See other World News Articles
Title: Bush will authorise this month the State assassination of Hugo Chávez
Source:
Axis of Logic
URL Source: http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_23158.shtml
Published: Oct 4, 2006
Author: Heinz Dieterich
Post Date: 2006-10-08 15:42:59 by robin
Keywords: None
Views: 788
Comments: 107
Bush will authorise this month the State assassination of Hugo Chávez
Bush will authorise this month the State assassination of Hugo Chávez
By Heinz Dieterich
1. The price of his anti-diabolical discourse
Hugo Chávez’s United Nations speech was the culmination of magisterial international vanguard politics, which converted George Bush into the pariah of the worldwide institution. The price for this successful spectacle—which can not be understood without the proverbial audacity of Commander-in-Chief Fidel Castro—is the authorisation of State assassination by the White House.
2. Strategic change: the institutional entanglement of political assassination
The fascist government-in-formation will not use as its legal basis for the assassination the customary verbal formula applied by United States executives for such ends—“get rid of him”—rather, it will use the terminology, “Top secret presidential finding”.
Most probably it will use proxies; for example, death squads of the Israeli secret services, which habitually assassinate citizen “enemies” in other countries.
The decision of State assassination [of the president of Venezuela] constitutes a change in White House strategy, employed since 2003, which opted for a political war of annexation by wearing out, in order to impose upon the system the replacement of the president by the right-wing of the New Political Class (NPC). This strategy aspires to gradually capitalise upon the internal weaknesses of the revolution and avoid a civil war in Venezuela, which will inevitably be unleashed with the assassination of the popular president.
Not to repeat the consequences of the State assassination of the Colombian President Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, has been the slogan of the White House since the defeat of the 2002-3 oil coup d’état in Venezuela. Nevertheless, the incessant Latin American and worldwide diplomatic offensive of Hugo Chávez—which not only threatens the Monroe Doctrine but also “Manifest Destiny”, which has ruled for two centuries—has reached the point of no return. Chávez’s offensive is the equivalent of the decree of Bolívar’s “war to the death” against the Spanish empire 193 years ago.
The change of US strategy—from containment policy towards Cuba and Venezuela, while breaking the weakest link of the chain, Bolivia—towards State assassination has to resolve the danger of social explosion. The White House calculation is to avoid a long civil war by making it appear that the assassination would be a natural death or an accident. The successful poisoning of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat is the model to emulate.
In September 2003, the Israeli security cabinet publicly declared its intention to assassinate Arafat. The then Vice-Premier Minister Ehud Olmert generated a public debate regarding this project by considering this method “legitimate”.
“The question is, by which manner do we put an end to Arafat,” said the Israeli State’s number two man. “Expulsion is one option; assassination is another possibility.” Israel’s problem in applying the option of the elimination of Arafat consisted of the dilemma, “ (it) is not a moral matter, rather to know if it is practical or not.”
Following that successful operation would the fascist presidents Ehud Olmert and George Bush doubt for one second that the “removal…of the obstacle to peace” is extremely “practical” and “legitimate”? That is to say, that Hugo Chávez is a peaceful oil rich and third world leader [and thus an “obstacle”, translator’s note].
4. Hugo Chávez’s great offensive has discovered his dangerous rear guard
With all the audacity and success of the Venezuelan president’s offensive one is reminded of the great offensive of Napoleon against Moscow. Napoleon only looked forward, dreaming of a decisive lightning war. He failed to construct a rear guard capable of detaining an eventual Russian counter-offensive. When such occurred, he was completely destroyed.
The dangerous dispersion of the Bolivarian forces in Venezuela presents a similar scenario. The Bolivarian union movement is divided into, at least, four major currents. Official Bolivarian political forces rest on three major parties. The peasants have, at least, two major groupings. The popular sector is not organised into an integral national structure, such as, for example, in Cuba. The consolidation of the Bolivarian project in the armed forces requires, at least, two to three more years. The Bolivarian means of communication are insufficiently efficient. Many strategic State ministries are inefficient; partly so because in the last three years there have been six changes of ministers and vice-ministers, making quality State management impossible.
The quantitative dispersion of the Bolivarian forces offends, because many have the habit of using factious power plays, which converts the revolution and the party into second place. Hugo Chávez wants to remedy this poor political practice by forming one united political party next year. Minister William Lara hopes to convert Channel 8 into a 24-hour news service like CNN. Who knows if they will succeed, because until now the State has not had the capacity to develop a system to detect revolutionaries to control the media and the vanguard, which is required for the future process.
A frontal confrontation with the most potent world power and its European Union accomplices, in these conditions, will only be victorious if they have the talent and the luck of Alexander the Great. Or if they extend the spirit, the work and the vanguard management capacity not only on the visible front but also in the Achilles Heel of the revolution. © Translation Copyright 2006 by AxisofLogic.com
ALVARO VARGAS LLOSA SENDS HUGO CHAVEZ TO DANTE'S INFERNO
Venezuela's Chavez says assassination attempt against him foiled
By Heinz Dieterich. Translated from Spanish by Ron Ridenour
Oct 4, 2006, 14:14
Translated from the Spanish by Ron Ridenour
3. How to achieve the assassination and avoid popular resistance
Heinz Dieterich Steffan is a German political analyst, living in Mexico. Well known for his apologetics, he collaborates with revolutionary media and adds his voice as a regular columnist to Axis of Logic. He is also a consultant to Venezuelan President, Hugo Chávez Frìas.
Poster Comment:
Related threads:
posted 3 days ago by Stephen Lendma
posted 7 days ago by Eoghan
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Eoghan, Stephen Lendman, *Hugo Fan Club* (#0)
ping!
NYT Headline: "Chevez AssInAted by the Devil"
The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size
It was more of clown act; a pathetic appeal of mental masturbation that performed nothing more than a sense of personal acclaim based upon self aggrandising methods of obscure and silly rants designed to attract the attention of unintelligent humans. Hugo needs a new speech writer.
So Chavez calls Bush a devil, then Bush gets mad at being called a devil and says "I will kill you for saying that." So how does this prove that Bush is not a devil? Bush is having a ball playing war, and eating pretzels.
God is always good! Anderson said he is hoping for leniency from the Army but isn't taking anything for granted. I hope they hang him until he is dead with a broken neck. buckeroo posted on 2006-10-01 22:13:27 ET Reply Trace So you support murder of people who do not support U.S. policy? You want Army Spc. Darrell Anderson, 24, of Lexington who won a Purple heart in Iraq hung for opposing an illegal immoral war, do you support Bush hangong Hugo too?
I support the death of anyone that does not fulfill their solemn, sworn oath. What is required to bring America back towards the founding anchors of our nation is credibility and dignity. Honour goes a long way towards ensuring that trash gets canned and not exalted.
oh boy..you ever heard of gleaning new information from experience, buck? good lord, in your world, anyone who's sworn an oath when ignorant and not fully informed should be killed, huh?
I fulfilled not only my sworn oath but remain steadfast in determining that this two-headed political snake controlling Washington DC is absolved. Still, believing that anyone can skip away from their own oaths because they have a change of heart shows nothing more than a coward. Cowards are the first to be shot to death in any revolution anyway as they have no dignity other than the belief of that the world is their personal playground.
Heh, since Bush has trashed the Constitution which he has swore a solemn oath to defend, you just called for his death. You do realize that, do you not? I submit that Spec. Anderson acted legally by going AWOL rather then take part in an illegal and immoral war. The Geneva Protocols in fact lay the responsibility on the soldier to disobey orders they know are illegal. Of course. I think I am the first poster on LP ( 2004 ) to have declared for his tar&feathering just before his hanging over the largest oak tree bough. Whats the matter with you, have you no integrity?
If I were under official orders to be in the Armed Forces and in a combat zone, and my superior officer said, "Look, they are parachuting from that plane that is about to crash, fire them up!" and I absolutely refused, I would be disobeying the enlistment oath I quoted in my last post, but I would be obeying the Geneva convention accords. Do you agree? Combatants who are hors de combat are out of the fight are and entitled to respect for their lives and physical and moral integrity. They are to be protected and treated humanely, without adverse discrimination. (Convention I Art. 3; Protocol I, Art. 4) Attacking a person who is hors de combat is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3) Persons are hors de combat if they have been captured, if they have surrendered, or if they are unconscious or otherwise incapacitated provided that they do not attempt to fight or escape. (Protocol I, Art. 41, Sec. 2) Parachutists who eject from a damaged aircraft cannot be attacked while they are descending. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 1) Parachuters who have landed in hostile territory must be given a chance to surrender, unless they are clearly acting hostile. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 2) I asked if you realized this. I didn't say I agreed or disagreed. You do see you are inferring more into my words then I stated, do you not?
*Crickets*
Mike, I don't agree with anything you say anymore. I saw a faggot thread wherein you attempted to drag me into here on 4um last week ... I don't play your stinking games, pal. I state my opinions. If you don't like them, fine .. but don't talk shit behind my back. I really don't think you know what you are doing anymore. And more to the point, I don't fucking give a damn about your opine.
How do I talk behind your back by posting something in open forum? Behind the back is done in E mail. Be a man, admit you are wrong here. Don't whine, that's lame.
You are so fucking clueless about your own self that you have to ask this question upon an open forum. Man, you are a spineless cretin worthy of no respect.
What is a rhetorical question Buck? How is asking one 'clueless?'
You bombastically call for the execution of Spec. Anderson. But you fail to take into account that oaths are protocols and that protocols supersede each other, much as local, state and federal laws when one at a higher level contradicts the other. Now, is that so hard to understand? Oops! My bad, another rhetorical question. ;-)
Go post your pathetic stolen pictures about me on fag threads. I don't have time for chit-chat and made-up caricatures that are baseless and only a silly and obscene effort at gossip. You may not agree with me. I respect those characteristics upon Internet forums no matter if its Usenet, IRC or the web. But, I have don't play that game of yours with made-up shit behind my back. But you can. Because you are free to do as you please. And I realise that you live just within your own mind, that's why you are posting day&night on the Internet ... you have no life other than to make up stories.
Why not? What good is he to society? He volunteered to fight for GWBush's war and then he decided he was a chicken-shit to continue his zeal. Do you know why? I know why. He is a coward. He is a liar to everyone, from his parents and family to his friends and business acquaintances around him. He is the kind of asshole that talks shit behind other's backs. All the while, talking themselves up thinking they convince the world around them about their own righteousness. He is a coward like you, pal.
Stolen? how is the illustration of the box of a 1960s child's game, Buckaroo's Cowboy Round-up stolen? Also, do you not spell your account name with an 'e' and not an 'a' as that illustration has it? Is not a small joke that buckaroo rounds up cowboys, a play on words pretty darn tame? And why are you focusing your wrath on me and not others who were chatting at that time in that thread? I know damn well Buck me boy you go into a thread you see Minerva's account name on news posts. I knew damn well I was not "talking behind your back." You are angry because you are losing the debate on the point made on oaths and protocols. Don't whine, it's lame.
Lets get your triple entente here so as to play fuck with Buckeroo shall we, coward.
Not only do you not have any scrupples or capability about seeing the objective world around you, now you "think." LOL Go climb a tree.
How are you the final arbitrator of who is or is not 'good to society?' Did he not volunteer for the Army? Did he swear an oath to disregard the Geneva Convention Protocols and to fight in wars he knew were illegal started by one George Walker Bush? Cowards and scoundrels go to war when they know they are violating high principle ensconced in internationally recognized laws governing the conduct of war. I submit he is not only NOT a coward, he is a hero. I salute him. You could learn from him. I did go to an illegal and immoral war conducted on the order of one GHW Bush when I was in the U.S. Army, but I did not realize this was the case until after serving there. I would have also refused to go back. I got out of active duty after that experience missing by days being frozen in my slot and having to make a decision about Gulf War I. No Buck, if I were a coward, I Mike McCarthy of Eugene, Oregon -- well known in my local community -- would not be here openly talking in forum, be engaged in exercising pro-actively my political efficacy, and I would not have gone into the Army. If I were a coward, I would have caved my first enlistment in the late 70s and taken an Article 15 when they decided to throw my politically annoying ass out. Instead I risked going to Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary by opting to go to Special Court Martial which I won. Words are cheap, Buck. I have actions showing I am not a coward. I might add to I don't drink. I never hide in a bottle.
i beg to differ. i think Anderson has the courage of his conviction standing up to the machine who he now realizes lied us into this immoral invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation.
Where is here? How do you know I wouldn't come? Who are you? Those are rhetorical, you are angry and under no obligation to answer. You do have the means and perhaps the time. Come here. I am very easy to find.
I was under the impression that Bush had already authorized the overthrow of the Venezuelan government. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,706802,00.html American navy 'helped Venezuelan coup' Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles Monday April 29, 2002 The Guardian The United States had been considering a coup to overthrow the elected Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, since last June, a former US intelligence officer claimed yesterday. It is also alleged that the US navy aided the abortive coup which took place in Venezuela on April 11 with intelligence from its vessels in the Caribbean. Evidence is also emerging of US financial backing for key participants in the coup. Both sides in Venezuela have blamed the other for the violence surrounding the coup. Wayne Madsen, a former intelligence officer with the US navy, told the Guardian yesterday that American military attaches had been in touch with members of the Venezuelan military to examine the possibility of a coup. "I first heard of Lieutenant Colonel James Rogers [the assistant military attache now based at the US embassy in Caracas] going down there last June to set the ground," Mr Madsen, an intelligence analyst, said yesterday. "Some of our counter-narcotics agents were also involved." He said that the navy was in the area for operations unconnected to the coup, but that he understood they had assisted with signals intelligence as the coup was played out. Mr Madsen also said that the navy helped with communications jamming support to the Venezuelan military, focusing on communications to and from the diplomatic missions in Caracas belonging to Cuba, Libya, Iran and Iraq - the four countries which had expressed support for Mr Chavez. Navy vessels on a training exercise in the area were supposedly put on stand-by in case evacuation of US citizens in Venezuela was required. In Caracas, a congressman has accused the US ambassador to Venezuela, Charles Shapiro, and two US embassy military attaches of involvement in the coup. Roger Rondon claimed that the military officers, whom he named as (James) Rogers and (Ronald) MacCammon, had been at the Fuerte Tiuna military headquarters with the coup leaders during the night of April 11-12. And referring to Mr Shapiro, Mr Rondon said: "We saw him leaving Miraflores palace, all smiles and embraces, with the dictator Pedro Carmona Estanga [who was installed by the military for a day] ... [His] satisfaction was obvious. Shapiro's participation in the coup d'état in Venezuela is evident." __________________________________________________________ http://www.counterpunch.org/ blum0414.html April 14, 2002 The CIA and the Venezuela Coup Hugo Chavez: A Servant Not Knowing his Place by William Blum How do we know that the CIA was behind the coup that overthrew Hugo Chavez? Same way we know that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. That's what it's always done and there's no reason to think that tomorrow morning will be any different. Consider Chavez's crimes: Branding the US attacks on Afghanistan as "fighting terrorism with terrorism", he demanded an end to "the slaughter of innocents"; holding up photographs of children killed in the American bombing attacks, he said their deaths had "no justification, just as the attacks in New York did not, either." In response, the Bush administration temporarily withdrew its ambassador. Being very friendly with Fidel Castro and selling oil to Cuba at discount rates. His defense minister asking the permanent US military mission in Venezuela to vacate its offices in the military headquarters in Caracas, saying its presence was an anachronism from the cold war. Not cooperating to Washington's satisfaction with the US war against the Colombian guerrillas. Denying Venezuelan airspace to US counter-drug flights. Refusing to provide US intelligence agencies with information on Venezuela's large Arab community. Questioning the sanctity of globalization. Promoting a regional free-trade bloc and united Latin American petroleum operations as a way to break free from US economic dominance. Visiting Sadaam Hussein in Iraq and Moammar Gaddafy in Libya. And more in the same vein which the Washington aristocracy is unaccustomed to encountering from the servant class. The United States has endeavored to topple numerous governments for a whole lot less. _________________________________________________________ http://www.americas.org/News/Features/ 200205_Venezuela_Coup/20020501_US_Role.htm U.S. Works Closely With Coup Leaders A week before the coup, the Financial Times received e-mail purportedly forwarded from a U.S. official employed at the Pentagon who had lunched with a senior Venezuelan military officer. The e-mail detailed how protests were expected to lead to Chávez57;s 60;constitutional61; exit: A strike at Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the state oil company, was expected to cause gasoline shortages, in turn generating chaos, calls for Chávez57;s resignation, anti- Chávez votes in the National Assembly and Supreme Court, and finally military pressure for Chávez to resign. The U.S. government backed its words with dollars. The National Endowment for Democracy, a nonprofit agency created and financed by Congress, quadrupled its budget for Venezuela to more than $877,000 in the year before the coup. Some of the money went through the AFL-CIO to the Venezuelan Workers Confederation (CTV ), which called for Chávez57;s removal and helped organize work stoppages leading up to the coup. Another portion went to the Caracas office of the International Republican Institute, an arm of Bush57;s party. In an April 12 statement, institute President George A. Folsom hailed the coup: 60;The Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country.61; The NED gained notoriety in the 1980s, when the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush used it to interfere with elections in Chile and Nicaragua. To support the Venezuelan coup, U.S. Navy vessels in the Caribbean helped with signals intelligence and communications jamming, according to Madsen, the former Navy analyst. Venezuelan National Assembly member Roger Rondon said two U.S. Embassy military attachés-Rogers and Ronald MacCammon-had been at Fort Tiuna, the capital57;s main military garrison, with the coup leaders the night Chávez was removed. The U.S. Embassy denies Rondon57;s claim, but says Rogers and another military attaché office drove around the base April 11 to check reports that it was closed. JUST HOURS AFTER THE COUP, Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America to his office. The New York Times reported he told them Chávez57;s ouster was not a rupture of democratic order because he had resigned. The administration repeated the claim in telephone calls to Congressional offices but now concedes it had no evidence Chávez resigned. Reich57;s efforts continued in a closed-door briefing to Congressional aides. He said the administration had received reports that 60;foreign paramilitary forces61; suspected to be Cubans had a hand in April 11 violence in front of the Venezuelan presidential palace, according to the Times. Reich, a Cuban exile and staunch foe of Fidel Castro, has provided no evidence to back the claim. Avoiding the term 60;coup,61; U.S. officials hailed the 60;change of government, 61; noting that the presidency remained in civilian hands. 60;We wish to express our solidarity with the Venezuelan people and look forward to working with all democratic forces in Venezuela to insure the full expression of democratic rights,61; State Department deputy spokesperson Phillip Reeker said. The U.S.-led International Monetary Fund expressed a willingness to bankroll the new government. 60;We stand ready to assist the new administration in whatever matter they find suitable,61; IMF spokesperson Thomas Dawson said. The U.S. media generally followed the script. The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times gave the coup ringing endorsements in their official editorials. But some of their news coverage embarrassed the Bush administration. A New York Times report that Reich telephoned Carmona to plead with him not to dissolve the National Assembly fueled suspicions that Washington was orchestrating the events. The State Department quickly revised the story, saying Caracas-based Ambassador Charles S. Shapiro, not Reich, had telephoned Carmona.
I got out of active duty after that experience missing by days being frozen in my slot and having to make a decision about Gulf War I. No Buck, if I were a coward, I Mike McCarthy of Eugene, Oregon -- well known in my local community -- would not be here openly talking in forum, be engaged in exercising pro-actively my political efficacy, and I would not have gone into the Army. If I were a coward, I would have caved my first enlistment in the late 70s and taken an Article 15 when they decided to throw my politically annoying ass out. Instead I risked going to Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary by opting to go to Special Court Martial which I won. there ya go. the truth of the matter is, most of these guys don't have the intelligence to determine right from wrong much less courage. they just do what they're told no matter how heinous the deed.
Come on up, I'll get you into a sit. I'll even forgive you if you kill a flying squirrel for eating on any donated Rusty's Hand built convections we send up the tree with your other food supplies. But if you piss of ground support so much they don't want to deal with you anymore, then that one is on you,,,pal. ;-D
Welcome to the Internet, Mike. I am going to rob you of your soul.
Now you fancy yourself God, Buck? ;-D
Here's the Googlevideo of the first attempted overthrow: Hugo Chavez, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Video) The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size
Good lord. Let's think about this for a minute. We're going to assassinate the guy who wants to sell us Cheap Oil. Yeah... RIGHT... We are so not going to assassinate Hugo. There's plenty of reasons why we would, but there are FAR MORE for us not to. This article is alarmist hype. Do you think we really need to assassinate Hugo Chavez? NO, we do not.
#2. To: robin (#1)
#3. To: robin (#0)
Hugo Chávez’s United Nations speech was the culmination of magisterial international vanguard politics, which converted George Bush into the pariah of the worldwide institution.
#4. To: robin (#0)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#5. To: buckeroo (#3)
2. To: 82Marine89 (#0)
#6. To: Ferret Mike (#5)
#7. To: buckeroo (#6)
I support the death of anyone that does not fulfill their solemn, sworn oath.
#8. To: christine (#7)
#9. To: buckeroo (#6)
"I support the death of anyone that does not fulfill their solemn, sworn oath. What is required to bring America back towards the founding anchors of our nation is credibility and dignity. Honour goes a long way towards ensuring that trash gets canned and not exalted."
Enlistment oath: I, ___________________________________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
#10. To: Ferret Mike (#9)
Heh, since Bush has trashed the Constitution which he has swore a solemn oath to defend, you just called for his death. You do realize that, do you not?
#11. To: buckeroo (#8)
hors de combat
#12. To: buckeroo (#10)
"Whats the matter with you, have you no integrity?"
#13. To: christine (#7)
#14. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
#15. To: buckeroo (#14)
#16. To: Ferret Mike (#15)
How do I talk behind your back by posting something in open forum?
#17. To: buckeroo (#16)
"You are so fucking clueless about your own self that you have to ask this question upon an open forum."
#18. To: buckeroo (#16)
(Edited)
#19. To: Ferret Mike (#17)
#20. To: Ferret Mike (#18)
You bombastically call for the execution of Spec. Anderson.
#21. To: buckeroo (#19)
#22. To: Ferret Mike, Minerva, Jethro Tull (#21)
Is not a small joke that buckaroo rounds up cowboys, a play on words pretty darn tame?
#23. To: Ferret Mike (#21)
You are angry because you are losing the debate on the point made on oaths and protocols.
#24. To: buckeroo (#20)
(Edited)
"Why not? What good is he to society?"
"He volunteered to fight for GWBush's war and then he decided he was a chicken-shit to continue his zeal. Do you know why?"
"I know why. He is a coward. He is a liar to everyone, from his parents and family to his friends and business acquaintances around him."
"He is a coward like you, pal."
#25. To: buckeroo (#22)
#26. To: buckeroo (#22)
"Lets get your triple entente here so as to play fuck with Buckeroo shall we, coward."
#27. To: robin (#0)
#28. To: Ferret Mike (#24)
I did go to an illegal and immoral war conducted on the order of one GHW Bush when I was in the U.S. Army, but I did not realize this was the case until after serving there. I would have also refused to go back.
#29. To: buckeroo (#23)
"Go climb a tree."
#30. To: Ferret Mike (#26)
#31. To: buckeroo (#30)
"Welcome to the Internet, Mike. I am going to rob you of your soul."
#32. To: ratcat (#27)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=533631578437304259&q=documentary
#33. To: robin (#0)
 | What's that Mr. Nipples? You want me to ask the nice lady about her rack?. |
#34. To: Ferret Mike (#31)
Not at all. I have decided you are my new toy. Not much more to it.
#35. To: buckeroo (#34)
Why Buck, who would have thought you need a 'boy toy?' Better stick to your strippers, I don't let guys stick money in my BVDs.
"Not at all. I have decided you are my new toy. Not much more to it."
#36. To: Ferret Mike (#35)
Boy toy? Is that the queer within you, again? Nope, I just put you on top of my list of cowards to slap around. You should feel honored especially since you have none.
#37. To: ratcat (#27)
I know Pat Robertson authorized it months ago.
#38. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#33)
I'm not so sure. He did accurately predict if it was attempted it would be done by proxy. Much of what the government does at the behest of Bush is concerned with plausible denial, not whether it is ethical behavior or not. You are saying they won't do something like this because it makes no sense to do so. Yet it makes no sense to invade Iraq, even less sense to stay there. It makes no sense to lie and fabricate fake quotes in speeches, to say there are WOMD when it has been proven to not be any, it makes no sense to blow up the twin towers and set fire to the Pentagon, and so on and so on. I submit that Bush and company do not operate under the auspices of doing things that are rational and that make sense. I submit their only concern is to hold onto and consolidate power. I submit that it is extremely likely a man like Bush who goes into a rage if disagreed with by anybody and does not permit himself to even hear dissent for him to do precisely that; try to kill Chavez. Oil be damned, if they try to withhold it, he'll invade and take it and install the government there he wants.
"Do you think we really need to assassinate Hugo Chavez? NO, we do not."
#39. To: buckeroo (#36)
Sure buck, but forgive me if my hands don't tremble like your's probably do after a bottle wrestles you to the floor rendering you unconscious.
"Boy toy? Is that the queer within you, again? Nope, I just put you on top of my list of cowards to slap around. You should feel honored especially since you have none."
#40. To: Ferret Mike (#39)
You seem to have the capability to create these scenes of self-tormented destruction all upon your own. Why should I dance about your overwhelming desire to fancy a drunk stupor?
#41. To: buckeroo (#40) (Edited)
You got me, Buck. I guess I was scared by an illustrated copy of the epic poem, "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" as a small boy. This dead albatross' rotting as they hang around one's neck. Scary. How do you even begin to tolerate yours'?
"You seem to have the capability to create these scenes of self- tormented destruction all upon your own. Why should I dance about your overwhelming desire to fancy a drunk stupor?"
.
.
.
Comments (42 - 107) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest