This is from a transcript of the Univision Republican debate.


MODERATOR: It's the presidential forum, the Republican one.

We're going to talk about something else. Now we're going to talk

about Latin America. A week ago, exactly a week ago, Venezuela

rejected changes to the constitution, but the president, Hugo

Chavez...

(APPLAUSE)

President Hugo Chavez has insisted that he's going to propose

them again. Many consider him a threat to democracy in the region.

If you were elected president, how would you deal with Chavez? Let's

start with Congressman John Paul -- Ron Paul, sorry.

PAUL: Well, he's not the easiest person to deal with, but we

should deal with everybody around the world the same way: with

friendship and opportunity to talk and try to trade with people.

(AUDIENCE BOOING)

PAUL: We talked to -- we talked to Stalin, we talked to

Khrushchev, we've talked to Mao, and we've talked to the world, and we

get along with people.

PAUL: Actually, I believe we're at a time where we even ought to

talk to Cuba and trade and travel to Cuba.

(AUDIENCE BOOING)

(APPLAUSE)

But let me -- let me tell you -- let me tell you why -- let me

tell you why we have a problem in South America and Central America:

because we've been involved in their internal affairs for so long. We

have been meddling in their business.

(APPLAUSE)

We create the Chavezes of the world, we create the Castros of the

world by interfering and creating chaos in their countries, and they

respond by throwing out their leader.

(AUDIENCE BOOING)

(APPLAUSE)


http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/991cc1aa-b60f-421b-b3da-51592fe3cec2

I agree with Dr. Paul. Taking control of Cuba away from Castro's regime is an ideological battle, which is fought in the minds of Cuba's citizens. I think if we opened up trade with Cuba, we would not only export American goods, we would also export American culture and ideas, most importantly the idea of liberty. Perhaps that would inspire the people of Cuba to demand civil rights.

I think in many ways Paul was way off on a few things there, most notably Castro. Cubans deserve every misery they've earned, and can rot for all I care.

The good thing about that filthy aboriginal subhuman Chavez is that he is a thorn in the side of globalism in Latin America. If it weren't for that fact we could nuke VZ and every maggot in it and I wouldn't lose any z's.

So..when they are "our dictator" they are okay but when some country has the nerve to elect someone who WON'T dance to Washington's tune they can be threatened with (and apparently deserve) nuclear anihilation.
Castro was put into power by the people and took back the island from the US Mob that had run it as a cash cow for years. Note also his regime did not take over all the gambling and racketeering but banned it.
Chavez was elected on a popular mandate and although his attempts are not yet effective he is trying to improve the lot of the average Venezualan and wrest some of the entrenched power from the (mainly) US controlled oil companies. The Big Oil treated all his predecessors like servants and Chavez has finally kicked back.

Ron Paul is right. If any previous Administration had made serious efforts to open trade talks with Cuba the vast majority of exiled Cubans that now run most of the drugs, prostitution and gambling in Florida wouldn't be here.
Cuba could be a tourist paradise, again. Tourist dollars would enrich the country and improve living standards, somehow the American version of "liberty and freedom" of the last few years won't seem so appealing to Cubans.

So..when they are "our dictator" they are okay but when some country has the nerve to elect someone who WON'T dance to Washington's tune they can be threatened with (and apparently deserve) nuclear anihilation.
Castro was put into power by the people and took back the island from the US Mob that had run it as a cash cow for years. Note also his regime did not take over all the gambling and racketeering but banned it.
Chavez was elected on a popular mandate and although his attempts are not yet effective he is trying to improve the lot of the average Venezualan and wrest some of the entrenched power from the (mainly) US controlled oil companies. The Big Oil treated all his predecessors like servants and Chavez has finally kicked back.

Ron Paul is right. If any previous Administration had made serious efforts to open trade talks with Cuba the vast majority of exiled Cubans that now run most of the drugs, prostitution and gambling in Florida wouldn't be here.
Cuba could be a tourist paradise, again. Tourist dollars would enrich the country and improve living standards, somehow the American version of "liberty and freedom" of the last few years won't seem so appealing to Cubans.

Chavez is Castro lite, and no matter how hard you try to justify it, the maggot still needs to eat a bullet. But I honestly don't care too much what he does as long as it doesn't affect me and I don't have to listen to his stupid brown ass. Further, I have no desire to nuke vz, but I wouldn't lose any z's if it was, just like I wouldn't lose any sleep if half world dropped dead because I simply don't give a rats ass about people I don't know or love.


When people talk about U.S. propping dictators they always take it out of historical context and Ron Paul in this example made the same mistake.

86Dude:Chavez is Castro lite, and no matter how hard you try to justify it, the maggot still needs to eat a bullet. But I honestly don't care too much

So...why all the macho posturing? Either you have some solid reason, based on careful thought and analysis or this is a kneejerk reaction because he dissed The Decider and won't take any sh!t from Oilco.

. . . Republican debate.

we should deal with everybody around the world the same way: with friendship and opportunity to talk and try to trade with people.

(AUDIENCE BOOING)


Haha. God. I really hate the Republican Party. Paul is right. We made Castro by propping up Batista. We made Pol Pot by propping up Lon Nol. We made Ho Chi Mihn by propping up Diem. The more we try to direct foreign governments to benefit our wealthiest corporations, the more these kind of people use it to gain power.

(AUDIENCE BOOING)

Further, I have no desire to nuke vz, but I wouldn't lose any z's if it was, just like I wouldn't lose any sleep if half world dropped dead because I simply don't give a rats ass about people I don't know or love.

Where do you get the idea that your "desires" (to nuke countries, commit mass murder, etc.), your ability to sleep, to get a job, get an erection, etc. -- that any of these non-events are relevant to global affairs, or to the issues that normal people worry about when discussing politics? Didn't your mother teach you anything about discretion in matters that are personal to you?

As Bastiat said,
Where goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.
Of course, the soldiers might not be in uniform, they might not even carry guns, but their intent is the same - to destroy The Enemy economically and socially even if they can't do it militarily. Ron Paul is right: we create these people, or at least give them power they wouldn't have without our misguided reactions. Embargo doesn't work, except in extremely limited forms and circumstances. Trade - fair trade, not the kind that dominates world markets today - is the way to improve both living standards and political institutions.

So we all agree that Ron Paul is right! :D

We should open up trade with Cuba, and we should talk to Chavez.

Here's the thing...Chavez and Castro are not the same as Stalin or Kruschev (sp?). The former are two-bit small time dictators...the latter were rulers of a nation that was (is) extremely powerful. When we "talk" to a guy like Chavez, we elevate him to an equal footing with the United States. I think that's a mistake.

Here's the thing...Chavez and Castro are not the same as Stalin or Kruschev (sp?). The former are two-bit small time dictators...the latter were rulers of a nation that was (is) extremely powerful. When we "talk" to a guy like Chavez, we elevate him to an equal footing with the United States. I think that's a mistake.

Why is it a mistake? What's wrong with elevating this individual to country-status? Also, why do you place quotation marks around the word "talk"? Do you mean that when we "talk" to Chavez, we aren't really talking, only pretending to "talk"?

The United States recognizes Venezuela as a country. Chavez is Venezuela's President. The President of any country ought to feel welcome to take a trip to Washington and talk to our President.

That doesn't mean our President has to take anything he says seriously. It doesn't mean he has to devote his whole day to talking to him. But I don't think a ten minute chat is too much to ask.

http://www.counterpunch.org/

You asked for a treatise to explain my support for the "lunatic" Ron Paul. Since you asked, I'll send you some thoughts.

Why should Americans left-of-center--with commitments to peace, justice, and democracy--see Congressman Paul as a real option rather than as a right-wing wacko? That's the question.

..............

In contrast to Obama's narrow and perhaps opportunistic reasons for opposing the Iraq War, Ron Paul has consistently opposed every U.S. military intervention since the 1970s. He's the only major candidate who openly speaks out against the American empire and imperialism. Can you even imagine Hillary Clinton or John Edwards using the e-word or the i-word? Not in connection with our own government! When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul sounds as radical as Noam Chomsky. In fact, Paul is more radical because he refused to vote for Bush in 2004 while Chomsky was willing to vote for Kerry over a real anti-empire candidate like Nader. Paul not only talks the talk; he walks the walk. Yet he's more acceptable to Middle America than someone like Chomsky or Howard Zinn because he volunteered to serve in the U.S. Air Force in the early 1960s and he has an obvious patriotism that makes him less vulnerable to the "hate-America" smear.

Ron Paul is the only major contender who calls for cutting off the billions of dollars of foreign aid we give to the Israeli government each year (and all other foreign aid as well, including the money going to Egypt and Colombia). None of the "progressive" Democrats care about justice for the Palestinians or dare to question the power of the pro-Israeli-government lobby. Congressman Paul does.
None of the leading Democrats voted against the Iraq War or the Patriot Act. Paul voted against both. All of the leading Democrats have voted time and again to fund the war in Iraq, thereby ceding the only power they have to end the war. Paul has always voted against Defense Department appropriations which include funding for the war. Unlike leading Democrats in the Clinton-Gore-Kerry tradition, Ron Paul opposes the death penalty because he believes in the sanctity of life.

Only Ron Paul funds his campaign without the assistance of PACs and the corporate rich. There is simply no other Democrat, including John Edwards, who has an equal record when it comes to relying on grassroots support, opposing plutocratic policies, and earning the enmity of Big Business. This is why the Wall Street Journal and FOX News detest the "Ron Paul Revolution." The revolution includes stripping the overprivileged of many of their political and economic privileges. While the Manhattan-K Street-Hollywood crowd disdain Paul, supporters working on his behalf raise $6 million in a single day from the "common people" (average contribution: $100). If that's not democracy at work, I don't know what it is.

The United States recognizes Venezuela as a country. Chavez is Venezuela's President. The President of any country ought to feel welcome to take a trip to Washington and talk to our President.

That doesn't mean our President has to take anything he says seriously. It doesn't mean he has to devote his whole day to talking to him. But I don't think a ten minute chat is too much to ask.There are a hell of a lot of nations on this Earth. If every leader of each country wanted to visit the US president, I'm guessing he wouldn't have time for much else.

I don't think Chavez is interested in coming to Washington. He called our president The Devil. Of course, it's the US, not Chavez that's blamed for the problems between our nations...

Why is it a mistake? What's wrong with elevating this individual to country-status?What's wrong with it? Chavez is not the equal to the President of the United States just as Venezula is not the equal to the United States of America. It's that simple. The only small-time countries that get the attention of our highest public officials are those that are friendly.

Also, why do you place quotation marks around the word "talk"? Do you mean that when we "talk" to Chavez, we aren't really talking, only pretending to "talk"?I'm just quoting that word from Paul. It just seems to me that talking doesn't really get through to these people.

Eh, whatever. If Paul becomes president, he can do whatever he wants. The reality is, Chavez but a comical non-importance to us.

In line at The Blue Note the other night in Manhattan, I met a dude from Caracas and by the way he described it, living under the Chavez regime was similar to Americans under the Bush regime. Apparently most people in both countries are unhappy with their respective leaders, yet they can do nothing to stop them. In the case of Chavez, he is actively trying to become a permanent dictator. The US has a trickier approach. They will simply put Hillary in and the establishment, AIPAC-loving first families maintain control.

There are a hell of a lot of nations on this Earth. If every leader of each country wanted to visit the US president, I'm guessing he wouldn't have time for much else.

I don't think that would be such a bad thing. Perhaps he could have twenty of them over at a time for a dinner party.


I don't think Chavez is interested in coming to Washington. He called our president The Devil. Of course, it's the US, not Chavez that's blamed for the problems between our nations...

Chavez' anti-American attitude is what got him so much popularity in Venezuela. If we showed the Venezuelan people that we respect them as human beings, perhaps they wouldn't be so inclined to support a dictator just because he's anti-American.