Belafonte Calls Bush Terrorist

[brien]

Quote by: Boetie Bush Jr's style of governing is to turn everything upside down and see what happens and you guys think that is worth listening to? Junior doesn't govern. He just lets things go to crap and makes up excuses as he goes along.

Even if one doesn't agree with GWB, his policies, or his statements, I have one question for you.

Do you fail to understand the difference between what an entertainer says and does and what the President of The United States says and does?

I may not agree with everythng GWB says or does, but his statements and actions are far more important to the world than Mr Bellefonte's.

[Bubba_X]

Harry is but yet another racist who has listened to Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrahkan to much.
Any more than a cursory glance into Chavez reveals him as a communist, tool of Fidel.Of course the President looks terrifying to them- were it up to George we would rid the world of folks such as they.
Mr. Belafonte might oughta stick to singing. Like Streisand, Crow, Springsteen and others, though, he will continue to insert foot in mouth, I betcha.

[Osborn F Enready]

So you think his words were false, Bubba X, regardless of who he is, what he thinks and his personal life?

Why?

[brien]

Quote by: Bubba_X Harry is but yet another racist who has listened to Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrahkan to much. Any more than a cursory glance into Chavez reveals him as a communist, tool of Fidel.Of course the President looks terrifying to them- were it up to George we would rid the world of folks such as they. Mr. Belafonte might oughta stick to singing. Like Streisand, Crow, Springsteen and others, though, he will continue to insert foot in mouth, I betcha.

Bubba: You wrote: Any more than a cursory glance into Chavez reveals him as a communist, tool of Fidel.Of course the President looks terrifying to them- were it up to George we would rid the world of folks such as they

I write: Can't say I would agree with your Imperialist statement(s) about wanting GWB to "rid the world of folks such as they."

Just what role do you think the President should play in the domestic affairs of both Cuba and Venezuela?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: brien Quote by: gr8fuldaniel ABC News No sense beating around the "bush" First. He is a representative of UNICEF. This will reflect badly upon UNICEF to ordinary Americans and probably will affect the donations made to UNICEF by those Americans.

This is because bombing raids on civilian populations and Hospitals and weddings, are GOOD FOR KIDS? We just need to explain it better? Maybe we need to drop more leaflets than bombs.

Quote by: brien I oppose the US participation in a UN that is influenced by nations that only care to take money from the US. This money is better alllocated in the US to solve a myriad of domestic problems.

Are you suggesting domestic bombing raids. You cant just drop bombs on the poor, even if that WOULD end poverty

Second: He lives the lifestyle that has been acheived through Capitalism and he seems to be now praising the wonderful aspects of Socialism.

Better to support socialism, than fascism.

However, it is my understanding that almost 75% of the voting public stayed away from the election that elected Chavez. Perhaps this is not an accurate figure, I don''t know.

Source? Actually you got your numbers a little mixed up. 80% showed up, not 25%.

Guardian UK Around 80% of the country's 14 million registered voters took part in the referendum to decide whether to recall the president, Hugo Chávez.

Third. I think he made a poor choice of words. Even if GWB can be labled a terrorist, perhaps then, so too can the argument be made that other presidents who conducted illegal wars, if that is what he bases his definition upon, can be painted with same brush.

Right, this is not party politics. This is about EMPIRE BUILDING.

It is perhaps the definition of "terrorist" that I think has embarrassed himself and caused consternation and resentment among "ordinary" Americans.

You mean this:

ter·ror·ism (tĕr'ə-rĭz'əm) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

If thats too "wordy" for you, how about this: War is Terrorism. If that is too brief, hows this: "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
-- Adolf Hitler
So by employing Adolfs own playbook, GWB has used terrorism for his own political capital. He has used terrorism to stay in office and to further the designs and profits of the cronys who empowered him. 911 is our very own Reichstag fire. Be afraid. Be terrified. GWB depends on it to succeed.


WTC 7 Controlled Demolition

4) Many Hollywood types open their mouths and make controversial statements.

I would prolly do the same. If it only saved one life, it would be worth it.

5) The rethoric of extreme statements does nothing to foster peace around the world.

Right! Only Bombs and Bullitts can do that! Your homework? Read "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace" .... "How we got to be so hated" --by Gore Vidal

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio If the words of Belefonte ring true for you, I have to wonder about your grasp of reality.

See above for my grasp of reality. I try to base my reality on facts, not propaganda catapulted at me.

The sanctions on Iraq were about to be rescinded, meaning oil contracts with Russia and France would soon be valid. EXXON/Mobil said: "Over Americas sons and daughters dead bodies" Its a sacrifice they are willing to make.......

[brien]

[quote=gr8fuldaniel]This is because bombing raids on civilian populations and Hospitals and weddings, are GOOD FOR KIDS? We just need to explain it better? Maybe we need to drop more leaflets than bombs.Are you suggesting domestic bombing raids. You cant just drop bombs on the poor, even if that WOULD end poverty

I write: I didn't say bombing was good for kids. I wrote that Mr Bellefonte quotes would reflect badly upon UNICEF to "ordinary Americans" and they would probaly not give money in the amounts they have in the past. I also wrote that I don't support the US particpation in UNICEF or the UN. Nothing more and nothing less.


YOU WROTE: Better to support socialism, than fascism. Source? Actually you got your numbers a little mixed up. 80% showed up, not 25%.
Right, this is not party politics. This is about EMPIRE BUILDING. You mean this: If thats too "wordy" for you, how about this: War is Terrorism. If that is too brief, hows this: "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
-- Adolf Hitler
So by employing Adolfs own playbook, GWB has used terrorism for his own political capital. He has used terrorism to stay in office and to further the designs and profits of the cronys who empowered him. 911 is our very own Reichstag fire. Be afraid. Be terrified. GWB depends on it to succeed.

I write: I don't support Socialism or facism. I didn't write that I supported Facism either. You draw conclusions from my writing that are just palin out there. I wrote that Mr Bellefonte earned his money in a Capitalist economy and now supports a Socialist one. A double standard perhaps?

I also said that I wasn't sure about the % of peole who voted in Venezuela so I left the door open for correction. Thank you. However, you cite the recall election. Was this the election that swept him into power? How about the initial election that voted him in office? What was the percentage there? I am asking because I don't know. Do you?

I don't understand your rant at all. You are very perplexing with regard to my writing.

You are very good at telling me what I mean. You draw erronous conclusions from my writings. Too bad. It doesn't reflect well upon your reading comprehension.


YOU WROTE: I would prolly do the same.


I ask: Btw, is "prolly" a word in the English Language? If so, what does it mean? You probably should look it up in the dictionary, ya think?

[gr8fuldaniel]

I write: I didn't say bombing was good for kids. I wrote that Mr Bellefonte quotes would reflect badly upon UNICEF to "ordinary Americans" and they would probaly not give money in the amounts they have in the past. I also wrote that I don't support the US particpation in UNICEF or the UN. Nothing more and nothing less.

From UNICEF's About page:

We believe that nurturing and caring for children are the cornerstones of human progress. UNICEF was created with this purpose in mind – to work with others to overcome the obstacles that poverty, violence, disease and discrimination place in a child’s path. We believe that we can, together, advance the cause of humanity

Belafonte speaking out against bush terrorism is right in line with UNICEF. Indiscrimate bombing raids on populated cities is no different from killing babies with clubs. That is what we have done. In a war of agression/terrorism.

I ask: Btw, is "prolly" a word in the English Language?

Colloquial. Check Prolly

I also said that I wasn't sure about the % of peole who voted in Venezuela so I left the door open for correction. Thank you. However, you cite the recall election. Was this the election that swept him into power? How about the initial election that voted him in office? What was the percentage there? I am asking because I don't know. Do you?

I was referring to the last election. I dont know what year he was first elected so I cant do your research for you.

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel From UNICEF's About page: Belafonte speaking out against bush terrorism is right in line with UNICEF. Indiscrimate bombing raids on populated cities is no different from killing babies with clubs. That is what we have done. In a war of agression/terrorism. Colloquial. Check Prolly I was referring to the last election. I dont know what year he was first elected so I cant do your research for you.

Your statement is similar to the following: when I say the sky is blue, you say that it rains bombs down on people. I say ok, but what has that got to do with what I wrote? Nothing.

You are just seizing upon something to rant on about because you hate GWB. Look, I don't care if you hate him or not, it has no bearing in my post upon what Bellefonte said. Once again, all I stated was that it would affect donations to UNICEF. You are drawing your own conclusions from the Bellefonte statement that I never did in my post. I may not agree with GWB, and his policies, but what has that to do with donations to UNICEF? YOU can relate GWB to UNICEF, but leave me out of it, because has no bearing upon what Bellefonte said in terms of the amount of money UNICEF may or may not recieve in the next year. I stated UNICEF received 270 million last year in American donations and it remains to be seen how the Bellefonte statement will affect this years donations. I say it may cause the donations from Americans to slack off. Please, in the future, stick to responding to what I write and don't draw conclusions that are unrelated to my writings and then blast me for it.

It is like if Bellefonte made the statement that it was a great thing that a killer was released from jail on a early release program. I write ACLU is behind him in his defense. And you draw the conclusion that it may affect donations to the ACLU. Then, I come on to post that since the ACLU does all of this great work, you are in defense of the early release of killers, and the DOJ, when you made no such statement. All you wrote was that it could affect the donations to the ACLU. And to top it off, I blast you for the misguided conclusions I draw from your post. Geez, lighten up, please. I just don't know how to make your errors concerning my initial post any simpler here.

Your argument is not with me, it is with GWB and those who defend his actions. So, sell it somewhere else. Not interested.

Your slang is duly noted but I can't find it in a real dictionary. "Prolly" cause it ain't there.

I didn't ask you to do any research for me. Once again, your penchant for drawing conlusions from my posts continues to be misguided. You should really restrain yourself because it is a waste of your time.

As far as the election in Venezuela. All I did was make a statement in my initial post and you can't refute it, even though I didn't represent it is fact. As a matter of fact, you cited a recall election which has no bearing upon my original statement.

Your barking up the wrong tree sir. :)

[Bubba_X]

Osborn- Are you serious? You are actually saying you do not understand the false nature of what Belafonte said? I cannot fathom a reasonable person, with the bare modicum of common sense and any trace of moral fiber, agreeing with Harry, or even accepting such as an expression of free Speech.
But, ok, I'll play along as if. To consider Bush a terrorist, one must first have rejected any notion of a clear demarcation between Good and Evil, instead choosing to apply the false yardstick of moral equivalence.This is, of course, a popular paradigm amongst post-modernist type folks who use such gray-out to justify whatever pet agendas they seek to further.But it isn't Honest, on any level; one has to be willing to lie, or at least subjugate one's own moral base, to accomodate such a lack of ethical choice. It stems from a lack of ability to understand hard choice, seeking to substitue a "feel-good" alternative as justification for what is otherwise weakness.Intellectual, physical, and moral weakness, combined with hate or other emotions usually stemming from one's own psychological makeup.
Viewed objectively, using Mankind's historical memory base, our moral base, our ethical base, our emotional base, our educational base, the thinking which Harry exhibited self-evaluates as morally bankrupt ignorance, colored with hate.
It may not be Harry's fault he lacks the wherewithall to understand these matters- indeed, we near the crux of the matter in it's entirety with that notion.Bush, and all honst leaders of the Free world, have tremendous moral obligations to those suffering under lesser social compacts worldwide. And it matters not whether these leaders believe in Christ, Bhudda, Zaoism, yada yada, yada, it matters only that they be Honest in their desire to represent the Freedom of Man worldwide. This requires that "hard" choices be made, and President Bush, Blair, Howard, a few others, make them.Just as we carpet bombed hundreds of thousands of civilians to be rid of hitler, so today innocents get caught up in the Evil their governments do in their name.
Iraqis do not want to be waging war upon the rest of the world, you say? Fine- then let them cause their government to act in honest diplomatic fashion with the world at large.That example applies to all- America and Cuba, N.Korea, Iran and even france.
No one wants war, no one seeks Empire in the West- islam does though.The cult of islam- it is NOT a true religion- seeks by it's own admission the subjugation or death of all else. To deny this is not mere appeasement, it is a conscious decision to aid Evil.Bush is clearly not in that camp-, and pays no heed to those who equivocate morally.
I consider that Harry- a known racist- is filled with hate, and perhaps does not even understand the nature of that which he does.I blame the state of education in this country for most of this- have you seen a college campus lately? Most tout extreme propoganda, in lieu of education.
Sorry to be so long-winded.
Brien- I don't think America, or President Bush, need play any role in those countries.In fact, I think America better served if we withdraw all efforts in other countries, save for thoise areas where we have combat operations actively defending against the cult of islam.
Chavez, Castro, Kim Il, chiraq, et al, will not allow such a thing though.They insist on dragging America into matters, so we need respond to them at times.The peoples suffering in Venezuela, or Cuba, or france, must help themselves to better government.However, when they threaten us, they likewise need be addressed, however harshly matters entail.
Couple examples to clarify; Chavez is threatening to illegally sell F-16s we sold Venezeula, to China for copying purposes.He is threatening to do so because we will not bow to his demands about certain matters.If he does so, we have the diplomatic right to consider that as an "unfriendly act", at best, and a prelude to war at worst.Realistically, we would merely intercept them and destroy them, most likely.Would that be ok, in your mind, were we to do so?
Chavez is also training militias, propogandising them to resist American imperial invaders who are coming.He bought more weapons than he has military age citizens- why, I wonder? Why is he training and protecting Colombian drug militias?
Harry needs look into who he claims as friends, these days, methinks.

[brien]

Quote by: Bubba_X Brien- I don't think America, or President Bush, need play any role in those countries.In fact, I think America better served if we withdraw all efforts in other countries, save for thoise areas where we have combat operations actively defending against the cult of islam. Chavez, Castro, Kim Il, chiraq, et al, will not allow such a thing though.They insist on dragging America into matters, so we need respond to them at times.The peoples suffering in Venezuela, or Cuba, or france, must help themselves to better government.However, when they threaten us, they likewise need be addressed, however harshly matters entail. Couple examples to clarify; Chavez is threatening to illegally sell F-16s we sold Venezeula, to China for copying purposes.He is threatening to do so because we will not bow to his demands about certain matters.If he does so, we have the diplomatic right to consider that as an "unfriendly act", at best, and a prelude to war at worst.Realistically, we would merely intercept them and destroy them, most likely.Would that be ok, in your mind, were we to do so? Chavez is also training militias, propogandising them to resist American imperial invaders who are coming.He bought more weapons than he has military age citizens- why, I wonder? Why is he training and protecting Colombian drug militias? Harry needs look into who he claims as friends, these days, methinks.

Bubba: I don't view Islam as a "cult" but rather one of the world's largest, if not the largest, legitimate religions. Perhaps you are confusing " Islamic extremists" with true Islamists. Be careful there. In any event, we have no business pursuing them to the ends of the earth in order to eradicate them until they once again threaten the US domestically. If the US has real and credilble evidence that Islamic Extremists are planning an attack upon the soil of the US, then perhaps Congress will declare a state of war exists between them and the US. A declared war by only the Executive Office is an illegitimate one. Last time I looked in the Constitution, it is Congress that has the power solely to declare war.

The United States doesn't need to find excuses to invade, or attack, other soveriegn nations. If Chavez sells those fighter jets to the Chinese, then shame on the US for selling them to Venzuela in the first instance. Blame whomever is at fault for the sale to Venezuela, not Chavez, for selling them to the Chinese. Learn from our mistakes.

Castro: Last time I looked Cuba had an unemployment rate of about 2%, lower than the US. It is high time the US normalizes relations with Cuba and quit acting like a spoiled brat whose nose was bloodied in a fight over 45 years ago. I disagree with Socialism and Communism, but if it works in Cuba, then who am I to say it is wrong for them? No argument from me as long as they remain a peaceful nation with regard to relations with the US. Same for Venezuela.

Kim IL Jung: It is my hope that the US will not remain involved with North Korea. No rice for their hungry, and no money/aid for their people that is stolen by Jung and redirected into their military. Let the surrounding nations deal with him. Let the UN Security Council, minus the US participation, deal with N Korea. We have no business with him, or his crazy ideas unless he threatens the shores of the US. Then let Congress declare war if it is warranted..

France has to stand on their own two feet, as they have since 1945, without the interference of the US. They are negotiating with Iran over the enrichment program. Russia and China have blocked the UN Security Council's participation so it will be up to them to face the consequences of a nuclear armed Iran. The US has all of the Nuclear weapons it requires to protect itself so why should we get involved there?

Chavez should train his military to protect Vewnzuela against ANY other military power with Imperialistic designs. I think that prudent and wise.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: brien You are just seizing upon something to rant on about because you hate GWB. Look, I don't care if you hate him or not, it has no bearing in my post upon what Bellefonte said. Once again, all I stated was that it would affect donations to UNICEF.

I am disagreeing with your position, because I believe this is GOOD publicity for UNICEF. You believe it is detrimental.

Your slang is duly noted but I can't find it in a real dictionary. "Prolly" cause it ain't there.

Really? What dictionary did you use? The Free Dictionary lists prolly as a legitimate acronym. Wiki notes under Internet Slang:

prolly-probs — "Probably" (The Oxford English Dictionary traces this usage back as far as 1962)

Are you really that blue blooded that you are going to start reprimanding Internet Slang where it lives, or is it just me? LOL (That means: Laugh out loud)

Quote by: Bubba Bush, and all honst leaders of the Free world, have tremendous moral obligations to those suffering under lesser social compacts worldwide.

How can you lump Bush in with Honest leaders of the free world? Hasnt bush shown his ONLY loyalty is to his "Base", the elite 2% and the oligarchy who planted him in office. Every decision, every Executive Order has benefitted only an extreme minority.

Quote by: Bubba And it matters not whether these leaders believe in Christ, Bhudda, Zaoism, yada yada, yada, it matters only that they be Honest in their desire to represent the Freedom of Man worldwide.

And how is it in the best interest of modern man, to go back in time to the days of robber barons and slavery? Which is where unrestrained Capitalism ultimately arrives.

Quote by: Bubba No one wants war....

Lie!
Evil people want war. Does this support your claim:

Bush pumps fist, “Feels Good” as attack on Iraq begins by Martin Merzer, Ron Hutcheson and Drew Brown, Knight-Ridder Newspapers March 20, 2003

How can you say NOBODY wants war? Especially knowing now that the intelligence was "Fixed" to justify the massacre. He knew there were no WMDs. In fact WE had the WMDs, and he "felt good" abusing his power by employing them.
Also, Defense Dept. (misnomer) contractors need war just to justify their existence and to get phat, they are willing to go to great lengths to buy congressmen like Randy Cunningham to get a war. War is profitable to slimey congress critters and corporations like Exxon who steal oil contracts. It is the only way to acquire those riches. Or do you think the Marines will bump into OBL in a Bagdad disco?

The agressors "want" war. There is no response from those who died in the slaughter.

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel I am disagreeing with your position, because I believe this is GOOD publicity for UNICEF. You believe it is detrimental. Really? What dictionary did you use? The Free Dictionary lists prolly as a legitimate acronym. Wiki notes under Internet Slang: Are you really that blue blooded that you are going to start reprimanding Internet Slang where it lives, or is it just me? LOL (That means: Laugh out loud) .

This is what I wrote: First. He is a representative of UNICEF. This will reflect badly upon UNICEF to ordinary Americans and probably will affect the donations made to UNICEF by those Americans. Last year American citizens donated about $270 million to UNICEF, so it will remain to be seen how this type of behavior will affect this year's donations.

Ok if you think it is good publicity for UNICEF, all well and good. I wrote it would reflect badly upon UNICEF to ORDINARY AMERICANS and probably affect the donations.. I stated we would see what kind of effect it would have upon "ordinary americans" as to whether THEY would increase their donations from $270 million this year to UNICEF. I NEVER wrote I believed that it was detrimental. I did write that I thought ORDINARY AMERICANS would think it detrimental. Take up your argument with ordinary Americans who donate to UNICEF, not me. You continue to extrapolate conclusions from my writing that bear no meaning to it. You seem to want to spoil for argument. Not interested in arguing what you perceive me to write. Only in what I write.

My dictionary is the American Heritage. I really don't care if you use slang. I pointed it out because it is only a reflection upon your writing, not mine. No big deal to me. Is everything a big deal to you?

[gr8fuldaniel]

I pointed it out because it is only a reflection upon your writing, not mine. No big deal to me. Is everything a big deal to you?

You brought it up, so it seems like a big deal to you. Thats just my impression. I dont really claim to be a cunning-linguist, but at times I rise above my lowly digs. Slang is more natural to me, I will 'probly' never give it up completely. Even if I went pro (unlikely anytime soon). Feel free to "grade" my papers, but I am ....... never mind. Enuff is enuff :rolleyes:

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel You brought it up, so it seems like a big deal to you. Thats just my impression. I dont really claim to be a cunning-linguist, but at times I rise above my lowly digs. Slang is more natural to me, I will 'probly' never give it up completely. Even if I went pro (unlikely anytime soon). Feel free to "grade" my papers, but I am ....... never mind. Enuff is enuff :rolleyes:

Not grading you at all. And neither am I suggesting that you give it up. I rather think it is interesting to see who uses it and how. Sorry if you are insulted. I don't tend to use slang, except in dialogue when I write, but it doesn't mean I am insulting you for using it. Sorry if you got the wrong impression. :)

The main point of my post was: I just want you to understand that you can't extrapolate arguments from my ideas and then bash me for things you incorrectly conclude from my writing. Enough said, I agree.

[gr8fuldaniel]

From last night:

Belafonte Accuses Bush of Gestapo Tactics Singer who called president a ‘terrorist’ takes new swipe at White House Updated: 9:34 p.m. ET Jan. 21, 2006 NEW YORK - Entertainer Harry Belafonte, one of the Bush administration’s harshest critics, compared the Homeland Security Department to the Nazi Gestapo on Saturday and attacked the president as a liar. “We’ve come to this dark time in which the new Gestapo of Homeland Security lurks here, where citizens are having their rights suspended,” Belafonte said in a speech to the annual meeting of the Arts Presenters Members Conference. “You can be arrested and not charged. You can be arrested and have no right to counsel,” said Belafonte. Belafonte’s remarks on Saturday — part of a 45-minute speech on the role of the arts in a politically changing world — were greeted with a roaring standing ovation from an audience which included singer Peter Yarrow of the folk group Peter, Paul and Mary, and members of the arts community from several dozen countries. <snip> He acknowledged that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks demanded a reaction by the United States, but said the policies of the Bush administration were not the right response. “Fascism is fascism. Terrorism is terrorism. Oppression is oppression,” said Belafonte, who served in the U.S. Navy during World War II. Bush, he said, rose to power “somewhat dubiously and ... then lies to the people of this nation, misleads them, misinstructs, and then sends off hundreds of thousands of our own boys and girls to a foreign land that has not aggressed against us.”

Today, Chavez had some words for John McCain; Chavez tells McCain "Go to Hell"

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel From last night:Today, Chavez had some words for John McCain; Chavez tells McCain "Go to Hell"

Actually, Chavez said no such thing. From your link:

"He can go to hell," Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said responding to remarks by McCain, a prominent Republican and a possible U.S. presidential candidate in 2008."

Chavez wasn't quoted at all.

[gr8fuldaniel]

You are right, sorry!

I shortened Venezuela to Chavez. I just blasted through the article.

Note to self: Slow Down.

[gr8fuldaniel]

The important thing is we should respect our friends to the south. Remember those "wackos" in Venezuela (as McCain called them) just helped our poor people with heating fuel. None of bushs bed buddies offerred to help. People could have froze to death but Exxon Mobil doesnt give a rats ass. God Bless Chavez!!

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuela's vice president on Monday told top U.S. Republican Sen. John McCain he could "go to hell" for suggesting that "wackos" were governing the oil-producing South American country. Commenting on U.S. reliance on foreign oil supplies, McCain told Fox News Sunday, "We better understand the vulnerabilities that our economy and our very lives have ... when we're dependent on Iranian mullahs and wackos in Venezuela."

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel The important thing is we should respect our friends to the south. Remember those "wackos" in Venezuela (as McCain called them) just helped our poor people with heating fuel. None of bushs bed buddies offerred to help. People could have froze to death but Exxon Mobil doesnt give a rats ass. God Bless Chavez!!

How dare you notice that the big oil doesn't care about people.


What are you trying to do, influence all of the opinions around you?