Hugo Chavez, fiery Venezuelan leader, dies at 58

[Cor_Cordis]

God Bless you, sir!

Peace be with you and Ephesians.

 

[Walcot]

So am I.

Hahaha! We CAN agree!!!

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Hahaha! We CAN agree!!!

Peace be with you Walcot.

 

[nickfraser]

I had ambivalent feelings towards Chavez. On one hand he was a Marxist, who could be rather negative towards the Church at times. On the other he took a firm stand against US imperialism.

What imperialism is that or is it just a big word and it is the popular thing to be anti American

 

[Walcot]

What imperialism is that or is it just a big word and it is the popular thing to be anti American

Ooooh, let’s not go there again…the dust hasn’t even settled from the last argument…

 

[Walcot]

Well, I’m not grumpy, and I’m sorry if I come across as self-righteous, that is not my intent (although I am open to the possibility that I may be deluding myself). I’ve simply had enough American criticism from Europeans. Thanks to the American Left, it seems as though most Europeans (especially Brits) seem to think it’s perfectly acceptable to openly flaunt anti-American sentiments.

And as far as Shakespeare’s Catholicism: “Although there is no conclusive proof, there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that he was a practicing Roman Catholic.”

The comments from Americans on this whole forum, about their OWN government put European ‘America bashing’ in the shade…you seem to have developed a ‘self’ loathing…who needs enemies when the country seems as split as yours?!
As for Shakespeare, it’s interesting. His father was a town official who was ordered to paint over the wall paintings in the local church. While ostensibly Protestant (within the law) it seems he put it off for ages and then only used whitewash, presumably in the hope of revealing them again. After all they’d been Catholic/Protestant /Catholic/back to Protestant in a short enough time! Shakespeare was a pragmatist - Elizabeth watched his plays - he’d have to be careful, but not above putting in some Catholic references or criticisms of Protestants…I was wondering if you had any example, that’s all. We have probably lost the significance of many political digs in his work. He’d have to be careful because Elizabeth was a very clever woman, but I think he got away with a lot as she was fairly tolerant too.
Lots of peace to you too…

 

[Cor_Cordis]

The comments from Americans on this whole forum, about their OWN government put European ‘America bashing’ in the shade…you seem to have developed a ‘self’ loathing…who needs enemies when the country seems as split as yours?!

I agree with you on that completely Walcot.

That self-loathing is predominately fostered by the progressive leftist (the Fabian socialists) in this country. Much of it’s genesis can be traced back to their “white guilt” and an adolescent sense of class envy combined with the moral relativism of our increasingly secular society.

We are a nation in a bloodless civil war at the present.

Shakespeare’s Catholic sympathies

 

[Veronica7]

Here is an interesting perspective on Chavez’ legacy from a Catholic blog, Caelum et Terra. If you go to the site there are a few graphs.

caelumetterra.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/what-chavez-wrought/

"The American Right loved to hate him. How could they not? Hugo Chavez provoked the corporate state and challenged American imperialism. In response, he was caricaturized as communist dictator, though his version of socialism was not State Socialism but participatory and cooperative.

In truth, he was democratically elected, over and over, and was immensely popular, not least among the poor. And while critics may take him to task for making common ground with other, less democratic, foes of America, the same critics rarely speak of America’s dictatorial allies.

And though Chavez often clashed with Church hierarchy, he was a Catholic and died in the good graces of the Church. Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino prayed a funeral Mass for him in Rome after the state funeral. Whatever his faults, love of the poor covers a multitude of sins."

 

[Walcot]

I agree with you on that completely Walcot.

That self-loathing is predominately fostered by the progressive leftist (the Fabian socialists) in this country. Much of it’s genesis can be traced back to their “white guilt” and an adolescent sense of class envy combined with the moral relativism of our increasingly secular society.

We are a nation in a bloodless civil war at the present.

Shakespeare’s Catholic sympathies

I think I agree, it’s a bloodless war…how sad. Dangerous too, for nothing will be achieved by such entrenched camps. But you see, you use the derogatory words ‘leftist’ ‘adolescent’ ‘envy’ and the word socialism is almost spat out of the mouths of many members of this forum. (It’s interesting that you blame class envy…I thought we were the ones to suffer from a class system; which had every sign of dying out a while back, but which seems to be more stubborn than I thought. D’you think class is an issue in the US?)
It can all come across as a hate-filled ranting over here I’m afraid…which we don’t hear so much from the other side. Call us biased if you like, but I do try to listen to American news/views. I’m just trying to explain how it comes across in Britain.
I spent a couple of weeks for a wedding in Iowa in Sept with my American friends- we go way way back to an exchange visit in the 70s. I don’t think we’ve (my family) changed over the years as much as they have! I was shocked at the venom the people I met had for Mr Obama. Many folk assumed I felt the same way so I kept quiet and just listened. It was as tho’ they’d used him to personify everything they saw as wrong, even as evil. Well I don’t see everything right with the ‘right’ either. Whatever our beliefs and/or politics we’ve got to work together. You have other religions and those with none, to share the country with now too…we’ve got to work through it together!!
The Shakespeare religion thing is very interesting. Can you imagine what a difficult time it was for people back then…to have their beliefs become illegal then legal…never quite knowing what WAS legal. Lots of people must have paid lip-service to the law and carried on believing what they were happiest with, but being extremely careful. Not everyone had the luxury of a priest hole in their house if they wanted to remain Catholic! I think at first, very little changed, especially out in the sticks, and when it changed it might only have been for show. It would take a generation for real change I should think. Shakespeare was a social comentator smack in the middle of it. He even became one of the king’s men at the end of his career… religion and politics were a dangerous game, a playwright might have had more freedom than most.
I shall be seeing Hamlet at Stratford in the summer…I have my study book…I shall think about our conversation while I study it!

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I think I agree, it’s a bloodless war…how sad. Dangerous too, for nothing will be achieved by such entrenched camps. But you see, you use the derogatory words ‘leftist’ ‘adolescent’ ‘envy’ and the word socialism is almost spat out of the mouths of many members of this forum. It can come across as a hate-filled ranting over her I’m afraid…which we don’t hear so much from the other side. Call us biased if you like, but I do try to listen to American news/views. I’m just trying to explain how people hear it in Britain.
I spent a couple of weeks for a wedding in Iowa in Sept with my American friends- we go way way back to an exchange visit in the 70s. I don’t think we’ve (my family) changed over the years as much as they have! I was shocked at the venom the people I met had for Mr Obama. Many folk assumed I felt the same way so I kept quiet and just listened. It was as tho’ they’d used him to personify everything they saw as wrong, even as evil. Well I don’t see everything right with the ‘right’ either. Whatever our beliefs and/or politics we’ve got to work together. You have other religions to share the country with now too…we’ve got to work through it together!!!

Apparently you haven’t heard, read, or seen the vitriolic things the Left in this country (including Obama) have been saying about anyone who rejects their point of view, have you.

Start with their derogatory term “Tea Baggers”.

Obama hate speech in Obama’s own words

Obama HATE SPEECH - The Hypocricy of “THE ONE” Seems to Know No Boundries

Which party promotes hate speech and violence?

No President, and no Party has ever used language like that about half the citizens in his own country.

And maybe you should tune into MSNBC (the State ran news channel for the WH and the Democrat Party) and listen to some of the lovely things they say about their adversaries.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I was shocked at the venom the people I met had for Mr Obama. Many folk assumed I felt the same way so I kept quiet and just listened. It was as tho’ they’d used him to personify everything they saw as wrong, even as evil.

Do you realize that the Catholic Church in America was forced to launch the biggest Religious Liberties lawsuit against the Federal Govt, in the history of this nation?

And it was specifically** BECAUSE** Obama’s HHS mandate in his disastrous ObamaCare Health Care Law, was going to force Catholic institutions to violate their moral doctrines?

Are you unaware too, that Obama repeatedly misled and lied to the good Bishops of the USCCB on this issue?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Here is an interesting perspective on Chavez’ legacy from a Catholic blog, Caelum et Terra. If you go to the site there are a few graphs.

caelumetterra.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/what-chavez-wrought/

"The American Right loved to hate him. How could they not? Hugo Chavez provoked the corporate state and challenged American imperialism. In response, he was caricaturized as communist dictator, though his version of socialism was not State Socialism but participatory and cooperative.

In truth, he was democratically elected, over and over, and was immensely popular, not least among the poor. And while critics may take him to task for making common ground with other, less democratic, foes of America, the same critics rarely speak of America’s dictatorial allies.

And though Chavez often clashed with Church hierarchy, he was a Catholic and died in the good graces of the Church. Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino prayed a funeral Mass for him in Rome after the state funeral. Whatever his faults, love of the poor covers a multitude of sins."

Thanks for posting this. It gives some validation of the article stating he was in the bosom of the Church when he died, even though no one can speak to the condition of another person’s heart at the time of their death. We are a people of hope and pray for all, or at least we should in my opinion.

 

[Walcot]

Apparently you haven’t heard, read, or seen the vitriolic things the Left in this country (including Obama) have been saying about anyone who rejects their point of view, have you.

Start with their derogatory term “Tea Baggers”.

Obama hate speech in Obama’s own words

Obama HATE SPEECH - The Hypocricy of “THE ONE” Seems to Know No Boundries

Which party promotes hate speech and violence?

No President, and no Party has ever used language like that about half the citizens in his own country.

And maybe you should tune into MSNBC (the State ran news channel for the WH and the Democrat Party) and listen to some of the lovely things they say about their adversaries.

Well I was expecting something really bad, but that u-tube video is a montage of snatches of speeches all out of context. It’s a very very weak attempt to suggest hate speech…it really is. There’s not even much of it so they must have been scraping the barrel. Sorry but that’s poor! It’s just a cheap trick.
As for tea baggers; for the Tea Party I assume…that’s a pretty mild name for the sentiments they express…an insult not QUITE in the league of monkey pictures and bananas…

 

[Walcot]

Apparently you haven’t heard, read, or seen the vitriolic things the Left in this country (including Obama) have been saying about anyone who rejects their point of view, have you.

Start with their derogatory term “Tea Baggers”.

Obama hate speech in Obama’s own words

Obama HATE SPEECH - The Hypocricy of “THE ONE” Seems to Know No Boundries

Which party promotes hate speech and violence?

No President, and no Party has ever used language like that about half the citizens in his own country.

And maybe you should tune into MSNBC (the State ran news channel for the WH and the Democrat Party) and listen to some of the lovely things they say about their adversaries.

I read the links and took out this example… This is bonkers…just bonkers…I can think of nothing else to say! (you’ll be glad to hear!)
“Dorner murder spree is the just the logical extreme of Alinsky tactics.* These news organizations are attempting to cover up the fact that Dorner is the latest in a long and growing line of left-wing terrorists spawned by a combination of mental illness and progressive ideology, which uses “Alinsky” tactics to polarize and dehumanize opponents, justifying their destruction.”
Bonkers.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Well I was expecting something really bad, but that u-tube video is a montage of snatches of speeches all out of context. It’s a very very weak attempt to suggest hate speech…it really is. There’s not even much of it so they must have been scraping the barrel. Sorry but that’s poor! It’s just a cheap trick.
As for tea baggers; for the Tea Party I assume…that’s a pretty mild name for the sentiments they express…an insult not QUITE in the league of monkey pictures and bananas…

Monkey pictures and bananas?

So in addition to granting a hypocritical moral pass on the disgusting Tea Bagger moniker, you further insult these people by attributing racist attributes to them?

And Obama’s efforts to incite violence and division from the office of the Presidency is no big deal to you? Because he says it so smoothly and articulate… I’m sure.

So in other words the liberal progressive socialist (you) sees no problem with other liberal progressive socialist’s who use liberal progressive socialist tactics.

I’m certainly glad we got that cleared up.

Oh, and be sure to muster up some left-wing moral outrageous-outrage and remind everyone how insulting the term “liberal progressive socialist” really is, while the term “Tea Bagger” is really no problemo.

Can you explain to everyone what the term “Tea Bagger” actually means?

Oh and, you completely ignored Obama’s attack on the Catholic Church with his HHS mandate AND his advocacy for gay “marriage”.

 

[iamrefreshed]

an insult not QUITE in the league of monkey pictures and bananas…

Are you talking about the thousands made of George Bush?

images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0PDoS1sbUNRw0QAJGyJzbkF?p=george+bush+monkey&fr=yfp-t-900&ei=utf-8&n=30&x=wrt&y=Search

 

[Walcot]

Monkey pictures and bananas?

So in addition to granting a hypocritical moral pass on the disgusting Tea Bagger moniker, you further insult these people by attributing racist attributes to them?

And Obama’s efforts to incite violence and division from the office of the Presidency is no big deal to you? Because he says it so smoothly and articulate… I’m sure.

So in other words the liberal progressive socialist (you) sees no problem with other liberal progressive socialist’s who use liberal progressive socialist tactics.

I’m certainly glad we got that cleared up.

Oh, and be sure to muster up some left-wing moral outrageous-outrage and remind everyone how insulting the term “liberal progressive socialist” really is, while the term “Tea Bagger” is really no problemo.

Can you explain to everyone what the term “Tea Bagger” actually means?

Oh and, you completely ignored Obama’s attack on the Catholic Church with his HHS mandate AND his advocacy for gay “marriage”.

This is what I mean - I saw it first when I was in the US.
usnews.com/opinion/blogs/leslie-marshall/2011/04/20/obama-monkey-picture-shows-racism-is-alive-and-well-in-america

I don’t find the term liberal progressive socialist at all insulting. No I am not a communist. I don’t even vote Labour and I generally support our coalition despite it’s ups and downs. So I guess I’m that sometimes despised ‘middle way’ sort of person. Our left left socialists are unrealistic but the right wing conservatives are uncaring - ‘devil take the hindmost’.
I see no inciting to violence and division from Mr Obama. The u-tube clip was a mix of odd sentences out of context…you can make it sound like anyone said anything by that trick. It’s just not worthy.
Mr Obama is trying to regulate gun control to prevent the violence of unstable individuals being able to run amock with an assault rifle, but he is slammed for that. Your determination to arm everyone to the teeth seems violent to me coming from a place where not even the police are armed, but your history is different and I can see how it’s happened and it’d be difficult to change. However, violence breeds violence. If a crazy kid can get hold of assault rifles in the US, they’ll do a lot more damage than the same crazy kid over here. I suppose you’ll tell me it’s immoral to restrict gun ownership?
No I don’t know the meaning behind the name tea bagger…I innocently assumed it was because of the name Tea Party and so it sounds fairly innocuous. If it has another ruder meaning it’s been lost on me and yes, it’d be bad to use it.
I deliberately didn’t mention the health and gay marriage thing, sorry, I really don’t want to go there.
The bottom line is; we’ve all got to find some way of living together haven’t we? What about other religions? They also come into the equation. We can’t live safely and peacefully if we’re all consumed with hatred, suspicion and intolerance. You’ve got your bloodless civil war now, the far right is putting in another appearance in parts of Europe, we’re going to extremes…not good.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I see no inciting to violence and division from Mr Obama. The u-tube clip was a mix of odd sentences out of context…you can make it sound like anyone said anything by that trick. It’s just not worthy.

Right, And in what context would this be harmless and inoffensive?

“If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun.” - Barack Obama talking about his political adversaries. And in what context would the comments in the clip NOT be offensive?


Oh and here’s a list of more Liberal hate speech in this country

And
[

Liberal-Progressive Hate Speech and Death Threats List](Liberal-Progressive Hate Speech and Death Threats List (Vanity))

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Mr Obama is trying to regulate gun control to prevent the violence of unstable individuals being able to run amock with an assault rifle, but he is slammed for that.

No he’s not. He’s exploiting the tragic events of the Newtown shooting in an effort to put forth ever restrictive legislation that will ban all guns.

Your determination to arm everyone to the teeth seems violent to me coming from a place where not even the police are armed, but your history is different and I can see how it’s happened and it’d be difficult to change. However, violence breeds violence. If a crazy kid can get hold of assault rifles in the US, they’ll do a lot more damage than the same crazy kid over here. I suppose you’ll tell me it’s immoral to restrict gun ownership?

You know, I’m growing extremely tied of you Brits (and Europeans in general) who keep coming in here with these same ridiculous and hypocritical claims.

You might want to read this:

Thomas Sowell: Gun Control Still Won’t Work

"But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries — and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.

In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.

Neither guns nor gun control was the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.

Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun control laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.

In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons in Britain are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s — after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions — there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.

Gun control zealots’ choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland."

 

[iamrefreshed]

You know, I’m growing extremely tied of you Brits (and Europeans in general) who keep coming in here with these same ridiculous and hypocritical claims.

They might be still be upset that private gun ownership is why the Union Jack doesn’t fly over the “Colonies” today.