# Bush travels to South America



## JKHofling

George Bush is making a trip through South America, Colombia, Brazil, Mexcio and I think he ends his trip in Uruguay. There are protests forming already against this campaign. His agenda is to try and augment support of free trade and deter some of the anti-americanism that's been going on. Popular opinion appears to be pessimistic about this agenda. As much as I'd like to turn the pages with our latin neighbors I don't think Bush is the right one for the job. Good luck cowboy 
I'm curious to see how the people respond.


----------



## maxiogee

Which people? 
The target of the trip is more than likely the citizens of the US.
What does any politician achieve on the international scene by going anywhere? The sort of trumpet events such as the signing of treaties and trade deals are all worked out in advance, the bodies show up purely to sign the bits of paper in the one room at the one time, in front of the dutiful media which turns up on demand.
Visits overseas are, 99 times out of 100, for the folks back home - whether it be Bush, Blair or Berlusconi.


----------



## luis masci

Well, Bush was already here about two years ago (in Mar del Plata meeting), so I haven’t to wait for it to answer your question. 
He got little success trying to impose the ALCA because most countries chose to adhere to the Mercosur. 
Besides in relation with popular reaction, well… people here, in general terms, are willing to have anti-Americanism attitude, and they used to express it in that opportunity. 
You can see this link talking about that event (I hope you can read Spanish)
http://www.terra.com.ar/canales/cumbremardelplata/cumbremardelplata.html
And yes, I totally agree with you in the thought that Bush is not precisely the right one for the job.


----------



## Mate

_"...After an economic and political crisis in 2001 and 2002 that led to the collapse of its currency and the biggest debt default in history, Argentina is now the fastest growing country in South America, despite* ignoring the guidance of the Treasury Department and the International Monetary Fund..."
Source: http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/argentina/3565.html

The above report was written in November 03, 2005, prior to President Bush attendance to the Mar del Plata Summit meeting. 

This time President Bush is not coming to visit us. And in case he would, the situation would be more or less the same as it was two years ago. 

Personally, I feel glad that this Republican Administration (no matter who its visible head would be) is not paying much attention to us. 

We are better off. 

* Or because (?) (Editor’s note)

“…Después de la crisis económica y política que culminó, en 2001 y 2002, con el colapso de su moneda y el mayor no pago de la deuda externa (default) de la historia, la Argentina es ahora el país sudamericano de mayor crecimiento económico, a pesar de* ignorar los consejos del Departamento del Tesoro y del Fondo Monetario Internacional…”
Fuente: http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/argentina/3565.html

Este reporte data del 03/11/2005, antes de la anterior visita del Presidente Bush a la Argentina, en ocasión de celebrarse la “Cumbre de Mar del Plata”.

Esta vez el presidente Bush no vendrá a visitarnos. Y en caso de que lo hiciera, la situación sería más o menos la misma que la de hace dos años.

En lo personal, me alegra que esta Administración Republicana, sin importar quien sea su cabeza visible, no nos preste demasiada atención.

Estamos mejor así.

*o a causa de (¿?) (N del E)

Mateamargo
_


----------



## HUMBERT0

Mejor que no venga, no lo digo por él, sino por lo que ocasionan. Recuerdo cierta vez que vino a la ciudad el anterior presidente (Fox), hubo una reunión y esta se realizó en la instalaciones de la universidad estatal, realizaron todo un operativo de seguridad, acordonaron toda la universidad, los estudiantes no podían entrar a clases, etc., además a la reunión invitaron a muchas personas de la tecera edad, y pos pa luego es tarde y que encueran a todos los ancianitos , yo creo que por eso de que fueran antifoxistas o terroristas  , fue todo un escandalo en los medios de comunicación locales, por el atropello a la dignidad de los que peinan canas.

Y recuerdo que en una de sus últimas escapadas del Sr. Presidente a nuestra ciudad, frustró mis planes de gozar las aguas frias de playas de Rosarito, iba yo manejando por un nuevo boulevard que conecta el oriente de la ciudad con la vecina ciudad de Rosarito, cuando a mitad del camino, nos detuvo personal del estado mayor presidencial, y nos informaron que no podíamos avanzar más en nuestro viaje, porque el Sr. Presidente estaba inaugurando el susodicho boulevard y que sólo hasta ahí había paso. Así que tuvimos que regresarnos . 

Miren la osadía de estos fuereños venir con esas ínfulas a nuestra tierra, con delirios de persecución. Estos políticos, mejor que se queden en sus casas ahí causan menos problemas y desmanes.


----------



## zebedee

Please read this sticky before making any contribution to this thread.

Posts which promote a political agenda will be deleted and the thread closed. 

This is a language forum not a politics forum.

Thank you,
zebedee
Culture Moderator


----------



## EmilyD

I am grateful that my brothers and sisters in Latin America have opportunities to express their concerns to Bush, because there is no way in the US for people to convey  less than  flag-waving.

***

Estoy agradecida para las expresiones de mis hermanos y hermanas en america latina hacia Bush, porque no hay ninguna manera para la gente ubicada en los estados unidos a comunicarle algo diferente de banderas...

Nomi


----------



## JamesM

EmilyD said:


> I am grateful that my brothers and sisters in Latin America have opportunities to express their concerns to Bush, because there is no way in the US for people to convey less than flag-waving.
> 
> ***
> 
> Estoy agradecida para las expresiones de mis hermanos y hermanas en america latina hacia Bush, porque no hay ninguna manera para la gente ubicada en los estados unidos a comunicarle algo diferente de banderas...
> 
> Nomi


 
So you don't consider electing a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress in the most recent elections a way that Americans expressed their concerns to Bush?   I think the characterization of Americans as nothing but "flag-wavers" is a bit overstated here.


----------



## EmilyD

James, I was deliberately vague out of respect to the rules of this forum.
Bush was *not* elected president in 2000. And I'm not sure about the "re-election" of 2004.

To clarify:  I appreciate the Cindy Sheehan's wherever they are!

Given the _*arrest*_ of 300+ workers (Guatemalans and Salvadorans primarily) in Massachusetts a couple of days ago, and the hasty depositing of many of those folks in Texas detention camps, I am heartbroken.

Nomi


----------



## french4beth

I agree with JamesM - I think the American voters sent a very clear message during last fall's elections - many Republican politicians even went out of their way to disassociate themselves from Bush well in advance of the elections.

I also agree with Tony, Post #2 - it's just a dog and pony show.

Maybe Bush should stick to landing on aircraft carriers - there won't be any protestors there ;o)


----------



## cuchuflete

I have no personal objection to Bush traveling to other nations, where local people will be pleased to 
express their opinions about his policies.  I have concerns about his return to the US.  If he does come back,
we know what to expect.  If he doesn't, we can expect Mr Cheney.  Is that what's called a Hobson's choice?


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> I have no personal objection to Bush traveling to other nations, where local people will be pleased to
> express their opinions about his policies. I have concerns about his return to the US. If he does come back,
> we know what to expect. If he doesn't, we can expect Mr Cheney. Is that what's called a Hobson's choice?


 
Thanks for the laugh, cuchu.   As for Cheney, I think his own body is attempting to take him out of the picture in a last desperate act of corporal patriotism.


----------



## Lombard Beige

maxiogee said:


> ...  Visits overseas are, 99 times out of 100, for the folks back home - whether it be Bush, Blair or Berlusconi.



Especially Berlusconi ...  whom I personally find "simpatico" ... N.B. For the moderators, this is a personal not a political judgment. Politically the electors will decide.

More seriously, the America that we ALL love is the America that promotes "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".

Now Brazil has the motto "Ordem e Progresso". "Order and Progress" Brazil?

The appropriate motto for Brazil should be "Vida, Liberdade e Felicidade" (Life, Liberty and Happiness) and, despite poverty, crime, etc., which country in the world expresses more Vida and Felicidade than Brazil, from Ronaldinho to Lula?

So I hope that George W., as a patriotic American, has gone to Brazil to learn the meaning of Life and (Pursuit of) Happiness rather than to organize courses on "Rural Capitalism", as he has threatened.

regards


----------



## maxiogee

With the discussions of what will happen if global warming continues apace I have seen many programmes about how forests 'move' with climate. The principle is that if the northern side of a forest is cooling, seeds dispersed on that side won't germinate and the ones on the southern side will. As the coldness encroaches even further over time this results in the forest _appearing _to 'move' to the south - as if it were a decision the forest could make. In that light I wonder about the title of this thread. 

*Bush travels to South America


*


----------



## Joca

Lombard Beige said:


> ...
> 
> Now Brazil has the motto "Ordem e Progresso". "Order and Progress" Brazil?
> 
> ...


 
Maybe because that's precisely what we need most. It's a memento rather than a motto, you know.

But have _you_ ever been here? I tell you it is not all about poverty and crime, although that is what newspapers tell you about. 

JC


----------



## Lombard Beige

Joca said:


> Maybe because that's precisely what we need most. It's a memento rather than a motto, you know.
> 
> But have _you_ ever been here? I tell you it is not all about poverty and crime, although that is what newspapers tell you about.
> 
> JC



Até hoje nunca tive este prazer ...

I have to date never had the pleasure of visiting Brazil but I have Brazilian friends and what I mean is that the image of Brazil, like Italy, is different ...

Can you imagine for Italy "Ordine e Progresso"? 
Progress OK, because Italy is very advanced and even rich in many sectors and areas, but Order ... 

But like you, here we have plenty of Vida and Felicidade ...

Um saúdo do Norte de Itália com um dia de sol radiante e sem humidade


----------



## cuchuflete

Lombard Beige said:


> Especially Berlusconi ...  whom I personally find "simpatico" ... N.B. For the moderators, this is a personal not a political judgment. Politically the electors will decide.  Ahem....LB...the electors *have* decided. {_Past tense_}
> 
> More seriously, the Berlusconi full of love is the America Berlusconi that promotes "Life, Liberty and the *Pursuit* of Happiness".  Just ask La Signora Berlusconi!


----------



## TimeHP

> Especially Berlusconi ...  whom I personally find "simpatico" ... N.B. For the moderators, this is a personal not a political judgment. Politically the electors will decide.


 

Actually he tells a lot of jokes...


----------



## Lombard Beige

Re Italian electors: past tense, are you sure? 

(OT: Didn't Sir Lawrence Olivier say that in the "Marathon Runner"?)

(Berlusconi's popularity currently stands at 58% after less than one year of government by his competition; it must be his facelifts and hair jobs !!! )

N.B. (for the moderators) This data is provided as news, not political commentary ...

As I say Italy is not characterized by "Ordine" ... the side that wins is the "least divided".

Brazil and Italy: uma raça (???) uma cara (???): one race one face 
(usually said by Greeks of Italians)

We are all too life-oriented ... but it's more fun than "Rural Capitalism", that's what caused my two grandfathers to emigrate respectively from Italy and Ireland to "points west and east".

regards


----------



## Etcetera

maxiogee said:


> Visits overseas are, 99 times out of 100, for the folks back home - whether it be Bush, Blair or Berlusconi.


Can't but agree. Just a show, and not even for the citizens - rather, for the reporters.


----------



## Lombard Beige

I won't quote his words concerning George W., but I think Hugo Chávez must have been following the thread I opened, now closed, on Hispanic J... D...'s (R.I.P.). 

 I won't quote his words, but I am curious to see how these words are translated into English.

regards

P.S. Kirschner may have a German name, but he reacted like a Latin to H.C.'s over vigourous handshake ...


----------



## Macunaíma

> Now Brazil has the motto "Ordem e Progresso". "Order and Progress" Brazil?
> 
> The appropriate motto for Brazil should be "Vida, Liberdade e Felicidade" (Life, Liberty and Happiness)


Hi Lombard,

As your Brazilian friends must have told you before, this is just a stereotype, and like all stereotypes, it falls short of reality and can be quite annoying. Brazil is not a never-ending carnival. When carnival is over and the tourists go back to their countries, we really get down to work, pay the highest income tax in the world and have many, many reasons to be unhappy. 

Ordem e Progresso is what Brazilian citizens need to be stay happy, free...and alive.



> So I hope that George W., as a patriotic American, has gone to Brazil to learn the meaning of Life and (Pursuit of) Happiness rather than to organize courses on "Rural Capitalism", as he has threatened.


 
Rather than teach him the meaning of life, all the Brazilian Government wanted was to impose our "rural capitalim" on him. We are the world's #1 in biofuels technologies, we produce biofuels at an unparalleled low cost with an imesurable capacity of expansion. Our ethanol industry exists since 1970's and it runs nowadays without government aid. If we were allowed, we could pour ethanol into the USA at half the price it costs today, if only Mr Bush would raise the prohibitive taxes Brazilian ethanol have to pay to enter the US market. The American ethanol (made of corn!) is twice as expensive and seven times less efficient, but the American ethanol producers have a powerful lobby and they have been generous financing the campaigns of Republican Congressmen.

The agenda of Mr Bush's visit to Brazil didn't have a single concrete point, as he refused to discuss business. The traffic jams caused in São Paulo's streets by the presidential escort and the angry drivers were pretty much the only news on TV about Bush's visit, specifically. His purpose was obviously political _he was trying to regain ground in Latin America as against Chávez, "o generaleco saltimbanco", as one of our senators nicely described him. Chávez has enjoyed enormous popularity in LA's poorest countries, such as Bolivia and Equador, while the Brazilian press accuses Lula of apathy.

But, as a famous Brazilian commentator said, we should give Mr Bush a warm welcome _after all, governments come and go.


----------



## Lombard Beige

For Macunaíma:

My intention was to pay a compliment to Brazil. 

Of course Brazil, like everywhere else needs "Ordem e Progresso", but despite your problems, Brazilians project an image of "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness", more than other people with less real problems.

In the case of  "Liberty", perhaps this has not always been the case for Brazil, but today it is, or not? 

Re biofuels, I agree with you. 

Um saúdo


----------



## Macunaíma

Lombard Beige said:


> My intention was to pay a compliment to Brazil.


 
Hi again, Lombard. I know you meant it as a compliment, and I thank you for that. It seems that Brazilians and Italians have a very positive image of each other. I just made that point because...well, because I felt I had to. It's not a comfortable position being held hostage to a stereotype.

Yes, we are at present free from the rule of Portugal. We have been free in this respect since the heir to the Portugueses throne declared Brazil independent and crowned himself Emperor of Brazil, in 1822, after we had had the status of "United Kingdom". But, unfortunately, not all Brazilians are free yet. Some remain illiterate, living in poverty, struggling to find a job, send their children to school and give them a better future. To those, it wouldn't make a difference whether Brazil was still under the Portuguese dominion, as they haven't so far benefited from our liberty.

Being free, as I see it, means being able to make choices, having opportunities. To my shame, Brazil has a long way to go reducing its opportunity gaps between the Priviledged (not only the rich, as some might think) and the Underpriviledged. There will always be the rich and the non-rich, but when we are all on an equal footing as far as education and opportunities are concerned, I'll be glad to announce here that we have reached our liberty.

.....

Well, we are striving! Fair trade would represent an opportunity for hundreds of thousands people to leave poverty. Brazil is one of the most competitive countries in the world (if not THE most) as far as agriculture is concerned, and our thriving ethanol and biodiesel industries are a shiny example of this (60% of our cars are hybrids).


----------



## Outsider

Priests to Purify Site After Bush Visit


----------



## aleCcowaN

I agree with maxiogee about the target of the trip being more likely the citizens of the US, or perhaps nobody. Remembering Mar del Plata, any time this person visit us we have to cope with an army in our countries, a sort of occupation force that uses local security as complementary aid or simply as translators to explain "natives" why they can't walk the same way they use daily. Add to this the local groups of pseudo-leftists, pseudo-nationalists, chauvinists and any wolverine-like tiny political group suffering from Big Brother syndrome, and you have the usual unbearable carnival: a bodacious show of foreign power and people shouting he's visiting other provinces of Orwell's Oceania, two bread slices that make people feel like ham seasoned with some kind of low calories "talking ketchup", as these trips are never translated into something tangible.

Nobody cares about measuring one week after this kind of trip the people's distrust on USA growing in any visited country and its neighbours -just in case-. The secret for the USA achieving their goals in foreign countries was, is and will be seeming to be as invisible as possible. But Mr. Bush seems to feel that his presence dignifies something and honors somebody, something that not even the most inveterate pro-USA Latin American would believe, as no president since Lyndon B. Johnson or Richard Nixon (who had the decency of ignoring us) has been more antipathetic to our tastes.


----------



## vbergen

In Colombia there was lot of protests. In the university where I study too. Lot of potatoes-bombs (papas-bomba, I don't know the word in english). Is nice that the cowboy notice that here he is not beloved, only the president Uribe loves him. But I don't agree with the protests in Bogota, because they broke the glases of restaurants and other places to steal. For example in a italian restaurant. What it does to do with Bush?
:-s

I apologize my bad English, I'm learing it
^_^#


----------



## Lombard Beige

Macunaíma said:


> Hi again, Lombard. I know you meant it as a compliment, and I thank you for that. It seems that Brazilians and Italians have a very positive image of each other. I just made that point because...well, because I felt I had to. It's not a comfortable position being held hostage to a stereotype. ...



Re the above, I agree in all senses, but to avoid irritating the moderators - because if we were left alone we would alternate our conversation with lambadas and tarantellas  - I will return immediately on topic, i.e. George W. SELVA ...

Here in Italy a news commentator talked about a new Rio (should be Brasilia)-Washington AXIS (because there was once a Rome-Berlin Axis ), which would be based on biofuels . I think this is an exaggeration. What do you think? 

The Spanish TVE, instead, has been showing Bush's trip systematically contrasted with Hugo Chavez' "Contravuelta" ...  

regards e abraços


----------



## aleCcowaN

Lombard Beige said:


> Here in Italy a news commentator talked about a new Rio (should be Brasilia)-Washington AXIS (because there was once a Rome-Berlin Axis ), which would be based on biofuels . I think this is an exaggeration. What do you think?


Brasil asked to remove custom duties that US charge today on Brazilian sugar cane ethanol to protect inefficient ethanol from maize. The answer was "Nay!!!". If there is going to be some kind of axis, it started a little crooked.


----------



## maxiogee

Lombard Beige said:


> Here in Italy a news commentator talked about a new Rio (should be Brasilia)-Washington AXIS (because there was once a Rome-Berlin Axis ),


 
a) How do you know the commentator was speaking in capitals - did they shout the word very loudly? 

b) An 'axis' is - _a group of countries in special alliance (source: WordRef Dictionsary)_

c) The Rome/Berlin/Tokyo thing was known as 'The Axis' - capital 'A'.


----------



## Lombard Beige

maxiogee said:


> a) How do you know the commentator was speaking in capitals - did they shout the word very loudly?
> 
> b) An 'axis' is - _a group of countries in special alliance (source: WordRef Dictionsary)_
> 
> c) The Rome/Berlin/Tokyo thing was known as 'The Axis' - capital 'A'.



Well although George W. (this puts me on topic) has brought the word "Axis" back into fashion, with "Axis of Evil", the Italian word "Asse" used by the commentator has extremely negative connotations linked to the worst choice that Italy ever made in its 2000 years of history (since the Emperor Augustus). * That's why I emphasized the word. 

I don't know whether George W. has talked of "Axis of Evil" in Latin America, maybe with reference to his adversaries, Chavez and friends, but he does seem to be very adept in promoting these Anti-American coalitions ... 

On a lighter note, in Brazil Condoleeza showed us that she can also dance,  not just a pretty face..., whereas George - though willing - is a bit stiff ... 

regards

* The second one was not invading Ireland, which would have made things easier later for the Sasanachs (English) ...


----------



## EmilyD

I heard Bush on the radio saying something about " keyotes" [sic] rhymed with *day*-o-tays.  This was in the context of his "remarks" about migration/immigration.

Maybe he hadn't taken his medicines...

Perhaps my radio was distorting his pronunciation.

Can anyone clarify?

Thanks.   Nomi


----------



## Alxmrphi

EmilyD said:


> I heard Bush on the radio saying something about " keyotes" [sic] rhymed with *day*-o-tays.  This was in the context of his "remarks" about migration/immigration.
> 
> Maybe he hadn't taken his medicines...
> 
> Perhaps my radio was distorting his pronunciation.
> 
> Can anyone clarify?
> 
> Thanks.   Nomi



Probably exactly what he said, nonesense.


----------



## Mate

Mr Bush Jr. is not that stupid. Maybe a little slow but not a complete idiot. 
This time his travel to South America has more to do with politics that with economy: he needs to weaken the Mercosur. Besides, he has nothing to offer.
Recent U.S. administrations were very busy fighting in other fronts, neglecting the uncontrolled weed proliferation in their "backyard". As a matter of fact even John Negroponte pointed this out. 
As said before, this trip has a clear objective: to offset Hugo's growing influence over Latin America: Bush now seems to recognize Hugo as a major menace.
I think that the cowboy (remember Slim Pickens as Major T. J. "King" Kong, in Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove"?) is now showing a frantic last ditch effort in order to maintain U.S. world wide supremacy. 
And, above all, his own undermined image.

Saludos - Mate


----------



## lizzeymac

EmilyD said:


> I heard Bush on the radio saying something about " keyotes" [sic] rhymed with *day*-o-tays.  This was in the context of his "remarks" about migration/immigration.
> 
> Maybe he hadn't taken his medicines...
> 
> Perhaps my radio was distorting his pronunciation.
> 
> Can anyone clarify?
> 
> Thanks.   Nomi



No, it wasn't your radio. He was given an education at some of the best private schools & universities in America & he butchers English - "nookyooler" - and he butchers Spanish as well -  this is strange as he is so fond of claiming his Texas roots.  I imagine he was mangling the word "coyotes."  People who smuggle foreign nationals across the Mexico/US border are called coyotes.  
-


----------



## Lombard Beige

Mateamargo said:


> ... Bush now seems to recognize Hugo as a major menace. ...



Ay, ay, ay! Political competitor OK, but "MAJOR menace" to the world's currently unchallenged sole Superpower (while China warms up, of course)?

Anyone remember Grenada?

Also, re Venezuela itself, I believe that HC is not (yet?) an absolute dictator like North Corea's KYI, or even Fidel CR, or not?

[This is still on topic as background to GW's visit I think].

regards


----------



## Mate

Lombard Beige said:


> Ay, ay, ay! Political competitor OK, but "MAJOR menace" to the world's currently unchallenged sole Superpower (while China warms up, of course)?
> 
> Anyone remember Grenada?
> 
> Also, re Venezuela itself, I believe that HC is not (yet?) an absolute dictator like North Corea's KYI, or even Fidel CR, or not?
> 
> [This is still on topic as background to GW's visit I think].
> 
> regards


Hi Lombard Beige,

I agree with you about China's warm up. In the view of many, me among them, China will be THE superpower in no time.

Anyone remember the Roman Empire?

All empires fall. It's just a matter of time, centuries perhaps. We'll probably won't see the U.S. fall within our lifetimes. But regardless this slightly off topic comment, I wanted to emphasize President Bush's rapid decay, and I quote myself: 





> And, above all, his own undermined image.


 

I did not depict Chávez as a dictator, only a fast growing influence in our region. 

And the adjective "menace" is not in capital letters in my post. 

Saludos - Mate


----------



## Shishu

Isn't Ordem y Progreso on the Brazilian flag? Why does Lombard Beiges write "Now the motto is..."


----------



## TRG

aleCcowaN said:


> I agree with maxiogee about the target of the trip being more likely the citizens of the US, or perhaps nobody. Remembering Mar del Plata, any time this person visit us we have to cope with an army in our countries, a sort of occupation force that uses local security as complementary aid or simply as translators to explain "natives" why they can't walk the same way they use daily. Add to this the local groups of pseudo-leftists, pseudo-nationalists, chauvinists and any wolverine-like tiny political group suffering from Big Brother syndrome, and you have the usual unbearable carnival: a bodacious show of foreign power and people shouting he's visiting other provinces of Orwell's Oceania, two bread slices that make people feel like ham seasoned with some kind of low calories "talking ketchup", as these trips are never translated into something tangible.
> 
> Nobody cares about measuring one week after this kind of trip the people's distrust on USA growing in any visited country and its neighbours -just in case-. The secret for the USA achieving their goals in foreign countries was, is and will be seeming to be as invisible as possible. But Mr. Bush seems to feel that his presence dignifies something and honors somebody, something that not even the most inveterate pro-USA Latin American would believe, as no president since Lyndon B. Johnson or Richard Nixon (who had the decency of ignoring us) has been more antipathetic to our tastes.


 
It's nice that you think Mr. Nixon so decent. In 1958, admittedly before he was president, not everyone in South America thought so. Read on...

_The crises of Nixon's life were 1) the Hiss case, which "left a residue of hatred and hostility toward me" 2) the Nixon fund, which almost got him tossed off the Republican national ticket in 1952; 3) the Eisenhower heart attack of 1955, when Nixon faced the delicate task of assuming responsibility without appearing to usurp power; 4) the riotous Nixon visit to South America in 1958, which almost ended in his death at the hands of a Caracas mob; Sy the "kitchen debate" with Khrushchev during Nixon's 1959 mission to Moscow, and " 6) the 1960 campaign itself. _

Perhaps he was ignoring you for good reason. 

This is a pathetic thread topic which is just a sham to allow people to indulge in one of their favorite pastimes, taking political cheapshots. You become tedious in doing this.


----------



## cuchuflete

JKHofling said:


> George Bush is making a trip through South America, Colombia, Brazil, Mexcio and I think he ends his trip in Uruguay. There are protests forming already against this campaign. His agenda is to try and augment support of free trade and deter some of the anti-americanism that's been going on. Popular opinion appears to be pessimistic about this agenda. As much as I'd like to turn the pages with our latin neighbors I don't think Bush is the right one for the job. Good luck cowboy
> I'm curious to see how the people respond.





> Más tarde, algunas mujeres del contingente gritaban "esta es una protesta no es vandalismo", mientras otro grupo empezaron a arrojar objetos y piedras hacia las sedes gubernamentales.
> 
> El conflicto dejó heridos a tres policías municipales, además de daños en una institución bancaria, y destrozos en puertas y paños del Ayuntamiento de Mérida, según el gobierno estatal.



source



> En México D.F, tras una hora de recibir pedradas y otros objetos, la policía lanzó gases lacrimógenos para dispersar a los_ manifestantes_, de los cuales detuvo a tres, según ha informado la Secretaría de Seguridad Pública de la capital.
> Las fuerzas de seguridad arremetieron contra el grupo de jóvenes quienes lograron derribar las vallas metálicas pero luego se dispersaron y causaron desmanes en otros puntos cercanos a la _embajada_, en el céntrico Paseo de la Reforma.


source

People responded as expected.  Everyone may now take a bow for following the script perfectly.


----------



## Lombard Beige

Shishu said:


> Isn't Ordem y Progreso on the Brazilian flag? Why does Lombard Beiges write &quot;Now the motto is...&quot;



 It is the motto see  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil  But I think we have discussed all the possible implications in earler messages.  regards


----------



## aleCcowaN

TRG said:


> _...__
> 4) the riotous Nixon visit to South America in 1958, which almost ended in his death at the hands of a Caracas mob;
> ...
> _
> Perhaps he was ignoring you for good reason.
> 
> This is a pathetic thread topic which is just a sham to allow people to indulge in one of their favorite pastimes, taking political cheapshots. You become tedious in doing this.


Thank you for telling these historical facts I didn't know (they happened before my birth). I've found some info about the riots in Peru and Venezuela. This was the editorial of La Nación before the tour was ended. (think you're reading The New York Times, as both have had about the same philosophy and mission since their foundation in 1851 and 1870)


> (...) el viaje de  Nixon ha llevado a los EE.UU. a darse cuenta de que América Latina -otrora se la  consideraba como región segura- se ha convertido en un problema principalísimo  debido a la aceleración de la acción comunista en esa región. La violenta  reacción a la gira de Nixon no podría haber sido tan intensa si los agitadores  comunistas no hubieran sido capaces de capitalizar el latente sentimiento  anti-norteamericano y el antagonismo a la política económica de los Estados  Unidos. Aparentemente Nixon presentará un informe en el cual se delinearán los  cambios que deben producirse en la política americana. Los cambios propuestos  según han señalado comprenderán probablemente:
> 1- la aplicación  de una política más fría con respecto a las dictaduras, pero sin intervención de  los Estados Unidos en los asuntos nacionales.
> 2- la  reorganización de la diplomacia de los Estados Unidos. Lograr que los  diplomáticos americanos tengan un mayor contacto con las personas que van a  desempeñar en el futuro un papel importante en América latina.
> 3-  una mayor conciencia por parte de los Estados Unidos de los movimientos que  afectan a la economía nacional de los países latinoamericanos.(...)
> 
> La Nación - 18 de Mayo de 1958


Maybe Nixon ignored us under his administration -good for him- because he learnt is convenient to do so. Being I born and conscious, I remember Mr. Kissinger. No riots aroused here because we had a military government blessed by Washington (that only means DC to us). I remember very well the coup d'etat of March 24th  1976, and the order and time international recognition on the new regime came, firstly some neighbour countries, following the USA, immediately and avalanche of the rest of the countries including former USSR and Cuba. No coup d'etat, or attempt of it, in my country since 1954 occurred without the blessing or at least the tolerant beforehand knowledge of the USA.

As all my life I preferred a republican president over a democrat one -and always repented later, and maybe I will once again with Giuliani-, I have no problems accepting a conservative USA and its vision and goals, but simply I'm not stupid.

There'll always be some riots when any USA symbol boast by our lands like a peacock. Symbols are so powerful that no religious political force, especially the tiny ones, will overlook the chance of getting some new proselytes for "the cause". No American politician or involved citizen should worry about these riots. You have to worry about common people trusting or distrusting the USA.

President Bush is not much appreciated in Latin America. He seems the Latin American stereotype of the Yankee embodied. Here he's suspected having gained power by fraudulent ballots in 2000 and having less votes than his opponent -what you believe or not about this is not the issue behind Latin American behaviour and feelings-. Every time he criticizes the tropical Mussolini he fuels support to Huguito. Summarizing, Bush is the prototype of the American politician and official who makes things difficult to anybody in Latin America that shares some similarities about what a better society should be in the continent. 

He deserves the kind of comment most people make here before such political tours -comment that I subscribe today- "¡Por qué no se habrá quedado en su casa!".

This is not a pathetic thread at all. It let us analyze what's behind a secular resistance on USA approaches over Latin America, and make our mates in the USA more well-informed about it. If the message is nice to hear, that's different.

The purpose of the tour has been discussed little, maybe showing some activity on a decaying period of government, maybe preparing the field to get some advantages in the region, advantages really needed to sustain the twin deficits of USA in the longest run, as Latin America is mainly inside the dollar area, has growing savings mainly invested in the USA and its economical efficiency grows so slowly -only Africa has a slower trend- that it can be associated to USA's economy during a long period.


----------



## Lombard Beige

aleCcowaN said:


> ... President Bush is not much appreciated in Latin America...



Isn't this a textbook example of litotes, or perhaps even of British * understatement?

* because I believe, Malvinas/Falklands notwithstanding, Argentina is or was characterized by considerable British influence, right?

Where did you hear that, at the BA Cricket Club? 

regards


----------



## aleCcowaN

Lombard Beige said:


> Isn't this a textbook example of litotes, or perhaps even of British * understatement?
> 
> * because I believe, Malvinas/Falklands notwithstanding, Argentina is or was characterized by considerable British influence, right?
> 
> Where did you hear that, at the BA Cricket Club?
> 
> regards


You are American, aren't you?

It's a literal translation from Spanish. In Spanish it is an "atenuación" that you can also call litotes. And this might be expressing an affirmative by negating its contrary -it would be with proper intonation in Spanish-, but usually is something more subtle or precise -what should be suspected from a written case-. "My" not-much-appreciated means here a range of opinions from heavy scorn to lukewarm liking, an average of opinions that is a little negative (or maybe a bit more than a little -should we start it all over again? ). [I wonder if this litotes in English is always used such as Manichean]

About English influence in Argentina, you have the political influence all over the time, and many disturbances before any US' official visiting Latin America (including Bush) should be seen as an underlying war of influences between US and UK about Latin America, as many so-called specialist in international politics say. An example of this kind of thinking is President Bush visiting Uruguay -a country supposed in the UK area- and you have immediately Chavez in Argentina scolding him in public meetings. I don't believe this kind of theories but I have to admit sometimes they seem to be plausible.

You have also a period when England was a model to our intelligentsia in some technological and commercial aspects (for culture, the model was France, with the exception of sports). You have also the two failed English invasions of 1806-1807, the second one having the British army with 12,000 experienced soldiers a total defeat before the 45,000 population of Buenos Aires City supported by volunteers of the surrounding provinces. Yes, you can't speak of Argentina history without speaking of Brits all the time.

And no, I didn't hear it in any place as, in spite of my Scott surname (I don't know why everybody using "dances with wolves" think that it is an invention), I started to learn English at 27, and still I'm not able to understand it in its spoken way.


----------



## TRG

aleCcowaN said:


> Thank you for telling these historical facts I didn't know (they happened before my birth). I've found some info about the riots in Peru and Venezuela. This was the editorial of La Nación before the tour was ended. (think you're reading The New York Times, as both have had about the same philosophy and mission since their foundation in 1851 and 1870)
> Maybe Nixon ignored us under his administration -good for him- because he learnt is convenient to do so. Being I born and conscious, I remember Mr. Kissinger. No riots aroused here because we had a military government blessed by Washington (that only means DC to us). I remember very well the coup d'etat of March 24th 1976, and the order and time international recognition on the new regime came, firstly some neighbour countries, following the USA, immediately and avalanche of the rest of the countries including former USSR and Cuba. No coup d'etat, or attempt of it, in my country since 1954 occurred without the blessing or at least the tolerant beforehand knowledge of the USA.
> 
> As all my life I preferred a republican president over a democrat one -and always repented later, and maybe I will once again with Giuliani-, I have no problems accepting a conservative USA and its vision and goals, but simply I'm not stupid.
> 
> There'll always be some riots when any USA symbol boast by our lands like a peacock. Symbols are so powerful that no religious political force, especially the tiny ones, will overlook the chance of getting some new proselytes for "the cause". No American politician or involved citizen should worry about these riots. You have to worry about common people trusting or distrusting the USA.
> 
> President Bush is not much appreciated in Latin America. He seems the Latin American stereotype of the Yankee embodied. Here he's suspected having gained power by fraudulent ballots in 2000 and having less votes than his opponent -what you believe or not about this is not the issue behind Latin American behaviour and feelings-. Every time he criticizes the tropical Mussolini he fuels support to Huguito. Summarizing, Bush is the prototype of the American politician and official who makes things difficult to anybody in Latin America that shares some similarities about what a better society should be in the continent.
> 
> He deserves the kind of comment most people make here before such political tours -comment that I subscribe today- "¡Por qué no se habrá quedado en su casa!".
> 
> This is not a pathetic thread at all. It let us analyze what's behind a secular resistance on USA approaches over Latin America, and make our mates in the USA more well-informed about it. If the message is nice to hear, that's different.
> 
> The purpose of the tour has been discussed little, maybe showing some activity on a decaying period of government, maybe preparing the field to get some advantages in the region, advantages really needed to sustain the twin deficits of USA in the longest run, as Latin America is mainly inside the dollar area, has growing savings mainly invested in the USA and its economical efficiency grows so slowly -only Africa has a slower trend- that it can be associated to USA's economy during a long period.


 
_Por qué no se habrá quedado en su casa! _Does this mean "why doesn't he stay home?" If so, probably good advice.

I'm not sure what the reasons for the trip were. One would suppose trade, immigration, and whatever Hugo Chavez is up to. I don't think people here are much interested in these things; it's always all about Bush. It's tiresome, so I still think it is a pathetic thread.


----------



## aleCcowaN

TRG said:


> _Por qué no se habrá quedado en su casa! _Does this mean "why doesn't he stay home?" If so, probably good advice.


Exactly! It means that.


TRG said:


> I'm not sure what the reasons for the trip were. One would suppose trade, immigration, and whatever Hugo Chavez is up to. I don't think people here are much interested in these things; it's always all about Bush. It's tiresome, so I still think it is a pathetic thread.


If "here" means this forum, the title of this thread is sufficiently explicit and nobody were misled here speaking of Bush, South America, and all what is between. Nobody is asking about clicking on the thread and open it.

Besides, having the USA for longer than two centuries a constitution that states a strong presidential institution, with veto power, with law initiative, chief commander of the armed forces, with a nuclear briefcase always at hand, etc. a kind of presidential institution it is not common around the World, and that had little evolution to a parliamentary system*, how any person could be surprised because the man who is in so powerful office is being discussed? He represents the USA while touring our region, it's his constitutional job, it's what he's expected to do. Of course, I would rather prefer Giuliani, but Bush is what we have.

*Federal Government have gained along the decades more power over the states, but presidential institution keeps it power. We are more used to look this kind of processes happening in dictatorships or retreating democracies.


----------



## TRG

aleCcowaN said:


> Exactly! It means that.
> If "here" means this forum, the title of this thread is sufficiently explicit and nobody were misled here speaking of Bush, South America, and all what is between. Nobody is asking about clicking on the thread and open it.
> 
> Besides, having the USA for longer than two centuries a constitution that states a strong presidential institution, with veto power, with law initiative, chief commander of the armed forces, with a nuclear briefcase always at hand, etc. a kind of presidential institution it is not common around the World, and that had little evolution to a parliamentary system*, how any person could be surprised because the man who is in so powerful office is being discussed? He represents the USA while touring our region, it's his constitutional job, it's what he's expected to do. Of course, I would rather prefer Giuliani, but Bush is what we have.
> 
> *Federal Government have gained along the decades more power over the states, but presidential institution keeps it power. We are more used to look this kind of processes happening in dictatorships or retreating democracies.


 
I have come to believe that there is an exaggerated, if not hysterical, perception of the power of the POTUS regardless of who it may be. It is a fundamental part of human nature that the perception of power is inversely proportional to the amount of power possessed by the perceiver. This, to my way of thinking, is an psychologically unhealthy way for politics to function. I could be wrong, but it's what I think.


----------



## aleCcowaN

TRG said:


> I have come to believe that there is an exaggerated, if not hysterical, perception of the power of the POTUS regardless of who it may be. It is a fundamental part of human nature that the perception of power is inversely proportional to the amount of power possessed by the perceiver. This, to my way of thinking, is an psychologically unhealthy way for politics to function. I could be wrong, but it's what I think.


I think you're right. It is unhealthy but it's what we have. The local president, prime minister, governor or chief of government is always a dumb to his/her countrypeople. I call this the "politics' inverse law of distance". From the distance, the guy looks a statesman; once you're close to him you smell his feet and breath, and the dude begins to seem a glorified hillbilly. There's also the self fulfilled prophecy of power: we gave the guy power because he seems to have power, get the vicious circle rolling and the king can walk nude through the streets. It's all in human nature.

When Bush (not Condoleeza) comes here, even with a small yet powerful fleet -nobody allowed to check if there were nukes in it- as it happened in Mar del Plata, he's the USA embodied to our eyes. He represents its people (he is there by popular voting), its interests, its thinking. When we look a Nixon resigning owing to some espionage on political competitors, and a nation invaded because it has weapons of mass destruction, and not finding such weapons a simply "we were misinformed", a couple of spanks to tenth class officials, and the feast goes on, we suspect, we distrust, we reject. We see the "defense" budget of a country which does have tons of weapons of mass destruction, climbing to 700 billion dollars, a 60% of such expenditures of all the Globe, and we know, we are sure. This is what USA is doing right now, in spite of the vital, plural and multicultural life in the USA.

Maybe it is not understood what the twin deficits will bring in the long run. Any association between Latin America and the USA will carry troubles to us in the future. The strategy of giving any country a different advantage and the concerns about Chavez or Morales -who might end like Castro, ever lasting due to indirect support given by the USA, the constant support given by its opposition- is short-sighted. Every country here is looking for a better association with Europe, Eastern Asia, Russia and India. Argentina is changing its economy and got a surplus on its foreign trade with USA where it was a constant deficit, the same in services including tourism. Brazil and Chile are doing the same.

Every visit of a POTUS carries all this ruminations. That's why he'd better stay at home.


----------



## JKHofling

maxiogee said:


> With the discussions of what will happen if global warming continues apace I have seen many programmes about how forests 'move' with climate. The principle is that if the northern side of a forest is cooling, seeds dispersed on that side won't germinate and the ones on the southern side will. As the coldness encroaches even further over time this results in the forest _appearing _to 'move' to the south - as if it were a decision the forest could make. In that light I wonder about the title of this thread.
> 
> *Bush travels to South America*


 
Interesting statement, are you suggesting that North America is becoming too cold and perhaps now shifting south? I'm not sure about this, it appears that American foreign policy is still trying to capture/recapture some of its reputation. As long as the main competitor of the free-market economy acts as ridiculous as Hugo Chavez I don't see how any real sense of sensitivity will form for the southern hemisphere.


----------



## JKHofling

Etcetera said:


> Can't but agree. Just a show, and not even for the citizens - rather, for the reporters.


 
It appears everyone took part in the "show", all the demonstrations, Chavez's bandwagon campaign shouting "gringo, go home", and the Colombians demonstration of anger over the visit only lasting 7 hours.


----------



## JKHofling

Macunaíma said:


> Hi Lombard,
> 
> As your Brazilian friends must have told you before, this is just a stereotype, and like all stereotypes, it falls short of reality and can be quite annoying. Brazil is not a never-ending carnival. When carnival is over and the tourists go back to their countries, we really get down to work, pay the highest income tax in the world and have many, many reasons to be unhappy.
> 
> Ordem e Progresso is what Brazilian citizens need to be stay happy, free...and alive.
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than teach him the meaning of life, all the Brazilian Government wanted was to impose our "rural capitalim" on him. We are the world's #1 in biofuels technologies, we produce biofuels at an unparalleled low cost with an imesurable capacity of expansion. Our ethanol industry exists since 1970's and it runs nowadays without government aid. If we were allowed, we could pour ethanol into the USA at half the price it costs today, if only Mr Bush would raise the prohibitive taxes Brazilian ethanol have to pay to enter the US market. The American ethanol (made of corn!) is twice as expensive and seven times less efficient, but the American ethanol producers have a powerful lobby and they have been generous financing the campaigns of Republican Congressmen.
> 
> The agenda of Mr Bush's visit to Brazil didn't have a single concrete point, as he refused to discuss business. The traffic jams caused in São Paulo's streets by the presidential escort and the angry drivers were pretty much the only news on TV about Bush's visit, specifically. His purpose was obviously political _he was trying to regain ground in Latin America as against Chávez, "o generaleco saltimbanco", as one of our senators nicely described him. Chávez has enjoyed enormous popularity in LA's poorest countries, such as Bolivia and Equador, while the Brazilian press accuses Lula of apathy.
> 
> But, as a famous Brazilian commentator said, we should give Mr Bush a warm welcome _after all, governments come and go.


 
Thank you for your message, this is the type of response I was hoping for, real-life accounts from the people living where Bush visited. 
According to what I've read, Lula and Bush signed an agreement that will increase US imports of Brazil's biofuel. Aren't Brazilians concerned about the welfare of the environment?


----------



## JKHofling

vbergen said:


> In Colombia there was lot of protests. In the university where I study too. Lot of potatoes-bombs (papas-bomba, I don't know the word in english). Is nice that the cowboy notice that here he is not beloved, only the president Uribe loves him. But I don't agree with the protests in Bogota, because they broke the glases of restaurants and other places to steal. For example in a italian restaurant. What it does to do with Bush?
> :-s
> 
> I apologize my bad English, I'm learing it
> ^_^#


 
Esta bien, escriba ingles bien. Thank you for your posting. It is protests like the one in Bogata that really make me question what the people's motives really are. Do some of them even know what they are fighting for?


----------



## JKHofling

Mateamargo said:


> Mr Bush Jr. is not that stupid. Maybe a little slow but not a complete idiot.
> This time his travel to South America has more to do with politics that with economy: he needs to weaken the Mercosur. Besides, he has nothing to offer.
> Recent U.S. administrations were very busy fighting in other fronts, neglecting the uncontrolled weed proliferation in their "backyard". As a matter of fact even John Negroponte pointed this out.
> As said before, this trip has a clear objective: to offset Hugo's growing influence over Latin America: Bush now seems to recognize Hugo as a major menace.
> I think that the cowboy (remember Slim Pickens as Major T. J. "King" Kong, in Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove"?) is now showing a frantic last ditch effort in order to maintain U.S. world wide supremacy.
> And, above all, his own undermined image.
> 
> Saludos - Mate


 
How is Hugo's campaign doing in Argentina? Is his solution really the right way to escape the "supremacy" of North America? Does he truly propose something more obtainable to South America?


----------



## JKHofling

TRG said:


> It's nice that you think Mr. Nixon so decent. In 1958, admittedly before he was president, not everyone in South America thought so. Read on...
> 
> _The crises of Nixon's life were 1) the Hiss case, which "left a residue of hatred and hostility toward me" 2) the Nixon fund, which almost got him tossed off the Republican national ticket in 1952; 3) the Eisenhower heart attack of 1955, when Nixon faced the delicate task of assuming responsibility without appearing to usurp power; 4) the riotous Nixon visit to South America in 1958, which almost ended in his death at the hands of a Caracas mob; Sy the "kitchen debate" with Khrushchev during Nixon's 1959 mission to Moscow, and " 6) the 1960 campaign itself. _
> 
> Perhaps he was ignoring you for good reason.
> 
> This is a pathetic thread topic which is just a sham to allow people to indulge in one of their favorite pastimes, taking political cheapshots. You become tedious in doing this.


 
I can't completely disagree with your comment made about this topic, it does engage a huge conflict that has been going on for decades. Especially, when I see how people today respond, at times with such ignorance. But I must say, the topic does deserve discussion and shouldn't be avoided. If the Americas ever plan to improve their relations they must start somewhere. Until recently, no American president has visited South America since 1982. I'm not suggesting that Bush is something special, but I do believe that there might be hope that North Americans are becoming more interested in what is occuring in the southern hemisphere. That's a big leap from the past if you ask me. We'll see.


----------



## Mate

JKHofling said:


> How is Hugo's campaign doing in Argentina?
> 
> 
> 
> I think that our current administration sees Venezuela as a "strategic partner" regardless its president.
> 
> Hugo C. mimics Juan Domingo P. who was in turn an admiror of Benito M. (AKA "Il Duce").
> 
> Times have changed and we are now more aware of populism than ever before; most Argentine citizens are not likely going to stand for another "way too populist" regional leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is his solution really the right way to escape the "supremacy" of North America? Does he truly propose something more obtainable to South America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no way for Latin America to "escape" the supremacy of North America in the foreseeable future and Hugo knows that.
> 
> I think he's trying to lead a more powerful regional bloc in order to -at least partly- counterbalance North America's indisputable supremacy.quote]
> 
> Saludos - Mate
Click to expand...


----------



## ROSANGELUS

TRG said:


> _Por qué no se habrá quedado en su casa! _Does this mean "why doesn't he stay home?" If so, probably good advice.
> 
> I'm not sure what the reasons for the trip were. One would suppose trade, immigration, and whatever Hugo Chavez is up to. I don't think people here are much interested in these things; it's always all about Bush. It's tiresome, so I still think it is a pathetic thread.


perhaps, because you are of the United States of North America, it does not interest the subject to you, and it seems to you a superfluous subject. It is necessary to feel and to live here in Latin America so that to understand it. if it seems to you pure excrement, simply you do not think.


----------



## JKHofling

ROSANGELUS said:


> perhaps, because you are of the United States of North America, it does not interest the subject to you, and it seems to you a superfluous subject. It is necessary to feel and to live here in Latin America so that to understand it. if it seems to you pure excrement, simply you do not think.


 
Thank you for your comment, I spent a year living in Uruguay trying my best to learn the politics and desires of society. I _do_ understand the frustration with their northern neighbors due to the explotation and disadvantageous trade agreements to the south. What I'd like to know is do the people really agree that the next best solution is Chavez's counter model?


----------



## JKHofling

Mateamargo said:


> JKHofling said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that our current administration sees Venezuela as a "strategic partner" regardless its president.
> 
> Hugo C. mimics Juan Domingo P. who was in turn an admiror of Benito M. (AKA "Il Duce").
> 
> Times have changed and we are now more aware of populism than ever before; most Argentine citizens are not likely going to stand for another "way too populist" regional leader.
> 
> 
> There is no way for Latin America to "escape" the supremacy of North America in the foreseeable future and Hugo knows that.
> 
> I think he's trying to lead a more powerful regional bloc in order to -at least partly- counterbalance North America's indisputable supremacy.quote]
> 
> Saludos - Mate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At times it appears that Chavez is just looking after his own popularity and acheiving his own personal goals. How can it be good for democracy to have a leader that rules by decree?
Click to expand...


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

JKHofling said:


> What I'd like to know is do the people really agree that the next best solution is Chavez's counter model?


Hard to say.  It depends on who you are referring to as "the people".  The people who?  

I mean, are  you talking about the people in Venezuela?  The people in Latin America?  The people worldwide?  The people who prosecute neo-socialist ideals?  The people who are afraid of them?  Whose opinion do you really want to hear about?

I'm sure that, even if we both are from the same country, state and city, Rosangelus and I could have (or perhaps, surely have) different points of view about the matter.

So could you please, easen our work and be a little bit more specific, my dear?


----------



## ROSANGELUS

I think that is to respect them point of view of every one, I am in agreement with Sweet, we must be well specific when we spoke, and not to throw arrows to see if we stuck it. 
it is a quite algid subject and with many ways for escojer. but I say something to you, president Chavez, perhaps this being a little mesias(mesiánico) and ególatra (which is not good), but it has a vision and an illusion of very human and quite different world of which it tries the C.I.A., and the POTUS, with the world. 
It is my humble and personal opinion.


----------



## zebedee

The thread has wandered from its original topic and has entered murky waters, as outlined in Post nº6. It is therefore now closed.

Thanks to all those who took part.

zebedee
Moderator


----------

