Chavez is somewhat a copy of our own Country's shadow, who seeks way too much control of our actions through snooping without court orders or justifiable reasons, allowing the wealthy to control the elections, unnecessary and invasive strip searching at airports, supporting lies for starting wars over WMDs that don't exist etc., etc. The U.S. needs to boycott Chavez country; but I doubt that they will because they want the oil.

Indy - Need to check the meds. The paranoia is getting to you again.

chavez needs to be taken out. he wants to be a dictator ... that can't happen. he will eventually start to bully adjacent countries.

Dave,

This isn't a road map to marxist socialism ... It's a road map to one man's quest for power and immortality. Chavez thinks he's Napolean. When I talk to venezuelans here in South America, it's amazing how this bimbo Chavez has ruined a previously healthy democratic republic. And, it's all about Chavez, not any specific political philosophy. The rifles? Just before we get ready to kick his door down, he'll hand out candy to the illiterate peasants and they'll mobilize to be slaughtered like so many poor throughout history. This is called, "history repeating itself."

Tough question: Who do you think is the most ugly totalitarian dictator: Hugo or Kim?

chavez needs to be taken out. he wants to be a dictator

Let's nuke 'em now before its too late.

Who do you think is the most ugly totalitarian dictator

I'll save you teabaggers the effort: How about Obama?

Jim - no question at all. Kim has caused the death of an estimated 400K or more of his own citizens in prisons and millions through famine. Hugo doesn't hold a candle. World would be a better place without either.

There you go again! Wanting to be the worlds policemen. Screw him , let the Venezuelens do what they want with him.

tonybeeerm

Nuke em ? People like you are a danger to themselves and a greater one to the world. You need help.

References to Marxist / Socialist with regard to Chavez are generally not applicable. However, misuse of the terms by the brutal Soviet style dictatorships has supplied material for mantra in this country for the past 70 years. Think McCarthy. Since then, the term socialism has been deliberately used in a derogatory fashion throughout the western countries and particularly in the U.S. Chavez is a demagogue who prays on the needs and fears of the lower classes of his country to keep his position of power. The U. S. bashing he participates in is another element of the demagoguery. He is holding the U. S. as an enemy and seems to have convinced enough that the U. S. is responsible for all of their troubles. As iouonboard says, "It's all about Chavez."

Yes, the term socialism has been used in a derogatory fashion, just as it should be. The socialists have good intentions, but socialism requires turning control of your life over to the government. In the socialist utopia, it is by the government's benevolent hand that we subsist. And make no mistake, if the socialists have their way, there will still be an elite priviledged class, while the rest of us take whatever the government deems we are worthy of. The biggest parallel between Hugo Chavez and the socialist (leftist) movement in the U.S., is that both think they know what's best for the citizenry, rather than the citizens themselves. That arrogance will hopefully keep the leftists in the minority for a long time...

Do Hollywood liberals still support Chavez.?

He's just another Mussolini or Hitler.

"Think McCarthy. Since then, the term socialism has been deliberately used in a derogatory fashion throughout the western countries and particularly in the U.S"

Thank you old, there are too few people entirely that realize this.

No kg that isn't what socialism is

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources -from wikipedia

And you illustrate Old Physicians point perfectly

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence -from wikipedia

Unless you can point to specific evidence that supports the first definition.

Protip: GM doesn't count the government took partial ownership to prevent it's collapse and ensure it would be able to continue doing business due to fears that it would could cause a collapse in manufacturing.

When will Chavez be asked to speak at Burkley or some other college that finds these type of people "inspiring"? You ever notice the quality list of individuals asked to speak at graduation events at some of these locations? Pretty much if you are a vocal anti-American advocate you can rest assure that an American higher education establishment will pay money to get their ear full of wise wisdom. Either that or some criminal that claims to be wrongfully accused usually a person charged with killing a police officer or along the same lines.

Thankyou Dosh for clarifying ther term "socialism". Agreed, most people do not have a clear understanding if what it is, and how it is normally implemented.

Furthermore, if my conservative friends wish to lash out publically against American socialism, then why haven't they ideologically dissented against Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, welfare programs, federal grant programs, etc. etc.???

My definition of socialism is simply thus: the collection of resources by the many in order to provide services for the same.

So, if you think about it, the very intrinsic nature of government is largely socialistic in that we all (well, most) pay taxes so that we can all reap the benefits of government when we need it.

Or, if it is easier to consider it on a municipal scale, your property taxes are collected comprehensively so that your town or city can pay for paving roads, collecting your trash every week, educating our children, policing our streets and fighting fires, etc.

All of this is, essentially, socialism. How many older, conservative adults decry anything they pertain to socialism, but are happily utilizing their SS and Medicare every month? And on that note, if Medicare works so well for our seniors (btw, I'm a doctor and the vast majority of my Medicare patients are pleased with the benefit) and it's not considered socialism, then why can't we nationalize it for everyone and not have it contain the stigma of 1930's Germany?

Does this make sense to anyone?? And why is socialism such a bad thing after all? Has anyone bothered to really think about what it would mean for our country? Many people seem to have the impression that it would lead to fascism or an authoritarian state, but this is false. Socialism is an economic entity, not a governmental one. In fact, I could argue that our country is turning more fascistic and authoritarian every day despite not implementing any new socialistic tendencies, or regardless which party leads the current and past administrations.

WHat everyone seems to be missing is whether or not the USA has the backbone to tell this guy to shove it....but oil is a huge profit maker in this country...and I have a feeling that Washington is too much in the back pockets of big oil to do anything. Just as with the banking systems of this country,,,lobbyist run Washington and this country ...

You have it Ivan, tell him to shove it, boot the their ambassador out, shut off Citgo's ability to sell fuel here in the US. Then, put Russia and China on alert, he's their problem now and let Columbia and Brazil take care of their back yard. We need to stop putting up with this uneducated despot once and for all. Sooner or later the people will take him out old school style

ottm017- You mention that we shouldn't have to "put up" with Chavez anymore. But please tell me, excluding his blustering, petulant rhetoric, what exactly has Chavez done to America that has you so upset?

People in this country get so inflamed over political issues but often fail to understand exactly what is going on behind the scenes, or why certain leaders are constantly demonized in our mainstream media.

Hey, I think the guy is crazy too, but that doesn't mean we need to "take him out old school style". Ever wonder WHY he feels the way he does about the U.S.?? Ever consider the economic devastation we have wreaked in South America as a result of our support of the IMF and BIS policies? Look it up, listen to the pragmatic things Chavez says, not the childish rantings, and you may see there's more to the story than what we are being told.

Indy, do you have any fears over socialism? Do you see a risk that we may have a population who will become entitlement driven and that the income to fund many social programs will no longer support the programs? SS and medicare would be fine if we adjusted the programs to reflect changes in cost/taxes to keep it balanced. But when we become overdrawn, what do you do? Ireland, Spain and Greece are good examples that demonstrates a country overdrawn.

I would love to be given a change to not pay SS tax and invest it myself- the govt does a POOR job managing the money I contribute. As for medicare, many painful decisions will have to be made to keep it solvent- some of this will felt by providers, patients and taxpayers. Today, nobody want to pay so the day of reckoning is coming. It is a shame that what America great (hard work, creative thinking, passion of education, self-sacrifice) has been replaced with entitlement.

When we are self glorifying and self centered, we reap what we sow: good and bad.

Nuke him? That's a bit much don't you think? We don't like one guy so we should bring everyone around him to 10,000 degrees? Nice. I think it's time we stop making suggestions like this.

The easiest way to get rid of this gnat on our collective ass is to quit buying his oil. Better yet, just use less oil produced abroad period. If we can cut how much we use, the price will fall, and save all of us money. We need to look for alternatives and we need to use our own resources.

And enough with the teabagger comments. Everyone you disagree with is not a teabagger. Get some new material.

Actually, what will happen is easily predictable. Obama bowed to Chavez once, he'll do it again. It's important to him that the thugs of the world like him.

On the other hand, it would give Obama an opportunity to further screw up our economy. Imagine what would happen to the price of oil if we couldn't import from Venezuela? So, I guess this is a tough decision after all.

No fears over socialism, Atlas, considering I believe our SS and Medicare programs have worked just fine since their inceptions. The financial problem we face, however, is that the programs were solvent for many decades into the future until the trust funds were pillaged by our legislators to fund other pork programs. This is precisely the reason why they have become underfunded. It has not been an issue of inadequate taxation or cost-effectiveness, it is purely administrative.

Now, I understand by your moniker that you are likely an Ayn Rand reader, so is it safe to assume that you subscribe to the ideology of Objectivism and Rand's persecution of all social programs? I agree that investing our own funds MAY be better managed than our government's actions, but it also results in the possibility of losing everything on the markets. You might make out far better, of course, but some undoubtedly will lose their entire life savings in subsequent recessions and thus become "wards" of the state that Objectivists frequently speak out against.

Now, most people would reasonably agree with you in that hard work and perseverance are paramount to success in a capitalist society. And yes, there will always be those who will seek to "play the system" and live on welfare. But to simply assume that people on government assistance are lazy, shiftless, and "entitled" is pre-judgemental. I live in Maine, which has one of the least restrictive welfare policies in the country. We argue this issue all the time. There are certainly people who need not be on assistance, but to remove altogether the social safety nets that we have built would create chaos and devastation, especially in these times.

Socialism is not something to be feared, but rather a tool to be used appropriately by government. It is also not just for poor people, but used by all Americans. The problem, I find, lies in exactly how socialism is implemented, and what processes are created to insure that we are using these funds effectively without waste. But that, my friend, is a government administrative issue as well, not an ideological one.

Yes, we should make some cuts to those programs. The difference between what we should have and how socialism generally ends up, is control of those decisions about how resources are divided. If "the people" are making those decisions, it's not socialism. If the government is making those decisions it's the villianized socialism.

Basically no version of "socialism" has managed to allocate power equitably. It can't, politicians will always get corrupted by power as long as they can make decisions w/o direct public participation. At the same time the public shouldn't be required to have degrees in law in order to do that participation.

Therefore the only equitable way is through small, limited government and no socialism, just personal responsibility. Also power can't be allowed to concentrate, specifically corporations shouldn't be able to act like super-citizens. Well that's my brainstorm on it anyways.... feel free to discuss.

Her's where I think the confusion is coming in, you guys are confusing social issues for socialism.

In order to implement socialism we would have to every business annexed by the government. That has been tried and it has failed everytime because greed and corruption are inherent human flaws.

Social issues are addressing problems that we have decided we cannot allow to fester. The war on drugs for instance is a social issue.

We have welfare because we decided that our country was too great to allow it's citizens to go hungry when they fall on hard times. We have Social Security because our country is to great to allow the retirees to be reduced to paupers. We have Medicaid because our country is too great to allow medical services to be reserved for only those who can afford it.

This is using government to administer civic responsibility on problems too large for any other solution. The only other option is to ignore these problems, let them fester and grow, and in the process damn our souls because we could have done something about it.

Bounty scroll up in this thread, read the definition of socialism I posted.

To Dave:

You need to get your facts straight !!

Dosh, I did and I agree with it as the idealistic definition of socialism. Basically the point I was trying to get across is that "cooperative management" is not possible across 300 million people. If the people are given control, they will not cooperate across the board. It's not possible.

To Indy - you need to take your meds!

To Dave and others of such kind:

Obviously you have no consideration in this blogging section for opinions of others that do not follow your so called line of thinking when you blatantly write public derogatory and inflammatory remarks about the writer. That action is a perfect example of how we get into wars as-well- as a remark from a self righteous Right Winger so often heard in D.C. nowadays.

Bounty it is the only definition of Socialism. The one in current use in this thread was designed in the 50s to automatically shut down conversation and discredit your opponent. It's a hold over from a very nasty time in our history.

As to your point with cooperative management, you are right, and that is why there are no sane Socialists in the US trying to bring it here.

One simple question for all to think about:

If socialism is so wonderful, why has it never worked?

Socialism is nothing but the capitalism of the lower classes.-Oswald Spengler

Does this idiot really believe 100,000 rifles would stop us...if we wanted to invade Venezuela? As far as I am concerned, he can keep his oil...I never buy from any company that get their oil from chavez...the sooner Venezuelan's grow some balls and cap this little dictator, the better.

No kg that isn't what socialism is

Dosh - I wasn't trying to define socialism. I was laying out what I believe will be the ultimate result of the implementation of socialist policies. The proponents of socialism see government as the vehicle to implementation. Once implemented, will government go away? If not, then my opinion as outlined above is correct.

I wish there was some way to have the kind of society that socialists dream of, but it's just not going to happen. There's always going to be greedy, power-hungry people who will exploit and take advantage of anyone or anything. Which is why, given the choice, I will take a society of limited government, where people take responsibility for their individual lives and circumstances.

But I do appreciate your thoughtful remarks.

Well thank you but you're missing the point. The people you are referring to aren't socialist. They do not want socialism. You are using it in the classic McCarthy sense, as a pejorative to slander and discredit your opponents by tieing what they argue for to a movement that america still harbors deep fear and resentment towards.

You are twisting and halting discussion by continuing to refer to those on the left as socialists.

we do not need his oil, we have plenty of our own. OHHHHH thats right we can not drill for it. We want to keep it in the ground, so we listen to his garbage mouth and just let the Arabs push oil up to $5.00 a gallon. When will the little light go off in this administrations little brain. Tell your adversaries that you are not going to drill here any more and guess what?????? the price of oil shoots up. WOW what a discovery, please tell OBAMA

To Nighthawk and Ben.

Don't you guys know sarcasm when you see it? Like I'm seriously in favor of using nukes. Get a grip folks. You take these things way too far.

Indy-You asked a few questions and I will try to answer in the way that many Americans feel.

1. Socialism attempts to make all equal in all aspects. While many would claim this is not a bad thing, despite the way it is worded in our constitution, not all men are created equal. Should we all have equal rights? Absolutely. But anyone who works his butt off or is naturally gifted at something and uses the hard work or natural gift to become successful, should be rewarded as such. Consequently, the man who sits around and wants to be lazy should not have the same rewards.

2. Socialism is such a bad thing because as stated earlier, people are not rewarded equally for their contributions. You, as a doctor, probably make a higher wage than I do as a Project Manager in the construction industry. Now after 40 years of work, if you contribute more than I do monetarily and our payouts are the same, what is the incentive for future generations to want to do anything other than the least they have to do. There is none. There is no reason for an individual to stand out.

3. What it would mean for this country is mediocrity. Already children's activities are turning more and more socialistic in view. All the kids have to be equal and recieve the same opportunity. My son played baseball for several years and was quite good. The league he played in didn't take score, didn't track stats, had no year ending tournament, no mvp and at the end of the year all the players got the same trophy. All of this because every kid had to be equal. But they weren't equal, some kids were better than others and deserved the opportunity to excel. Not to say that there was anything wrong with the kids who weren't as good, many had other talents in other sports or academia, but in baseball they weren't all equal. My son quit playing baseball for this reason.

A personm should be rewarded for their gains and their sacrifices. They should not have to share so that someone who has less can have the same amount without the same amount of work. If you want more, then work harder. If you want more then you earn more. If you want to people to respect you you have to do things to earn that respect. It is the same principle.

Ok, Dosh, if there's something I'm missing, please enlighten me. If the people I'm referring to aren't socialists, what are they? If they don't want socialism, what do they want?

To Little Davey-1384240

The childish naivety behind your arrogant thinking with name calling in this blogging is pathetic at best and "full of hot air!!"

To kg14051:

Your comment at the very end says:

"The biggest parallel between Hugo Chavez and the socialist (leftist) movement in the U.S., is that both think they know what's best for the citizenry, rather than the citizens themselves. That arrogance will hopefully keep the leftists in the minority for a long time.."

The above remarks sure sound like a perfect fit for the Right Wingers, who think they can buy DC Politicians, tell people how to vote, start a war for no reason other than lies (Iraq), and create a huge deficit, and the biggest ever Recession. Yes, they thought they knew it all !! "There are none so blind as those who won't see."

Inde - Independent in name only. Spouting someone elses agenda with no thought of your own. That's what it looks like. Unimpressive.

You should really try thinking about moving on.

Chavez first came to notice when he was a Colonel in the Army. He is actually following in the footsteps of many right-wing and left-wing dictators. Chavez enjoys poking the USA because he knows there is nothing we can or will do about it which can in any way hurt him. As long as Chavez keeps passing around the income from shipments of oil to the USA, he will keep enough people in debt to him personally so as to continue in power. A revolution will not happen unless somebody gets too greedy and fails to pay off the working class folks.

As for the ambassador, there is a long history of countries rejecting ambassadors. Its no big deal, as far as I'm concerned. Obama will just find another nominee and things will move on as before.

To Little Davey-1384240:

You certainly are having a serious, childish, struggle, and I suggest that you follow your own advice of moving on.

Folks, and particularly Dave-1384240:

These blogs should offer substantive input to the thinking process related to the article. Engaging in a "name calling" routine does not contribute. It only serves to demonstrate the possible existence of personal misgivings and fears.

Please make an effort to consider the issues and offer thoughts and information that will enlighten all of the contributors to this blog rather than making snide remarks about other bloggers.

It's obvious that losing diplomatic ties with the US is no real sweat off Venezuela's butt. Economically, the US has become a nation of middlemen. We produce next to nothing now, and we're basically good for nothing more than beating up anyone we don't like. If Chavez feels that the guy we chose is disrespectful to his country, he has every right to bar him from the country. It is his land.

And dosh27935, socialism is the idea of government ownership (key word: social). The definition you posted was the idea behind Communism - community "ownership" much like what many tribes in the Iroquois nation had.

The principal problem with the various arguments here regarding the concept of socialism relates to expectations. The first thing we need to deal with is the concept of survival. As humans, up to the present, we have done rather well on the basics. In other words, and again on a world average, we are more successful than any other species larger than a dog. However, the principal reason for this success has been a combination of cooperation AND competition. Pure competition is effective but very sensitive to resource availability. As the resources become scarce, pure competition usually degenerates into conflict. Pure cooperation, could likely lead to stagnation, in that innovation has historically been associated with competition. Stagnation, in and of itself, is not entirely bad but would not contribute to the type of progress we have become accustomed to.

Now we need to consider the more complex sides of the argument. General Electric did not build the huge, engines powering our jumbo jets from the designs and inputs/thoughts of one person. Microsoft employees thousands of developers to create and support their software systems. Cooperation is the key word in these successes just as it was and still is in the successful development of civilizations across the world.

Throughout recorded history and even before, each different group of humans worked as a team within their relatively well defined groups in relation to other groups and with regard to their environmental challenges. The concept of socialism has been so severely distorted that relating it to that of a team is not understood any more. However, consider the basic precept of the Marxist Utopian goal of pure cooperation in relation to the processes and actions on a modern footfall field. The team forms on the field and each member (player) has a task to perform if the "play" is to be successful. But wait,, is this not "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as presented by Karl. If the Quarterback can't throw, if the running back can't catch, if the center can't snap the ball, etc, etc, there is no success. (Each according to their ability) Game winning is the reward. Is this not given to all of the team members regardless of what they specifically did during the game??? Oh! Oh! The sense of the WIN also permeates the fan base as well. (Each according to his need) How is this not a small sample of the Marxist Utopia. Physically, the mechanics of the socialism as imagined by Marx can only work in small groups. Larger populations >2000 will need a mix of competition and cooperation to succeed. In larger populations, some of the features of utopian socialism remain valid. These are the features that preclude the inordinately poor from total devastation and preclude the inordinately wealthy from consuming/controlling all of the resources. Again, with extended populations, it is unlikely any particular individual will arbitrarily volunteer to restrict their consumption. This is where government can contribute to the overall success of the "team" and, therefore, of the species. Government is in a position to assist this process through various mechanisms, but only if it responds to and follows the will of the majority of the people who "allow" it to exist.

To Little Davey-1384240

Unfortunately Little Davey has so little room in his vocabulary to say anything more educated, other than his usual trite, pejorative comments of insignificant substance to others not agreeing with his opinion, which so typical of a childish comment.

Trite is the lifeblood of those who don't understand or choose not, as the case may be, the complex issues we face as a population, (oh, species endeavouring on continued survival).

To Old Physicist:

Great comment for Little Davey, and another way of saying it is: "There are none so blind as those who won't see!"

What I am trying to say here is we are so consumed with the misrepresentation of the term socialism, we miss the real and productive use of the feature in modern society.

I think we are too far into the era of despots using "socialism" as the name of their "people first" movements to grab and keep power. We have Cuba, North Korea, and now Venezuela to thank for this. Not mentioning, of course, China and Russia, and their associated socialist dictatorships. In that sense, again, I use socialist because that is what THEY call it, but not what it really is.

When we put together a benefit that helps old people from all walks of life live at least in survival mode until they die, we call it "Social Security". That is a socialist program. It is a GOOD way to keep the very old from falling into deep poverty. When Chavez nationalizes whole industries, and pumps the money into his military, calling is a socialist transformation, he's simply using the term to label an authoritarian military buildup.

OK, semantics aside, the ultimate point here is: there is no single "ism" that is the ultimate answer to all of society's ills. Nobody has it "all wrong" or "all right." Those who don't see at least that much are the main part of the problem.

I haven't bought any gas from Citgo since 2006, there aren't even any Citgo stations around here anymore, no one would buy from them...Petro Express buys gas from them...but, they are not owned by Citgo, and I've heard they are going to quit selling Citgo gas, because of bad publicity.

I can see why that hippie whackjob Sean Penn would be the target of such ire, but what of Murtaugh, I may have misses something? Does this explain the dissapearance of Danny Glover from film over the last few years? Has he been brainwashed by a south american dictator? What happened to Riggs and Murtaugh? It looks like they both went nuts..

Randy-2190191,

Please stop insulting "Hippies"!

Ed...I agree, why would you want to insult hippies, by associating them with Penn?

Sgt. Murtaugh has become quite the liberal...I can't even watch the old Lethal Weapon movies anymore...I can't concentrate on the plot...all I can think about is their stupid political views.

Hey, Hollywood...when will you realize that we don't give a crap about your opinion on politics...if you want to make money on movies, keep your stupid political views to yourselves...

I hope what you wrote will also apply to dictators/monarchs who are US allies.

LOL, Chávez is the reason I only purchase Citgo fuel.

I stopped buying Citgo gas several months ago. I know that such a move, if practiced a widespread scale, would hurt innocent station owners, many of them small business people. But, as WellSeasoned pointed out, the owners could switch to another oil company.

Hey Hank, I imagine you also only buy cartel candy from Mexico!

If anybody knows Hank Missenheim, shoot him!

I stopped buying Citgo gas several months ago. I know that such a move, if practiced a widespread scale, would hurt innocent station owners, many of them small business people. But, as WellSeasoned pointed out, the owners could switch to another oil company.

You need to do a little research. Just because the sign says Citgo it doesn't mean there's Citgo gas in the tanks. They all buy gas from wherever they can get it at a good price.

While we are boycotting Citgo, it's a good time to remind everyone that the "Joe For Oil" campaign (with smiling Joe Kennedy as its pimp) that provides free heating oil to American people is backed by Hugo Chavez. "Joe for Oil" is a classic attempt to "win American hearts" in support of Chavez' government , making "the tough decisions" with respect to Venezuela even tougher for our elected officials. It is no surprise that Joe Kennedy is part of it.

@Nick - you are correct. Just because the sign says Citgo.... There may not be Citgo gas in the tanks. But Citgo collects some of the proceeds (you must pay a royalty to use their brand), which then come under the control of nutcase Chavez.

Boycotting Citgo will do no good. China will be happy to buy up all of the Venezuelan oil that Chavez can pump out. The only real answer is to research alternate fuel sources so that we're not dependent on the whims of South American and Middle Eastern governments, or any other oil suppliers anywhere in the world. Until we declare our independence from fossil fuels, we will continue to be held hostage to fluctuating prices, artificially created supply shortages, and ever increasing demands for oil.

Before anyone gets too feisty about the oil thing, please keep in mind that the large petroleum companies receive their shipments of crude oil from all over the world, including the entire Middle East, Russia, Argentina, and yes, Venezuela to name a few. No matter which oil company you are buying from, you are undoubtedly indirectly supporting the economy of several nations that we Americans have been taught to despise.

This is the cold reality of the situation. In addition, Chavez was actually responsible for donating millions of barrels of crude oil to American households a few years ago when the barrel prices went through the roof and our own government was not implementing any legislative actions to stave off households that could not afford heating oil for the winter.

Give me a minute and I'll try to cite a reference for you all.

Here's an article about the free heating oil:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/797/heating-oil-chavez-venezuela

mcbarker and Indy Patriot are on point. Until we wean ourselves off the oil teat, we are not making any difference where we buy our oil. Just say no!

Indy Patriot,

Well put!

Chavez, may be a bit loony, but the scum that we have supported in Central and South American for the last Century make him look like a Boy Scout.

The power structure in the US and US corporations are scared to death of men like Chavez.

He has successfully wrested control of Venezuelan Oil fields from greedy corporations and now uses that money to support new schools, anti-poverty measures, etc.

The US power structure just hopes Americans don't notice how successful these programs have been.

Imagine if US citizens decided that citizens should actually benefit from the exploitation of our natural resources instead of turning that cash over to the aristocracy!

Gosh maybe we could cut into our DEBT!

Indy, there is a solution to all the money we spend on foreign oil...first, move closer to your job...I lived 60 miles from my job...now, I live a little over a mile away, I use a tank of gas every 6 to 8 weeks (my Toyota gets 36 miles to a gallon)...in good weather...I ride my bike to work; second, buy cars that get better gas mileage, ditch the SUV's that get 20 to 25 miles to a gallon, and other low mileage vehicles. I can't afford an alternate fuel car, until the prices go down, I will not buy one.

Boycotting Citgo will do no good

Exactly. They have a vast market for oil globally. I wonder why we think we can control a world market. China will buy all Venezuela has to offer.

I can understand why ExxonMobile would have capitalist incentive to attack one of its competitors, Citgo, but where do Wackenhut and IranContra fit in?

Steve, Time to wake up and make up and develop some common sense-you are the government. read the Constitution!

Roger

Wake up you are only the government till those you elected get to Washington, then you are nothing for another 2 years

gotta say right on ...know where you are wanted.

how do they expect diplomatic relations to improve if you send someone they do not like.pretty obvious here

I don't think they'll want anyone who doesn't generate wealth for them. When it comes to civil structure the U.S. and Venezuela are different in opinions.

I think Steve's point is a serious one, but I don't agree. The problem is it looks a lot like Chavez will disqualify a foreign diplomat just for saying something he doesn't like. So, how are countries that disagree with Chavez supposed to name an ambassador at all? Chavez knows this nominee is no worse than any other. For him, ever the drama queen, this is really domestic political theater. To avoid escalation that would benefit Chavez more than anyone else, the US will probably name someone else. But this is only the latest in a long series of boorish provocations from Chavez. One does have to wonder how many more will slide by.

Gring8, I agree that this is likely political posturing by Chavez, since in reality ALL governments pull this baloney from time to time, including our own.

But my counterpoint to your post is that our government would also deny any ambassadorship that included someone who our government did not trust, or felt would not create a solid diplomatic relationship. In fact, ambassadors come and go all the time around sovereign circles. Most of the time we do not know about these changes, nor care in the least.

In my opinion, it would simply be easier for our government to say "fine, whatever", and try another diplomat. I would like to tell our government that sometimes it is easier to simply shrug one's shoulders and not fight or argue over simple matters, rather than be obstinate and create unnecessary friction. I understand someone on this thread will likely "inform" me that it is Chavez who is being abrasive in this matter, and you would be correct. But that doesn't justify our government doing the same for the sake of saving face and appearing "tough".

Indy again I agree with you. However, in the political atmosphere we have in the States right now if the administration did the right thing and simply pulled this ambassador and assigned another. The OBAMA Admin would be ATTACKED in our own bit of Republican Political Theater.

Not an easy situation for Obama, do to our own internal problems!

Daniel Estulin would make the best ever ambassador. He has the trust of Chavez, but Estulin is a very passionate patriotic supporter of democracy as demonstrated by books that he has written such as "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group" and "The Shadow Masters."

MANY are descendants of the Nazi Regime ?? Now I know you have no clue as to what you are talking about. What maybe a 1000 fled to all parts of SA or 2000 and that is what you call MANY??? you are an unread fool. And thats why they dislike us? By default or tradition ??? hahahah go read some history

His speeches sound better in the original german. ;)

hahaha gotta say spain doesnt like us neither do nazi's no wonder we arent having any luck

Because we have, in the past, succeeded so well in nation building. When will you understand that every time we have tried to do this we have failed in the long run. Look at Iraq, Iran most of South and Central American. We should stay out of another country's internal politics. We cannot be the worlds policeman and just because our system works for us does not mean it will translate to others.

Jim Hawk is correct we should work to assist the people of Venezuela regain thier democracy.

Here we go again. Just because we have a democracy it doesn't mean that everyone should have it. Our democracy sucks. We elect representatives who work for their own best interest and we delusion ourselves to believe they work for us. Very few people are happy with our government yet we continue to elect the same old re-threads.

Stu B, gee....Lets look at Nation Building. How about the Marshall Plan that kept Europe from falling back into totalitarianism. Yup, one the NAZIs were out, the only power was the Communists. Thank the USA for providing aid to prop up the weak democracies.

Oh, yeah, lets not forget Asia either. Japan and South Korea jump out as obvious success stories, but what about places like the Philipines? Lots of other little countries that owe there democracies to the US helping them "Nation Build".

so many people are down on the USA. I don't understand it. We do nothing and Japanese and German fanatics kill millions. We try to help out and all we get is BS about, "Look, look the US is not perfect...so lets hate them..." What a bunch of BS.

If you mean the former, it only means we set him up for the job early on and then he'll hang out in a Florida jail getting sexual favors from inmates until his requests to the Vatican go through.

I remember when Noriega went in and became a born-again. It's like the people magazine version of an apology for a screwup for idiots. Most people get born right the first time.

election year? Chavez has made arrangements so there will never be another election year - he can only be removed by the people of Venezuala, and only by force.

Most people have absolutely no clue what you mean, or what you're implying. Sad, but true. I agree with you, though.

>We're smarter than you. And we're not insane.

Then you don't work for the CIA.

until he's a Jackson Pollack......hilarious!

hey Paul. Do us all a favor and go down there and take care of it yourself. You seem mighty anxious to use those guns. Go on and show us what a big hero you are.

If I was anxious to use the guns, I wouldn't have suggested the CIA use them. Everyone has their own jobs. Chavez is a dictator, the CIA is supposed to kill and overthrow him, I'm supposed to nail your old lady and you service the homeless under viaducts for food scraps. Everyone does their bit.

hahah you know what for a plan ticket and a bag of really good weed id do it then return to show you how to nail his old lady

Aww god-, you take internets so seriously. It's ADORABLE. You're a monument to impotent rage.

First of all the CIA's job was never originally to kill people at all, only to gather intelligence. THEN they became a quasi-military agency, sometime in the 70's, I believe. This is exactly the wrong methodology in my opinion, because you never want the people who are digging up the information to be the ones pulling the trigger whenever they feel like it. That is way too much power, and it directly contradicts our Constitutional virtue of "due process" of law.

And please read my post above at #1.18 concerning calling for his death, Paul.

Gee Paul, glad to see you're showing us how intelligent you are. And hey, have fun nailing my "old lady" as she died three years ago.

> How much Money does the US spend in his country

Roughly 15 dollars. We have to go up to 50 to officially cut ties with him.

Gee, you make the point, with which I agree, how much Chavez and Obama are alike.

Right on, Jerry. And now the rich don't even try to hide it anymore. Why should they have to, they have unlimited support from the Tea Party who says "just let the cards fall as they will, God will take care of us."

Yep, you libbies do hate the people that expect you to pay your own way, don't you?

In Chile the price of gasoline is roughly $6.50 per gallon, with the dollar currently down. If the price of crude goes to $100/barrel, the USA may see $5 per gallon, then wait for the screams.

commie

Hey, it isn't our fault the 'man' is a royal douche. We are American, he is anti-American. Sorry but we ain't gonna be friends. On the plus side, congratulations on scoring some obviously awesome smoke.

Sorry, NothingNew, posters don't recognize your sarcasm.

Where is the evidence for an invasion of Caracas ? Did I miss some Wikileak?

Isn't it funny how some "people" -- "know" the USA has been "threatening" (whatever that means) to attack/invade Venezuela for nearly 60 years. So, hubert, why hasn't anything happened for the past 60 years?
LMAO!

Craig, try looking into the attempted coup d'etat of 2002 that was allegedly (likely) supported by the CIA. Chavez was much more benevolent before this event and Venezuela was much more democratic until that point. I think he's a political grandstander as much as the next person, but that is hardly confined to Venezuela. Also look for the documentary "The Revolution will not be Televised". I can't say that Chavez would be any less adversarial had the coup not taken place, but it is interesting to wonder.

what a country of great christians we have become. im sure that most if not all of the persons on this blog are christians- especially those calling for an assination. maybe all the countries in the world should do the same. lets just kill all the leaders of the world, and their replacements...

wow great idea!! mormons first followed by born agains (most are former junkies) then lets anglicans episcopalians do we have pagans muslims next think so .. let go bible times warfare on all there asses..thats right kids kill them all after all if you have read the bible thats what it commands in a time of war ..every man woman and child must die...moron

No, forget targeting religious (or other) "beliefs".

Just kill all the leaders/politicians. Look how much that would raise the overall decency/ethics of the world population.

ok

why not nuke 'em? No muss, no fuss and all is good.

Nuke? Here is why not.

A) International politics. Any country doing that is going to be in a world of diplomatic hurt, the U.S. included, Super Power or not.

B) There are a lot of innocent civilians that would die. Just because Chavez is a tin pot dictator, and tyrant, and his regime has undemocratically (via rigged elections, thuggery, and other nefarious means) seized total control of power in the country, does not mean that the entire country is full of people consenting to his evil.

*If* it were to come to violence, a scalpel would be better than a sledgehammer, a single snipers bullet a lot more effective and efficient than a nuclear detonation - and a lot easier to hide in terms of our international meddling.

Many other countries are in "diplomatic hurt". No problem.

Agree, a sniper (or a few thousand) could do wonders.

Jesus H. Christ. A joke folks. That's all it was. No humor in these places.

right. Like the estimated 20M Russians slaughtered during Operation Barbarossa. But they were commies, so they don't count.