Chavez to buy 1 million guns for distribution

[WMS]

Of course these guns are to protect him from the United States.  They could not possibily be distributed exclusively  to his political supporters to intimdate the opposition.  After all Citizen Hugo is the sole beacon of truth in South America.  Whatever.

Another duplicitous ploy by Chavez in his quest to conslidate absolute power.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yup. Good to see Chavez is spending his money on alleviating poverty.

[WMS]

Of course these guns are to protect him from the United States.  They could not possibily be distributed exclusively  to his political supporters to intimdate the opposition.  After all Citizen Hugo is the sole beacon of truth in South America.  Whatever.

Another duplicitous ploy by Chavez in his quest to conslidate absolute power.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yup. Good to see Chavez is spending his money on alleviating poverty.

Hah, did you have a look at the budget Bush just proposed?

Bush thinks that you fight poverty by fighting poors.

Chavez' entire bloody political platform was based on oil revenues not being fairly distributed to the poor. I find it striking that he cares more for equipping his military with Russian gear than in living up to his campaign promises. And yes, it does appear to have hurt his standing among the Venezuelan poor...probably not enough to cause trouble, yet.

[WMS]

Chavez' entire bloody political platform was based on oil revenues not being fairly distributed to the poor. I find it striking that he cares more for equipping his military with Russian gear than in living up to his campaign promises. And yes, it does appear to have hurt his standing among the Venezuelan poor...probably not enough to cause trouble, yet.

The man faces potential attack from the Empire!  He needs a little defense spending.

Oh please. We ain't gonna attack him. If that half-assed coup attempt was the best we could do - and from my sources it was kinda lethargically backed by some factions of the U.S. government in the area and kinda lethargically not supported by other factions of the U.S government in the area and not even on the radar of the main administration, mostly being a local effort - we certainly aren't going to invade. This is all about deliberately trying to provoke a confrontation with U.S. to whip up nationalism to stay in power. As the sane posters have said - YoMartin and ag - Chavez isn't quite rational, either.

Oh, all you leftists do know Chavez is good friends with the Iranian mullahs, including their hateful President, right?

The replies by leftist posters on this issue so illustrate why I will never, ever, be on the political Left.

[WMS]

What president is?

Oooookay...I'm not quite sure what fallacy that is, but it's one of them...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So good to know where the left wing stands.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am both sane and patriotic, unlike you - who is an outright traitor to the United States of America - or Progress, whose foreign policy is loony. Leftist foreign policy is irrational to the extreme in its continual 'blame America first' attitude towards everything as well as shockingly naive about the intentions of America's enemies. Chavez considers himself an enemy of the U.S., and did so long before the 2002 attempted coup against him! I treat him as an enemy. You on the left cheer him on. Bloody hell.

I will invoke the great poster angus now, who 'gets it'. Now angus and I disagree on this and that, but we agree about nationalism very much...which is more than I can say about a sociopathic traitor such as yourself.

There's also the matter of nationalism.  Every time I hear a foreigner say he likes Kerry better than Bush (which is pretty much every time a foreigner opens his mouth; I should know, I live with one)  it strengthens my resolve to vote for Bush.  That fact alone (that others, not those to whom the USA is number one, but others, want Bush to burn in Hell) should send up a thousand red flags in your mind.  Mull that over a long time.

What you have today is a Republican telling you what Republicans are about.  And not just any republican.  A former member of the Massachusetts Revolutionary Workers Party Republican.  A Sierra Club member Republican.  A Republican who voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and in 1996.  Now, here's my take on the GOP:

The underlying characteristic that has always defined the GOP, since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856, is Nationalism.  That's it.  Quite simple, really.  In practical terms, in some eras the GOP is more "liberal" than the democrats, and in some eras the GOP is more "conservative" than the democrats.  But always more nationalistic.  Best way to define the Democrats (and I was a democrat waaayyyy longer than I have been a Republican) is to define the GOP, and then define the dems relative to the GOP.  What's the counter to Nationalism?  Well, it depends on the era.  Actually, on the economic circumstances of the people in the GOP.  In 1856, the opposite of Nationalism was Sectionalism, of course.  Now, the GOP is still more nationalistic.  Just like Lincoln, who thoroughly enjoyed wrapping himself up in God and the Flag, so does Bush.  ("Mine eyes have seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord.  He is trampling through the vintage where the grapes of WRATH are stored.")  Yeah, boss.  God and Glory.  Don't mistake it, the GOP is and has always been the more nationalistic of the two parties.  This is precisely why most foreigners like the Dems better, and precisely why it takes about the same number of generations to "acclimate" that it does to start producing GOP voters in any immigrant family.  According to the US department of the interior, about three.

More recently, counters to Nationalism have been Internationalism.  But whatever is fashionable as a counter to Nationalism, there is still Nationalism.  And the GOP is the party of American Nationalism.  Unlike most republicans, I do not become consternated when I learn that most foreigners like the dems better.  This is because, unlike most republicans, I understand the historical notions that define the GOP and hold us together as a party.  I do not call other republicans ignorant, because I have shared this information with republicans before.  But it is something they often forget.  This is also no surprise, since it is most often the case, at least on TV, radio, print, and in this forum, it is Democrats telling us what Republicans stand for, and Republicans telling us what Democrats stand for. 

I am not telling you that you should believe that US nationalism should inform your vote.  That would be fascism.  I am simply telling you that nationalism is not only greater in one party than in the other, but that it is the very defining characteristic of one party, and not the other.

The definining characteristic of the GOP is, and always was, nationalism.  It has been so since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856.  And the easiest way to define the democrats is to look at whatever counter to nationalism is fashionable at any given moment in history.  In the 1850s and 60s it was sectionalism, nowadays it seems to be internationalism. 

It is a serious mistake to assume that Americans ever divide along the classic Left/Right lines as is done in most contries.  You yourself have asked the pertinent question in a thread you created.  If we divide along Liberal and Conservative lines, why do some poor folks prefer rightists and some rich folks prefer Leftists?  The answer is that we simply don't.  Which party is more economically laissez-faire, and which is more authoritarian-socialist will simply depend on externally imposed circumstances, and is easily identified at any given point in history, but you cannot simply say that Republicans are Right and Democrats are Left and thus it has always been and thus it always will be.  I think there's probably a sinusoidally-varying function that can describe the extreme Left-right swings in the parties, and this function has a very long period, on the order of decades.  But, the definining characteristic of the GOP has not ever changed:  Nationalism.  Think about it, you probably stereotype us as wrapping ourselves up in God and The Flag, right?  Well, that's not far off, nor was it far off in 1860s when that was exactly the way both New York Democrats and Atlanta Democrats stereotyped the GOP then.  And, maybe it was deserved, hell, what would you do, if you were Weird Al Yankovic and you were going to satirize a fight song than began with "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord / He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored / He has loosed the fateful lightening of His terrible swift sword / His truth is marching on."  ?   I mean, that's a lyric just asking to be made fun of by the Democrats. 

Plus ça change, plus ce la même chose.  N'est-ce pas, mon ami?

But, to answer your question, it was before the New Deal.  I only caution you not to make the mistake made by the talking heads on FOX, MSNBC, and the like, who attempt to oversimplify, or to compare American "liberalism" or American "conservatism" with those concepts that are long-established worldwide.

"Twas always thus, and always thus shall be"
     --Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society

The defining characteristic of the GOP is, was, and always has been Nationalism.  Who's more "liberal" or "conservative" or "compassionate" or "progressive" or whatever your adjective-of-the-month is, changes over time.  But nationalism, wrapping oneself up in God and the Flag, has remained constant since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856.

To my greater frustration, I seem to be the only non-historian who understands that the defining characteristic of the GOP since its first national convention in Pittsburgh in 1856 is Nationalism, and that the democrats, though more ancient, are best defined by whatever currently fashionable antithesis of nationalism is the flavor of the decade.  Thus those who are abjectly nationalistic types are republicans, those who are not are democrats, and those who are somewhat nationalistic, but not blindly so, or who feel that certain times (e.g., war) merit nationalism but other times do not, are the quintessential swingers.

The only unflinching, fixed quality of the Republican Party has always been abject nationalism.  And the only fixed quality of the Democrat party, at least since the inception of the GOP in 1856, has been the maintenance of a fashionable counter to nationalism.  (Veriously incarnated as sectionalism, isolationism, multilateralism, and internationalism, depending largely on external factors out of the party's control.)

[WMS]

Red herring

Absolutely not.  He promised to defend his country from George Bush and US Aggression.  Which in today's day and age is a perfectly reasonable demand for a politician to make.  Further WMS claimed that he is somehow breaking the pledge he ran on by spending on defense instead of having a budget that is 100% social services.

I would have quoted you directly replying to me but since you restated it here, well, two birds with one stone...

No, I don't recall the Venezuelan people first voting Chavez into power in 1998...Nope: "The Chávez platform comprised three basic pledges.[1] First, Chávez promised that he would begin his presidency by abolishing Venezuela's old political system, puntofijismo, and opening up political power to independent and third parties. Second, Chávez promised to end corruption. Third, Chávez promised to eradicate poverty in Venezuela." Funny, I don't see "pick a fight with the United States, cozy up to Cuba, Russia, China, Iran, and Iraq, and militarize the country" in there. He was intending to turn hostile to the United States before then, however, he just wasn't open about it in 1998. Oh, yes: "Controversially, foreign banks — including Spain's Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA) and Banco Santander, each the owner of one of Venezuela's largest banks—illicitly funneled millions of dollars into Chávez's campaign.[2][3]" Resist foreign influence, riiiiiight. Yes, this is Wikipedia, but God knows I've posted enough about Venezuela in the past and all the problems with Chavez, and the article seems pretty balanced - all the criticism is coming from "CHAVEZ IS PERFECT!!!" types such as yourself. I will also note that poverty and crime has increased in Venezuela under Chavez's reign despite the HUGE amount of oil revenue his government has been fortunate to receive...that's what happens when you give oil away to Cuba and spend tons on new Russian weaponry. And corruption has, if anything, increased.

Oh, and you are doing wonders validating my points about "blame America first" Leftist foreign policy. Good job.

[WMS]

'Traitor'?  What has that sh**thole ever done for me?

Given you everything. It certainly gave your parents enough money to subsidize your parasitic lifestyle. If you had the balls to follow through on your beliefs you wouldn't return here, now would you?

And you are showing why I so dislike the whole idea of 'cosmopolitanism' that infects certain precincts of your party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, please.  How were doing that in the decades and decades before he showed up?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The sociopathic mind at work. And once again, show some balls and permanently move elsewhere.

Republican adherence to capitalism is a bit iffy of late. In any regard, the Republicans have consistently supported nationalism and capitalism (until recently, and even then we're talking about corporatism) for their existence, especially in the 20th century and onwards. These are not mutually incompatible objectives, and for that matter neither are supporting nationalism and socialism.

[WMS]

"CHAVEZ IS PERFECT!!!" types such as yourself.

To bad you can't read.  I called him a force against democracy.

Then do explain:

What percent of the Chavez's budget is defense spending?
What percent of Bush's budget is defense spending?
How many countries has Chavez invaded?
How many countries has Bush invaded?

I think that both are anti-democratic institutions within their respective countries.

Yes, here's your quote, well, paraphrase, but judging by your previous 4 comments I doubt you mean that, given your placing Chavez above Bush.

Chavez' entire bloody political platform was based on oil revenues not being fairly distributed to the poor.

That would be wrong.  He also promised to protect his country from George W Bush.

And you are on Chavez' side in this, right?

Red herring

Absolutely not.  He promised to defend his country from George Bush and US Aggression.  Which in today's day and age is a perfectly reasonable demand for a politician to make. Further WMS claimed that he is somehow breaking the pledge he ran on by spending on defense instead of having a budget that is 100% social services.

You're pretty damn positive about someone who is an, "anti-democratic institution", as you put it?

[WMS]

Btw, I don't buy this whole "Republican party is the party of nationalism" deal. At some level I'm hesitant to get into a fight about who is more nationalist because nationalism is in general a rather disgusting thing as an ideology.

Discussing which political parties are more nationalist however, is not quite the same thing as discussing who is more nationalist, for political parties by nature are creatures that compete for the majority coalitions sufficient to govern the country. Therefore, they are rather inherently tied to the government and the nation, in a way that ordinary people or insitutions or ideologies or beliefs are not. To say then that one party is more inherently nationalistic may be worthless at the level of policy or ideology, but it does have important implications on party label itself (however important or unimportant that may be). For now, I will treat it as important.

Further, the US is however somewhat different by nature of how late the present population of the nation has come to inhabit it, which presents an opportunity to reflect on how one might interpret 'nationalism' in more than one way, especially when applied to the United States.

In my intuition (and I'm definitely not an expert in political history), the Republican party was in many ways a successor to the Whig party, which was in large part a successor to the Federalist party. Hamilton and the federalists represented political forces that sought to constrain or limit how far the American revolution would go. They favored a strong executive and central goverment. They supported Britain over France. Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans represented political forces that sought to take the American revolution as far as it would go. They favored strong individual rights and an egalitarian society with weak elites. They supported France over Britain.

These preferences then carried over into the second party system. Jackson's Democrats favored horizontal expansion of territory in the south and west. The Whigs favored vertical expansion of industry and modernization. Because of America's territorial geography, the modernizers tend to be associated with New England while the egalitarians tend to be associated with the south. When the Republican party was formed, it was well conscious of this heritage and from the beginning represented the forces of industrialization as well as abolitionism. The emergence of slavery and race as a second political dimension in the early 1850s, however, lasted only for about two decades, while the egalitarian-industrial split continued well into the 20th century. After the defeat of agriculturalism the Democratic party looked toward the urban 'common man' rather than the rural 'common man', and finally began to embrace policies that might be identified with the left, while Republicans continued to represent their traditional interests and finally turned to the modern right after the 1950s.

The common strand here at its most essential level extends well before 1856 to the original distinct factions led by Jefferson and Hamilton. If one views Hamilton's visions of a strong central government and economic industrialization as nationalist, as is plausible based on one's interpretation of nationalism, then the Republican party has indeed often been the more 'nationalist' party.

At every step, however, the Republican party has represented the elites and their forces of vertical expansion, whether they be governmental, industry-based, class-based, or culture-based. But what was the American revolution but a revolution against elites? And what has America stood for over the centuries but freedom from the ancient elites of the old world? On the other hand from the previous paragraph, therefore, if one views Jefferson's visions of maximizing the principles of the American revolution in an egalitarian, rights-based society as nationalist, as is at least equally plausible based on one's interpretation of nationalism, then the Democratic party has been the more 'nationalist' party.

Interesting argument, Beet. I think I will wait and see if angus replies to it, since it is his argument I was quoting.

[WMS]

Yes, much of nationalism (aka the agenda of the powerful) is dependant upon the foolish sacrificing of their interests by the majority of the population.

I see you just don't understand. You wouldn't get it why those who sacrificed themselves on a field in Pennsylvania to protect their fellow citizens from evil are national heroes, nor why - unprompted by any governmental action whatsoever - a shrine of memory was created for them. Pitiful, and sad.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Capitalism is amoral, not immoral. It is inherently neither good nor evil - although you can make the case that it inherently supports liberty - but can be either or both depending on circumstances. But is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, a massive engine of growth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you used the organ between your ears as often as the organ between your legs, you'd have figured out the virtues of investment by now. And of a vasectomy, but that's another topic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, you would consider love of country a 'stupidity'. See my first response in this post. Liberalism can be nationalistic as well, although admittedly it has been infected in some quarters with the idiocy of 'internationalism'. There is a lot of difference between corporatism and capitalism - ask any Libertarian.