Red_Dragon wrote: 
Dude, I would be ELATED to trade places with you right now. You want to come live here? Really?? You aren't serious, I hope. I think that a lot of people think that we exaggerate about the food shortages and the crime here, but it is as serious as it gets. Fresh milk literally does not exist in this country. I have never seen it in the nine months that I have been here and no one that I have talked to can remember the last time it was available for purchase. Think about that for a moment. And how about bread? When was the last time you went to the local convenience store (never mind grocery store) and could not find a single loaf of bread? And if that has ever happened to you, did you find no bread at the next store you went to? And the next? That's happened to me. Within the last two weeks. Hospitals and clinics cannot provide medical care because they have extreme shortages of many kinds of medicines and medical supplies. I could go on if you want, but what is the point? Either you believe my first hand, recent accounts, or you don't.  I would much rather live in what you think is a failure of capitalism than this failure of socialism. Any day.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
He should have been slightly more specific, by calling it crony capitalism.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
FYT

 Mugro wrote: 

Can you be specific? I don't see much of a difference at all.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
If you want to see the failures of the Left, Socialism and Unions, you only need to look to Detroit.

If you want to see the future of socialism, then look to California.  They are going to have to build fences to keep people from leaving pretty soon.

If you want to see the success of capitalism, you can look to North Dakota.

 RichardPrins paraphrases what kurtster wrote:

 RichardPrins wrote:
really ?  This country has gone so far left in the past 8 years at least, that JFK (that's Kennedy to you yougsters) is now considered a conservative.  Animals and criminals have more rights than law abiding citizens.  We are only a couple of steps away from public lynchings of Republicans and especially Tea Partiers and Global Warming skeptics.

The .gov has taken over the Health Care in this country.  The US Constitution is meaningless to our .gov.  Our .gov is telling us what to eat, what kind of light bulbs we can use.  How the F can you say that "the (US) rabid hatred and suppression of socialism, and/or forms of "leftism" in general (both at home and abroad), is pretty well established."  with a straight face ?
 

 Mugro wrote:
 
Superficial departure perhaps (as far as warmongering goes, though with more drone action), or just rhetoric. However it doesn't change the basic ideology, i.e. so-called "defense of democracy" and the promotion of "the national interest". The malady goes back much, much further than that and is ingrained way deeper than that rhetoric, and it still happens.

In essence, I don't believe the leopard changed it spots.

 Mugro wrote: 
If you want to see evidence of the failure of capitalism, you need only look at America right now.

The Obama administration is the same as every other since at least Jekyll Island - controlled by the bankers and industrialists. Whatever is afoot in Venezuela can be attributed to them, as usual. 

 RichardPrins wrote:
The article points it out, especially in the context of recent and not so recent history. For more tangible evidence we'll perhaps have to wait for more WikiLeaks material in due time.

Also the (US) rabid hatred and suppression of socialism, and/or forms of "leftism" in general (both at home and abroad), is pretty well established. As are numerous examples of actions taken in that respect. I don't see any change in the gait or propaganda of the duck...

 
I don't see any evidence in the article, only insinuation.

If you want to see evidence of the failure of socialism, you only need to come here and live for a few months. It is plain to see without looking very hard. I dare you to come live in the Workers' Paradise and experience the full flavor of 21st Century Bolivarian Socialism, as our Commandante has designed it.

I see nothing but restraint and quite a bit of aloofness coming out of the Obama Administration. As you know, I am not a big fan of either Obama or Kerry, so I have no reason to defend them even though I work for them. I have never held back on my opinions, and I don't plan to start now. However, I have seen no evidence that either Kerry or Obama have any burning need to spend any of their time or effort on affairs here. Kerry is busy in Indonesia making proclamations about Climate Change, and Obama is out golfing on some water hogging CA golf course. Yes, Kerry issued a statement, but it was hardly one that was an endorsement of the opposition. They are still smarting from the alleged episode of support for the coupsters in 2002, so they are reluctant to make much of any statement either way.

The Obama Administration, for right or wrong, has made it a point to take a stark departure from many of the templates of US foreign policy. It is a bit simple minded to continue to see Obama's actions through the same prism as you did Bush's.

 Mugro wrote:
The article points it out, especially in the context of recent and not so recent history. For more tangible evidence we'll perhaps have to wait for more WikiLeaks material in due time.

Also the (US) rabid hatred and suppression of socialism, and/or forms of "leftism" in general (both at home and abroad), is pretty well established. As are numerous examples of actions taken in that respect. I don't see any change in the gait or propaganda of the duck...

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Ok. I'll bite. What evidence do you (or the Guardian) have that the US is "supporting regime change" in Venezuela?

US support for regime change in Venezuela is a mistake
The US push to topple the Venezuelan government of Nicolas Maduro once again pits Washington against South America

When is it considered legitimate to try and overthrow a democratically-elected government? In Washington, the answer has always been simple: when the US government says it is. Not surprisingly, that's not the way Latin American governments generally see it.

On Sunday, the Mercosur governments (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Venezuela) released a statement on the past week's demonstrations in Venezuela. They described "the recent violent acts" in Venezuela as "attempts to destabilize the democratic order". They made it abundantly clear where they stood.

The governments stated:

their firm commitment to the full observance of democratic institutions and, in this context,reject the criminal actions of violent groups that want to spread intolerance and hatred in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as a political tool.

We may recall that when much larger demonstrations rocked Brazil last year, there were no statements from Mercosur or neighboring governments. That's not because they didn't love President Dilma Rousseff; it's because these demonstrations did not seek to topple Brazil's democratically-elected government. (...)

Job applications: Pro Twitter monkeys. Call 1-800-MUGSTER.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I am pointing out a lack of consistency when monsters (or even problems) are being highlighted. It's nothing but a form of selection bias (and arguably hypocrisy).

Monsters are a problem. And there are solutions to most problems, but whether they are realistic or achievable is another matter.

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you." ~ Nietzsche

PS: As for cynicism, that too we reserve for subjects that suit us (ideologically).

RichardPrins wrote:
A monster in one camp is not a counterexample for monsters in another camp, monsters are monsters. I'm not seeing a prescriptive idea here, just some fashionable cynicism.

Got a solution in mind, or do you dispute that one is possible?

Or do you even see this as a problem?

 Lazy8 wrote: 
It's more to the tune of keep backing monsters because it serves 'the national interest'. And so everyone keeps doing it, while you and I get to choose to be selectively outraged at some parties (while ignoring others), that either serve our own purpose, or in some cases, that serve those very same 'national interests'.

PS: For every example you choose, there is an exact and relevant counter-example.

RichardPrins wrote:
So...what, then? Keep backing monsters because they oppress the right people?

Today's expedience is tomorrow's blowback. This isn't just true for causes you support, it's universal. The Russians are making enduring enemies in the middle east by backing Assad.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 

 Lazy8 wrote: 
The enemy of my enemy is my, um, frenemy.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
We're pretty much there already, regardless of how many 'sides' one might care to discern.