TURN ON THE TEEVEE! CHAVEZ IS HILARIOUS!!

by **dude h homeslice ix** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:49 pm

well he obviously didnt come to suck up to th UN. in fact he called it worthless. he also blasted the veto system of the security council...he also said time is running out in the world and that the survival of the human species is up for grabs. im glad he doesnt pussyfoot around and try to brown nose his way onto the council. much more useful from the outside, not having to cowtow to a new role.

by **stickdog99** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:53 pm

bvonahsen, you sound like the people who wanted Kerry instead of Dean because Kerry wouldn't anger Bush's supporters as much and thus be more electable. Sometimes it's more important to simply tell the truth than it is to try to finesse your way toward your strategic goal. It's not as if any country siding with Chavez wasn't going to be subject to Bush's wrath regardless of what type of speech Chavez gave today.

by **bvonahsen** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You appear to be under the assumption that the world is not on the 'eve of destruction' and that we still have time to play parlour games at the UN. <hr></blockquote> I don't believe in armaggeddon if that's what you mean. We live in evil times but not end times. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>IMO Chavez is trying to shock the world into accepting the truth about globalism.<hr></blockquote> This is all fine and well and I agree with much of it, not all but much. However the UN is not the place for this. That is all I am saying. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>bvonahsen, you sound like the people who wanted Kerry instead of Dean because Kerry wouldn't anger Bush's supporters as much and thus be more electable.<hr></blockquote> Nope, not me. I hated Kerry and if I voted for him (I don't remember) it was only because there was no real choice. I do however naturally seek a middle path. I am not on either extreme. If there is one religous tradition that I like it would be Buddhism. I also tend to naturally take a minority position because it interests me. I see argument, debate, as a process of discovery and not a contest of wills. To that end, if I see one side in a dabte not being represented I tend to take a look at the issue from that point of view. Truth, to me, is a landscape and therefore the wider you can cast your nets the better. (badly mixed metaphors there, sorry) <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Sometimes it's more important to simply tell the truth than it is to try to finesse your way toward your strategic goal.<hr></blockquote> Absolutely true. It is also important to be effective. The question we have to ask ourselves is "Was I effective? Did I achieve the results I wanted?" If the answer is no then we should try something else. I happen to think that Chavez's speech will prove to be ineffective. But I could be wrong.

by **greencrow0** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:28 pm

Yes: It's such a shock when a person who is running for an elected position--to actually campaign on a platform of truth. To actually name names, discuss the issues and make commitments to a platform. gc Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=greencrow0>greencrow0</A> at: 9/21/06 12:44 am

by **yesferatu** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:17 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I see argument, debate, as a process of discovery and not a contest of wills.<hr></blockquote> oh puh-leez

by **km artlu** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:09 am

My sole media exposure to the speech was the replay of a live translation, followed by some pundit's commentary on public radio. The translator was female and did an excellent job, transmitting subtle inflection and emphasis (what I heard was only an excerpt). The commentary which followed, in an interview format, was both transparent and chilling. This buffoon seemed to have some sort of implied objectivity because he'd been a Latin American Affairs under-secretary of whatsit in the Clinton administration. He was there for one purpose only. He'd had his briefing and was delivering the goods. Which were, "Chavez sees the U.S. as the enemy and seeks to spread that message to vulnerable, simple peasants." In less than five minutes, this schmuck used the words "United States" to replace Chavez's remarks applicable to the thugs who've seized control of our government. It's as though they've got a stable of spin whores ready to scramble at a moment's notice.

by **Gouda** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:04 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world. I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.<hr></blockquote> The UN is supposed to be a gathering of voices, a body whose mission it is to "take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace..." and uphold the dignity and rights of everyone, great and small. Chavez' words above are in full keeping with the charter of the UN. He is keen to take effective measures for the removal of threats to the peace and to uphold human dignity. He is pointing out the threat and the aggressor. He also recognizes that the UN forum has become nothing more than an instrument of US hegemony. He sees, as do most of the other nations of the world, the imperial threat the US and its economic theology poses to the world. It should be the duty and right of every national representative to stand up there and counterpunch the rhetoric of Bush, rhetoric which is an ad hominem attack on people everywhere. The UN has become a cold, functionary tomb of banal rhetoric that all too often justifies evil. The place needs to be exposed and shamed, standing there as it does a complete betrayal of its own charter. Chavez, I think, speaks the truth as to why the UN has failed and why the world faces a grave threat to peace and justice: the USA and its capital warriors. To have had someone like Chavez stand up in the 1930's to warn the world against Hitler and Nazi imperial ambitions would have been nice. If everyone were concerned about how Goebbels, I mean Rove, might spin this, then we all shut up and Rove wins. Here's what Chavez wishes to re-establish, and I tell ya, hackneyed diplomatic banter ain't going to change anything there: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>PREAMBLE WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and  to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples The Purposes of the United Nations are: 1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; 3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and 4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/">www.un.org/aboutun/charter/</a> That the UN has utterly failed to live up to its own charter is clear, and the reason it has failed is largely because the USA (and complicit elites, enablers & wannabees under hegemonic trance) control the UN, would not dare let it live up to its charter, uses it and abuses it according to whichever hegemonic phase of Sirius it is. Do you see US commitment to ANY of the ideals, ends and purposes to which the UN was originally established? I see the opposite, and someone needed to stand up and challenge that from the outside, before the 4th Reich gets more entrenched than it already is. No time for nice with Rove or Mr. Danger. On edit - would just add this:  "A time comes when silence is betrayal. Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak out with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak." (Martin Luther King Jr.) Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 9/21/06 8:19 am

by **Byrne** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:47 am

Webcast available here: <a href="http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/61/gastatement20.shtml" target="top">www.un.org/webcast/ga/61/gastatement20.shtml</a> The media has been focused on Chavez's rhetoric of the devil, Bush, instead of Chavez valid points re reform of the UN to reduce what he called US influence, and the issue of Security Council places.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 8:37 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The UN has become a cold, functionary tomb of banal rhetoric that all too often justifies evil. The place needs to be exposed and shamed, standing there as it does a complete betrayal of its own charter.<hr></blockquote> Hear! Hear! Gouda. By the way, Chavez' speech is so similar to that of Iran's President Ahmadinejad's the previous day, that it made me wonder whether they had consulted each other, and perhaps others as well (China?). I bet they have. Maybe there really is the beginning of a movement, and they're not just making pipe dreams... In any case, it was somewhat refreshing to see the Empire get its face punched with a verbal Right hook on Tuesday, then a Left hook on Wednesday, right in the UN... <a href="http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/61/pdfs/iran-e.pdf">www.un.org/webcast/ga/61/pdfs/iran-e.pdf</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Some permanent members of the Security Council, even when they are themselves parties to international disputes, conveniently threaten others with the Security Council and declare, even before any decision by the Council, the condemnation of their opponents by the Council. The question is: what can justify such exploitation of the Security Council, and doesn't it erode the credibility and effectiveness of the Council? Can such behavior contribute to the ability of the Council to maintain security? ... For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and intimidation against other nations. But when it comes to the interests of the claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of nations, respect for the rights and intelligence of peoples, international law and justice have no place or value. This is blatantly manifested in the way the elected Government of the Palestinian people is treated as well as in the support extended to the Zionist regime. It does not matter if people are murdered in Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned or besieged; that must not violate human rights. Nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent on the whim of certain major powers. Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. But when the oppressed are decimated under bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a ceasefire. Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council, which is charged with maintaining the security of countries? The prevailing order of contemporary global interactions is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community, and consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world and other nations as only second class in the world order. Excellencies, The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the United Kingdom who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice? Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing their exclusionist policies on international decision making mechanisms, including the Security Council, has resulted in a growing mistrust in global public opinion, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of this most universal system of collective security. ... It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective. Furthermore, the direct relation between the abuse of veto and the erosion of the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council has now been clearly and undeniably established. We cannot, and should not, expect the eradication, or even containment, of injustice, imposition and oppression without reforming the structure and working methods of the Council. ... Today, serious reform in the structure and working methods of the Security Council is, more than ever before, necessary. Justice and democracy dictate that the role of the General Assembly, as the highest organ of the United Nations, must be respected. The General Assembly can then, through appropriate mechanisms, take on the task of reforming the Organization and particularly rescue the Security Council from its current state. In the interim, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African continent should each have a representative as a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege. The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations. ...<hr></blockquote>

by **sunny** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:19 am

Ahmadinejad was interviewed on CNN the other day. I was struck by how intelligent and thoughtful he seemed. He makes our Dear Leader look more lame, if possible, in comparison. I was sorely disappointed in Keith Olbermann last night. He didn't cover the Chavez speech at all, but made him the Worse person in the World. At least he wasn't "Worser" or "Worst. Geez, and Olbermann's been on such a roll lately.

by **Gouda** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:27 am

What was Olberman's rationale?

by **4911** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:08 am

actually, hes putting the UN in a tight spot - hes saying hey if you dont let venezuela in it just proves that your all a bunch of corrupt wussies/bootlickers. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=4911>4911</A> at: 9/21/06 9:11 am

by **sunny** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:45 pm

Gouda- <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What was Olberman's rationale?<hr></blockquote> He didn't give one.

by **Gouda** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:01 pm

I thus nominate olbermann as worse person in the world. (He may get some reprieve for prior good behavior; perhaps "worse person in the room" and a reduction of his sentence. One year's probation with a free trip to Caracas to do community service in the schools.)

by **sunny** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:05 pm

I nominate him to go to Venezuela to do community service, and then come back here and set some people straight about the quality of life, freedom of the press, the educational system, and the health care system.

TURN ON THE TEEVEE! CHAVEZ IS HILARIOUS!!

Re: Truth Time at the UN

Re: Truth Time at the UN

Re: Truth Time at the UN

Re: Chavez at the UN: Truth Time

Re: Truth Time at the UN

Chavez

Re: Chavez

Re: Chavez

Re: Chavez

Re: Chavez

Re: Chavez

Re: Chavez

Re: Chavez

Re: Chavez

Re: Chavez

Who is online