Obama Makes a Friend!

[3113]

PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad - Presidents Barack Obama and Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's socialist leader, met Friday and shook hands on the sidelines of a summit of their hemisphere's democracies. Obama walked across a hotel meeting room to meet Chavez for the first time..."It was very, very short," the official said of Friday's meeting. "The president shook his hand, smiled and then went back to his position in the line."

...The Venezuelan's office reported Chavez told Obama: "With this same hand I greeted Bush eight years ago. I want to be your friend."

Full story here.

Just one question...is Chavez going to "friend" Obama on his Facebook page or MySpace?

 

[S-Des]

I can't express how proud I am that we're embracing Chavez as a friend now.

MARACAIBO, Venezuela — The mayor of Venezuela's second largest city is missing, apparently the latest casualty of a crackdown on opposition by President Hugo Chavez that observers are calling outright persecution.

Manuel Rosales ran against Chavez for president in 2006 and lost, but last year he was elected mayor of the port city of Maracaibo, home to over 3 million people.

After Chavez vowed on national TV to throw Rosales in jail, the government filed corruption charges against the 56-year-old mayor. Two weeks ago, Rosales dropped out of sight. Supporters say he is hiding — from an enemy who now has the power to crush all opposition.

Rosales isn't alone in fearing retribution. Antonio Ledezma, another Chavez opponent, was elected mayor of Caracas in 2008 but is being barred from his office by his own police force, which attacked him when he tried to enter.

"It is hard to understand — a mayor can't get into his own office," Ledezma said. "The people there have guns. They have a license for guns, a license for crime."

With Ledezma they've found a solution. Chavez is going to appoint a new Mayor, and I'm pretty sure he won't have the same problem. Sean Penn and Danny Glover must be even more proud.

 

[amicus]

More than just a formal 'handshake', the American President used two hands in a gesture I reserve for very close friends or females.

Gads...gag a mucking faggot

Heh! I surprised myself!

ami

 

[3113]

I can't express how proud I am that we're embracing Chavez as a friend now.

I don't think a handshake is an embrace just yet, but hey, we've been buddies with worse and you were proud. Like Osama Bin Laden who we trained, and Saddam who was our good buddy for a very long time, and all those Egyptian princes....

Not that two wrongs make a right, but really...you're going to get bent out of shape because the U.S. is shaking hands with a Chavez? Welcome to the U.S. We've been buddies with corrupt rulers since 1778 when we signed an alliance with the King of France.

 

[S-Des]

I don't think a handshake is an embrace just yet, but hey, we've been buddies with worse and you were proud. Like Osama Bin Laden who we trained, and Saddam who was our good buddy for a very long time, and all those Egyptian princes....

Not that two wrongs make a right, but really...you're going to get bent out of shape because the U.S. is shaking hands with a Chavez? Welcome to the U.S. We've been buddies with corrupt rulers since 1778 when we signed an alliance with the King of France.

True, although it would be nice to eventually learn from our mistakes. Giving a megalomaniacal leader (with aspirations of being a dictator) the support of our country isn't exactly where I was hoping we were going to head. Then again, we can't fix all the world's problems, so I guess it is what it is. He's just such a scumbag (and it really bugs me when the Hollywood Liberals tell everyone what a hero he is). Even if our leader has to buddy up to him, we should all be able to agree to treat scum like him with disdain. That's one thing that should transcend politics.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3113
I don't think a handshake is an embrace just yet, but hey, we've been buddies with worse and you were proud. Like Osama Bin Laden who we trained, and Saddam who was our good buddy for a very long time, and all those Egyptian princes....

Not that two wrongs make a right, but really...you're going to get bent out of shape because the U.S. is shaking hands with a Chavez? Welcome to the U.S. We've been buddies with corrupt rulers since 1778 when we signed an alliance with the King of France.

True, although it would be nice to eventually learn from our mistakes. Giving a megalomaniacal leader (with aspirations of being a dictator) the support of our country isn't exactly where I was hoping we were going to head. Then again, we can't fix all the world's problems, so I guess it is what it is. He's just such a scumbag (and it really bugs me when the Hollywood Liberals tell everyone what a hero he is). Even if our leader has to buddy up to him, we should all be able to agree to treat scum like him with disdain. That's one thing that should transcend politics.

Like him or not, Chavez is the head of a nation, and must be treated as one. He's no worse than some we have welcomed. We were allies of Stalin for four years.

 

[Liar]

Well hey, let's put things in perspective. He, just like the Prezzies before him, is shaking hands with the leaders of China and Russia, one an institutional dictatorship that puts dissidents in shackles and the other a corrupt-to-the-core sham democracy that has critical journalists offed and political opponents thrown in jail on shoddy charges.

So eh.

 

[damppanties]

Just one question...is Chavez going to "friend" Obama on his Facebook page or MySpace?

Don't know about that, but here's a list of Facebook pages we'd like to see.

 

[Guest]

Well hey, let's put things in perspective. He, just like the Prezzies before him, is shaking hands with the leaders of China and Russia, one an institutional dictatorship that puts dissidents in shackles and the other a corrupt-to-the-core sham democracy that has critical journalists offed and political opponents thrown in jail on shoddy charges.

So eh.

Indeed.

 

[Belegon]

the pendulum has swung so far it is getting ridiculous... or maybe more ridiculous is better.

Yeah, I remember times when there were a couple "George, what the fuck?" type threads going on...

But outside of actual election stuff, which is always caustic, I can't really remember a time when every single possible misstep has been shouted as the equivalent of "Fear! Fire! Foes!Awake!" like this. Not misstep. POSSIBLE misstep.

When the anger and disgust about W started to snowball, the people that are now posting these threads (or their equivalent, since Ami was here but I don't think the others were...) had a united front that consisted of "Why do you hate freedom?", calls of "Treason! We are at war!" and "Love it or Leave it."

Remember all the complaints about the "looney left" and their tactics? Every single thing the Republican adherents complained about has been converted and escalated. Opportunistic protests, whining by the media, children at political rallys.

Treating the head of state of a country with whom we have differences like... oh, a head of state of a country... that is not a legitimate complaint.

Teleprompters? Half-bows to the Saudi king after the American government has been effectively kissing his ass for thirty years? (22 of which were under Republican administrations. Seriously folks, since 1968 there have been two Democratic presidents and five Republican ones. Not counting the guy who is still in his first 100 days.) Silence about ongoing military actions? Continuation of a strategy for combating the economic decline that was started by a Repub admin?

Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I've avoided actually using SR71's "Sore Losers Club" thing because it had overtones of being a winner with poor sportsmanship. And ya know, I have coached youth sports for several years and it made me aware of that aspect of things. Trying to teach kids things will teach you things.

But this has gotten beyond ridiculous.

 

[S-Des]

the pendulum has swung so far it is getting ridiculous... or maybe more ridiculous is better.

Yeah, I remember times when there were a couple "George, what the fuck?" type threads going on...

But outside of actual election stuff, which is always caustic, I can't really remember a time when every single possible misstep has been shouted as the equivalent of "Fear! Fire! Foes!Awake!" like this. Not misstep. POSSIBLE misstep.

When the anger and disgust about W started to snowball, the people that are now posting these threads (or their equivalent, since Ami was here but I don't think the others were...) had a united front that consisted of "Why do you hate freedom?", calls of "Treason! We are at war!" and "Love it or Leave it."

Remember all the complaints about the "looney left" and their tactics? Every single thing the Republican adherents complained about has been converted and escalated. Opportunistic protests, whining by the media, children at political rallys.

Really? You don't remember people here expressing fear George Bush would declare himself King and suspend the Constitution? How about "One more terrorist attack and the Christians will take over and kill the unbelievers?" There was talk of giant, secret "superbases" in Iraq that cost us hundreds of billions and would force us to stay there in massive numbers forever. Cries of "we're in Iraq so Haliburton can get rich," which competed with the, "We're in Iraq because Bush is upset about his father's legacy," or "we're in Iraq to steal their oil." There was angry talk about how wire-tapping was a Bush plot to destroy our rights (although I haven't noticed much outrage over Holder announcing that not only were they going to continue it, but possibly expand it) and how the Patriot Act would cause the Feds to go over your library check-outs with a fine-tooth comb. And yes, I remember dozens of attacks that the Bush family's cozy relationship with the Saudi's as a conspiracy to control the world's oil prices.

I remember once saying that I disagree with Bush, but most people who know or have met him saying he's a good guy, only to get a page long rant from someone here that said he was a psychopathic monster, out to steal our freedom and kill our soldiers.

There weren't a couple of threads attacking him, there were hundreds. The attacks were for more vitriolic than anything I've seen, and required no proof from the attacker (I never once saw another Liberal ask for factual information or call out someone for attacking him when the charge was false). Any of us who defended anything, no matter how slight, were immediately ridiculed for doing so.

Evidently you and I weren't on the same boards. What happened to the mantra, "Dissent is Patriotic?"

 

[Guest]

Des, Ami and JBJ, et al have been starting multiple threads every damn day.

There were threads, sure, but of this size and scope and magnitutude? That NEVER happened before.

GWB did many stupid things which made late night talk show hosts happy, too. There were many threads on his social gaffes and other fuckups, but not of this fear-mongering, the world will end, sort of crap.

I'm damn near irritated enough to go back and count the stupid threads just to show you.

 

[S-Des]

Could you please point out ONE thread I've started, ONE factual inaccuracy I've presented, or ONE time I've personally attacked President Obama?

 

[Guest]

Could you please point out ONE thread I've started, ONE factual inaccuracy I've presented, or ONE time I've personally attacked President Obama?

What?

I didn't say you started any?

 

[Guest]

Oh - I get it -

I was addressing the post to you, Des.

Des - Ami and JBJ, etc al, (blah blah blah)

This is how it should have read. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Belegon]

Really? You don't remember people here expressing fear George Bush would declare himself King and suspend the Constitution? How about "One more terrorist attack and the Christians will take over and kill the unbelievers?" There was talk of giant, secret "superbases" in Iraq that cost us hundreds of billions and would force us to stay there in massive numbers forever. Cries of "we're in Iraq so Haliburton can get rich," which competed with the, "We're in Iraq because Bush is upset about his father's legacy," or "we're in Iraq to steal their oil." There was angry talk about how wire-tapping was a Bush plot to destroy our rights (although I haven't noticed much outrage over Holder announcing that not only were they going to continue it, but possibly expand it) and how the Patriot Act would cause the Feds to go over your library check-outs with a fine-tooth comb.

I remember once saying that I disagree with Bush, but most people who know or have met him saying he's a good guy, only to get a page long rant from someone here that said he was a psychopathic monster, out to steal our freedom and kill our soldiers.

There weren't a couple of threads attacking him, there were hundreds. The attacks were for more vitriolic than anything I've seen, and required no proof from the attacker (I never once saw another Liberal ask for factual information or call out someone for attacking him). Any of us who defended anything, no matter how slight, were immediately ridiculed for doing so.

Evidently you and I weren't on the same boards.

No, Des... evidently you need to actually look back at those boards and see. There were one, maybe two threads on the front page at a time... sometimes three.

There are five and six at a time now.

And most of those threads were about actual differences with policy and actions. Not potential action or perception.

Do you really want to argue about the wire-tapping? Do you really want to go to the about the damage done to the constitution under the last administration. We can do that.

But when we do it, we will be arguing about actual policies and things that actually happened.

Not about whether somebody smiled too big when they shook the hand of a foreign head of state.

Finally, there is this... this is a porn board. Simply by numbers, there are going to be more liberals than conservatives here. Indeed, the liberals outnumber the cons by what, 3-1?

So.... what's that say about how loud the right is wailing? If they are actually equivalent numbers, that means thhe right is wailing and gnashing their teeth three times as fervently.

And Obama hasn't even made it through 100 days...

I remember a line from Shakespeare In Love. Where Will tells Viola to tone things down, for what will she do in act II, when Romeo meets the love of his life?

What will these screamers and wailers do when Obama actually DOES something?

 

[S-Des]

deleted

 

[Guest]

Guess I misunderstood.

Please read Post #15.

Damn it.

 

[S-Des]

So.... what's that say about how loud the right is wailing? If they are actually equivalent numbers, that means thhe right is wailing and gnashing their teeth three times as fervently.

Obama is getting heat BECAUSE he's doing something. Right, wrong, or indifferent, his administration has done more in the first 100 days of anyone since Reagan. Bush didn't do anything significant in his first 100 days, so he remained popular (even though he started out less than Obama). That action sparks debate, which is a good thing. If Obama's policies pan out (including his softer tone with foreign powers), he'll be the most wildly successful president since Reagan...probably since Roosevelt.

I can't control how many threads Amicus or JBJ start, but if you put the two of them on ignore, the number of critical threads about Obama would drop to almost zero (maybe DP or Trysail will do a few, but I don't do any).

And for the record, Conservative to Liberal ratio is at least 15-1 not 3-1. I'm not a Conservative (although I've been called one constantly since I started posting here), and this board makes me seem like Rush Limbaugh's slightly more strident brother.

 

[S-Des]

Please read Post #15.

Damn it.

Then never mind. Quotes fixed.

 

[midwestyankee]

True, although it would be nice to eventually learn from our mistakes. Giving a megalomaniacal leader (with aspirations of being a dictator) the support of our country isn't exactly where I was hoping we were going to head. Then again, we can't fix all the world's problems, so I guess it is what it is. He's just such a scumbag (and it really bugs me when the Hollywood Liberals tell everyone what a hero he is). Even if our leader has to buddy up to him, we should all be able to agree to treat scum like him with disdain. That's one thing that should transcend politics.

No, you're wrong here. Absolutely wrong. If Obama publicly treated the head of a Latin American country with disdain, we would have instant problems with virtually every other country in the western hemisphere. Do you not think when you make these comments? There's such a thing as public diplomacy and it has rules, just like language and music. If you break the rules, everyone in the know knows it and automatically shifts their relationship with you. The disdain absolutely must happen behind the scenes.

Remember GWB and his smirking support of all the bullshit like the Congressional lunchrooms changing the names of French Fries to freedom fries? Wonder why we lost a great deal of respect in Europe? Start there with his idiotic acts of public disdain.

 

[Guest]

Then never mind. Quotes fixed.

Just see if you're getting your hands on my tits in Chicago next year.

Hmph.

 

[sr71plt]

Like Osama Bin Laden who we trained, and Saddam who was our good buddy for a very long time, and all those Egyptian princes....

I presume you mean Saudi princes. There was no "we" when there were Egyptian princes.

Of course, we didn't train Osama bin Laden either--and Saddam was never a good buddy, we always considered him an irritant at best (which didn't prevent us from giving him arms, of course).

But we have been in bed with a whole bunch of tin horn dictators.

 

[S-Des]

Just see if you're getting your hands on my tits in Chicago next year.

Hmph.

Tits? I'm still waiting for you to sing with me. I didn't know tits were on the table.

BTW, with your post corrected, I agree with you. Which is why I'm careful about what I quote when I respond on these things.

 

[Guest]

Tits? I'm still waiting for you to sing with me. I didn't know tits were on the table.

BTW, with your post corrected, I agree with you. Which is why I'm careful about what I quote when I respond on these things.

Laughing -

To me, your offer of a massage means that in some way, my tits are going to be involved. They'll be bared, oiled, stroked and/or publicly photographed. This I know. That is why I've been reticent to go under your clever hands at the Litogethers.

Singing? Tell me time and place, baby. Song list? Anything you want me to learn? I'm a solid lead, but I love to harmonize.

Bring your guitar, let's get it on.



Um - End Threadjack?