a constitutional referendum to grant him absolute power. I’ve half expected Chavez to go expansionist on Colombia for a couple of years now. FARC makes for a natural Chavez ally. The Venezuelan polls show him losing support for being made dictator for life by vote. Colombia is a US ally, but not one that we’re likely to go all out for if Chavez attacks by proxy via the FARC and the paramilitary groups that he has been creating across Venezuela. I guess what I’m getting at is, if you’re wondering where the next land war in South America is likely to be, keep an eye on the Venezuela-Colombia border. Update: I’ve received an email from the author of the IBD report linked above. The author goes into quite a bit more detail about Chavez, Colombia and FARC, and I think it adds much to the discussion. The author directly addresses Blaise’s comments about Corodoba. I just got back from Bogota and my editorial was informed by my experience there. One, the ‘transitional government’ reference is real. The Colombia government hasn’t backed away from its charge that Cordoba talked of a transitional government with Simon Trinidad. Late last night it released in English its charge that that happened. That means they wanted that to get out – and they indexed it with Google, which is unusual. If you’d like to look, see here: http://web.presidencia.gov.co/sp/20.../11252007.html. As for Blaise’s claim that the US officials have backed Cordoba’s claim, I am not sure that’s correct. I’ve searched the US embassy Web site and the Colombian press sites and I don’t see any such reference. But whether Cordoba has talked about a ‘transitional government’ which Blaise discounts, Chavez himself stated twice for emphasis that he wants another government running Colombia. Meanwhile, while I don’t think it’s likely, it’s possible that Chavez could make menacing military border moves since the Cuban press reported that he called his men to their barracks. He’s also not a peaceable leader, he sent troops in to invade much weaker Guyana this month, google that, scary stuff. I think he’s more likely to meddle through cash to get the Colombian voters to give him what he wants. Whatever he does, it’s meddling and he’s capable of it. He’s meddled in every single election in Latin America since 2006. There’s no doubt in my mind that Chavez was threatening Uribe with regime change from his repeated statements about it, and Cordoba is his ally. Why would Cordoba deny this, by the way? Because she’s facing treason charges on some other matter (I don’t think anything will come of it, someone not in the government brought a case before the Supreme Court over an unrelated matter and they are probing). But she has an incentive to protect herself from the ‘transition’ talk under such legal heat. This all just happened yesterday. She’s openly Chavista, she wears red a lot, she suddenly has a lot of money, and she’s somehow got a lot of FARC contacts. I am not sure what Blaise meant by IBD publishing an error about Chavez and FARC, I wish I knew what he meant. For his information, FARC calls itself a ‘Bolivarian’ organization and it’s had Chavez’s picture festooning its web site in the past. A former FARC hostage who escaped last Dec 31, Fernando Araujo, who is now Colombia’s foreign minister, said that his FARC kidnappers used to dance with glee any time they heard Chavez speaking on the radio. There’s no doubt that Hugo and the FARC are like lips and teeth, the only thing separating them up till now has been an absence of contact, and the mediation opportunity from Uribe gave them both a golden opportunity to have that contact. There was something really dreadful about Chavez slavering to have a meeting with Manuel Marulanda, the aging FARC founder who’s been in the Colombian jungle for 43 years. Chavez would have treated him with the same drooling devotion as he does Castro because Marulanda is a ‘legend.’ Chavez has a great deal of admiration for FARC and the feeling is mutual. His talk of regime change reflected precisely the FARC’s final aim.

both of Presidente Uribes' parents were kidnapped and killed by the Guerillas when he was a child, explains the vendetta he has against them and the thousands of people that have disapeared under his regime and his hatred of Chavez because of his support for the FARC. Uribe has changed Colombia for the "better" (according to most of the middle and upper class) and presided over unpresidented stability in Colombia through his extremely tough stance against FARC, although ask anyone from the poverty stricken provinces their thoughts on Uribe and they will say his made Colombia much safer for the rich and ignored the misery and suffering of the poor.

Most of the middle and upper class in Bogota, Manizales, Medellin, Cartegena, et al, wont even acknowledge that a war is going on because its outside of their security bubble and the media is extremely pro Government and Paramilitary. Recently Uribe created an anmesty for certain Rogue "Government controlled and US funded" Paramilitary groups to pardon them for their ethnic cleansing, and displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians (i've heard that Colombia has the largest internal refugee displacement crisis in the world larger than Iraq) and in return these factions have to throw down their weapons. However the majority of the government backed Paramilitary factions are still fighting the FARC over control over the Coca fields and ethnically cleansing civilians and forcing them off their land.

I've been near Colombian / Venezualan border on the Carribean coast and its extremely militarised with both the Ejercito (government army) and Paramilitary (who are seperate organisations that the governmen ttries but fails to keep on a leash but continues to fund them)but further down near Punto Mont in the on amazon is guerilla territory where they dare not tread.

The failed coup d’état of Hugo Chavez

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]




I wish we had a leader as dynamic as Chavez or Putin who have wide popular support.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The failed coup d’état of Hugo Chavez [[ LINK REMOVED ]] I wish we had a leader as dynamic as Chavez or Putin who have wide popular support.

Aye great documentary

Tho I completely disagree about Putin! There's a difference between popular support and whipping up a frenzy of nationalism...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Aye great documentary Tho I completely disagree about Putin! There's a difference between popular support and whipping up a frenzy of nationalism...

I didn't say Putin was a great guy, but he is a dynamic leader.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I didn't say Putin was a great guy, but he is a dynamic leader.

You don't know anything about leadership

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru You don't know anything about leadership

Want to support that with some arguments there buddy?

quote:

Originally posted by guerra-monstru You don't know anything about leadership

Says you?


Dynamic. You know what it means? It means bringing about change. Are you gonna say Putin didn't change Russia smartass?

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Want to support that with some arguments there buddy?

Let us see. He said Putin and Hugo are both dynamic leaders. Both of these candidates are liked by their people just as much as the American's like Bush or the British Brown. Don't fall under what the media is trying to convince you of. there is nothing dynamic of Putin or Hugo. Both are failures and will be remembered as such.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.