Hugo Chavez, RIP

538 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24

Brachina wrote:
Let me suggest shovelling bullshit as a job for Harper, after all he has produced enough of it, he should have to clean it up :p To insult a national leader like Chavez when he dies, wonderful way to create a diplomatic incident and embarrass Canada internationally, again! Chavez will be missed. His achievements are legendary. I do find the implication that Chavez was poisoned by the American Government interesting, especially with the Rumour I heard about Jack's death. Not saying I believe either, but this eliminates the two greatest threats to the right in the Western Hemisphere. I plan on keeping an eye on Mulcair's health and the other lefty leaders in this hemisphere, just in case.

As an aside, I don't think inducing cancer would be an effective way to poison an enemy. For one, it would take too long, and it's no guarantee. For another, the death of the person would really sadden the public in the affected country, and they would be even more attracted to the policies of the departed leader, which would kind of backfire if reversing those policies was your goal.

ETA: Having said that, given the lengths to which powerful people to to obtain and keep power, I can understand why people would believe such things.

6079_Smith_W

I agree with the sentiment here that his revolution is strong enough to survive Chavez. But that doesn't change the fact that his passing leaves his country in a fairly delicate position, and not all of it is because of the Americans and counter-revolutionaries.

He was a good and hard-working leader, but like every person and every politician, he was far from perfect, and I don't think we do the people of that country any service by ignoring the situation as it is. Do we just want to be the mirror opposite of that neoliberal bullshit?

I'm insulting his legacy? Frankly, in the absence of any evidence, I feel exactly the same way about these assassination claims.

.

 

Bacchus

Don't have an issue with that, just it seems to be attack the messenger day and mostly frm people apparently not reading all the articles posting before commenting(which is why Ive not commented, I didnt bother reading anything the MSM had to say or whatever wave red flag fanatic pro chavez groups said either)

knownothing knownothing's picture

Chavez: The Stupid People From Fox News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vNOBBB5FgY

6079_Smith_W

dp

margot66

As it Happens, CBC, sank to a new low tonight.  Their truly twisted Hugo Chavez obituary featured an interview with the editor of an extreme anti-Chavez paper, Ven Economy.  

He was predictable.  Host Carol smiled and smiled into her microphone.  We'll hear from him again soon...

The CBC's record on Libya and Syria and Mali is such that this is doubtless on the latest dance card.

Chavez vive.  As millions were out shouting today.

 

 

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I have heard some talk as if they might catch plague from it, though - or that it makes one an active supporter.

Don't you just have to laugh at all the rich people in capitalist countries around the globe that spend big bucks to control the media. Boy are they ever stupid.

6079_Smith_W

If I can wade through presstv and counterpunch just to stay on top of things; you can deal with the great satan.

At least neither of us is being shot at for the sake of our convictions.

 

6079_Smith_W

 

Love his smile, and my Spanish isn't that good, but that wasn't quite a full translation. His aide was practicing diplomacy.

(edit)

Come to think of it, more than any of their other offensive shit, it is astounding that FOX doesn't send a bilingual reporter to cover htis. And yes, I know no one is surprised, but from a news standpoint it is jaw-dropping.

Debater

Venezuelan Deputy Minister for North America says comments by Harper on Chavez are 'insensitive and impertinent'

 

https://twitter.com/PnP_CBC/status/309427631844102144

A_J

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I won't post it here, but I'd actually recommend reading The Economist's assessment published today.

Why not post it?

 

Here you go.

 

Gwynne Dyer has weighed in as well: Venezuela after Hugo Chavez

Quote:

. . .

 

Venezuela never stopped being a democracy despite 14 years of Chavez’s rule. He didn’t seize power. He didn’t even rig elections, though he used the government’s money and privileged access to the media to good effect. He was elected president four times, the first three with increasing majorities—but the last time, in 2012, he fell back sharply, only defeating his rival by 54 percent to 44 percent.

That is certainly not a wide enough margin to guarantee that his appointed successor, Nicolas Maduro, will win the next election. Maduro will doubtless benefit from a certain sympathy vote, but that effect may be outweighed by the fact that Chavez is no longer there in person to work his electoral magic. If his United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) were to lose that election, it would not be a tragedy.

Chavez was an unnecessarily combative and polarizing politician and a truly awful administrator, but he has actually achieved what he went into politics for. Twenty years ago Venezuelan politics was a corrupt game fought out between two factions of a narrow elite. Now the task of using the country’s oil wealth to improve the lives of the poor majority is central to all political debate in the country.

 

In last year’s election, the Venezuelan opposition parties managed to unite behind a single presidential candidate, Henrique Capriles, whose political platform was basically “Chavismo” without the demagoguery.  In previous elections, the opposition had railed against Chavez’s “socialism” and Marxism, and lost by a wide margin. Capriles, by contrast, promised to retain most of Chavez’s social welfare policies, and lost very narrowly.

Over the past dozen years Chavez’s governments have poured almost $300 billion into improving literacy, extending high school education, creating a modern, universally accessible health-care system, build housing for the homeless, and subsidising household purchases from groceries to appliances. What made that possible was not “socialism”, but Venezuela’s huge oil revenues.

 

. . .

Slumberjack

Dyer wrote:
No need to repeat it

I don't know if we should be glad that today, significant memory impairment is evidently no barrier to employment as a journalist or historian.

janfromthebruce

What a load of crap:

What made that possible was not “socialism”, but Venezuela’s huge oil revenues. Dyer

Purposeful confusion of a political system with a resource system. So socialism insured that resource revenues were used for the betterment of the majority of the people rather than be hoarded by the few for their personal benefit. Thus, these 2 variables are not a match.

Jacob Two-Two

Or how about this nugget?

"For all of Chavez’s ranting about class struggle and his admiration for Fidel Castro, this was not achieved in Venezuela by taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. It was accomplished by spending the oil revenue differently."

Uh yeah, spending it differently by giving it to the poor instead of the rich. No, it wasn't taking the money right out of their pockets, but it was taking revenues that the wealthy were used to having spent for their benefit. Same thing in the end.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Actually, Fidel didn't take money from the rich and give it directly to the poor, either...he used the money Cuba gained from expropriating the large gringo corporations to fund health care and free university education for the people.

In fact, to my knowledge, "socialism" was never about direct wealth transfers from the rich to the poor.

Anybody else ever hear of any "socialist" system that worked even remotely like what Dyer sees as "socialism"?

A_J

janfromthebruce wrote:

What a load of crap:

What made that possible was not “socialism”, but Venezuela’s huge oil revenues. Dyer

Purposeful confusion of a political system with a resource system. So socialism insured that resource revenues were used for the betterment of the majority of the people rather than be hoarded by the few for their personal benefit. Thus, these 2 variables are not a match.

I believe his point is that Chavez's programs would not have worked in a country that wasn't flush with oil money.

janfromthebruce

But we would never know. That is his belief. What about the rest of the South American countries that turned towards social democracy as a political system?

And we also have the Scan. countries.

6079_Smith_W

A_J wrote:

I believe his point is that Chavez's programs would not have worked in a country that wasn't flush with oil money.

Though even that isn't true. There are enough countries which have had windfalls and done nothing of the sort.

The reforms happened because his government wanted them to happen.

 

Jacob Two-Two

That wasn't his point. If he meant to say that socialism only works when it has money behind it, he would have said that. His "point", (to use the term loosely) is exactly what he said: It was money that caused progress, NOT socialism, which of course makes no sense at all. Socialism is about how you use money. To try to set these things as opposing concepts is total gibberish. Just another example of how the Western media ties itself in knots trying to discredit Chavez.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

A lack of socialist ideals explains why the school board in Fort McMurray has money problems. Not to mention the persistent budget deficit in Alberta.

Quote:

The board pondered a compressed school week for its 5,400 students about two years ago but decided against it. It's now facing a $4.4-million budget deficit due to restructuring of provincial grant money and growth pressures in the oilsands city.

Thompson, who was one of the two trustees who voted for the compressed week, said the deficit this year will be absorbed by the board's $7-million reserve. But he said the problems won't go away.

"We have to address our fiscal shortfall and doing nothing doesn't change our problem," he said.

The separate school system in Fort McMurray already runs on a four-day week. Some schools in southern Alberta — in the Golden Hills and Palliser school divisions — also operate on a compressed calendar.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Fort+McMurray+public+school+board+vo...

Slumberjack

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
That wasn't his point. If he meant to say that socialism only works when it has money behind it, he would have said that. His "point", (to use the term loosely) is exactly what he said: It was money that caused progress, NOT socialism, which of course makes no sense at all. Socialism is about how you use money. To try to set these things as opposing concepts is total gibberish. Just another example of how the Western media ties itself in knots trying to discredit Chavez.

What he said could have just as easily been lifted out of the reactionary media comment sections and slightly paraphrased, which is likely what occurred with this transcription.  Socialism works great when you're using other people's money.  Money that belongs to bankers and oilmen that is.  Money = Capitalism after all, meaning that Socialism wouldn’t survive without either.  Ditto for journalism as we know it.

NDPP

Chavez Another CIA Assassination Victim?

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/06/292131/was-hugo-chavez-murdered-...

"I don't know but...it is very odd that we have seen Lugo affected by cancer, Dilma when she was a candidate, me, going into an election year, not long ago Lula and now Cristina...it is very hard to explain, even with the law of probabilities, what has been happening to some leaders in Latin America. It's at the very least strange, very strange."

 

Chavez Death 'No Coincidence': Communist Leader Suggests US Plot

http://rt.com/news/chavez-death-us-russia-plot-zyuganov-923/

"The leader of Russia's Communist Party has said that the death of Venezuela leader Hugo Chavez may be part of a broader US plan to kill off its left leaning Latin American opposition. 'How did it happen that six leaders of Latin American countries which had criticized US policies and tried to create an influential alliance in order to be independent and sovereign states, fell ill simultaneously with the same disease?, Zyuganov said in comments repeated by Russian state television."

 

Investigation Must Be Launched Into Chavez Death: Gloria La Riva (and vid)

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/03/06/292252/chavezs-death-needs-an-i...

"Interview with Gloria Estela La Riva

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I think Dyer was saying that if you don't have massive oil revenues, you should act like Honduras, which stands as a model state for all.

The obverse of that is that if you have oil, you should act like Venezuela: Canada and America, are you listening?

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

It saddens and embarrasses me to see our Canadian government, media and pundits smearing Hugo Chavez whether with over-the-top Fox News type disinformation or passive aggressive smearing of his character and salivating for economic/political change.

And like Z Communications' writer Joe Emersberger points out, today's NGOs like Journalists without Borders and Human Rights Watch have become propaganda arms for western powers. He raises some hard questions for HRW in his article and closes with this:

 

Quote:
In honour of Chavez and of the Venezuelan movements which will hopefully expand on the progress made towards making Venezuela a more democratic and humane country, lets recall some achievements of his government on the international stage that HRW would never applaud. Let's remember Hugo Chavez strongly opposing the US bombing of Afghanistan in 2001; the war in Iraq, the 2004 coup in Haiti, the 2009 coup in Honduras, NATO's bombing of Libya, the lethal militarization of the conflict in Syria, the attempted coups against Morales in Bolivia and against Correa in Ecuador, Israel's aggression in Lebanon and in the Occupied Territories.   None of that impressed HRW in the least. It may even have aggravated HRW's hatred of the Chavez government, but it should impress people who really care about human rights.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/8084

6079_Smith_W

@ laine

Never mind that pointing my finger at someone else doesn't excuse any of my transgressions, pointing out NGO bias doesn't completely invalidate the issues they raise, either.

I went through wikipedia's page on criticism of HRW. and strangely enough much of it is devoted to those who think Israel gets excessive attention from that propaganda arm for western powers.

I guess those on the left aren't alone in wishing they had the power to write the definitive story themselves, without any pesky interference.

 

MegB

"I shall not look upon his like again."

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I guess those on the left aren't alone in wishing they had the power to write the definitive story themselves, without any pesky interference.

Mod hat on. This kind of left baiting stops now. Your insinuations are damaging to the discussion. No one is wishing this, and your characterization of criticism of Western representations of Chavez as some kind of blind religious devotion or worse, is insulting. Stop it.

6079_Smith_W

Look CF, we aren't talking about media here, but organizations (flawed, I admit) dedicated to human rights and press freedom, and I'm not the one who raised the issue. 

You don't want me to respond to these arguments again? Well frankly, I don't want to either.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Just so we're clear, it's comments like these I'm objecting to as a mod:

I guess those on the left aren't alone in wishing they had the power to write the definitive story themselves, without any pesky interference.

 

If I can wade through presstv and counterpunch just to stay on top of things; you can deal with the great satan.

 

Do we just want to be the mirror opposite of that neoliberal bullshit?

 

we already have one papal election going on right now.

And so on.

As a human being, I think your repeated references to insist upon the small nuggets of truth in a fanatically biased mainstream press while dismissing every attempt to contextualize and historicize that bias as leftist hero worship to be insulting and naive.

6079_Smith_W

Those differences of opinion are probably a discussion best taken up in another thread - or not.

As for the subject of this thread, I think I have given the man his due recognition, and nothing beyond valid criticism. 

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..a toast to hugo chavez. he will be missed.

re: bush at the un.

Hugo Chavez, President, Venezuela:
"Yesterday the devil was here in this same place where it still smells like sulphur. This table where I have to talk from."

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I also loved it when Chavez called Bush a "donkey". Laughing

NorthReport

Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle

The Venezuelan leader was often marginalized as a radical. But his brand of socialism achieved real economic gains

No, Chavez became the bugaboo of American politics because his full-throated advocacy of socialism and redistributionism at once represented a fundamental critique of neoliberal economics, and also delivered some indisputably positive results. Indeed, as shown by some of the most significant indicators, Chavez racked up an economic record that a legacy-obsessed American president could only dream of achieving.

For instance, according to data compiled by the UK Guardian, Chavez’s first decade in office saw Venezuelan GDP more than double and both infant mortality and unemployment almost halved. Then there is a remarkable graph from the World Bank that shows that under Chavez’s brand of socialism, poverty in Venezuela plummeted (the Guardian reports that its “extreme poverty” rate fell from 23.4 percent in 1999 to 8.5 percent just a decade later). In all, that left the country with the third lowest poverty rate in Latin America. Additionally, as Weisbrot points out, “college enrollment has more than doubled, millions of people have access to health care for the first time and the number of people eligible for public pensions has quadrupled.”

When a country goes socialist and it craters, it is laughed off as a harmless and forgettable cautionary tale about the perils of command economics. When, by contrast, a country goes socialist and its economy does what Venezuela’s did, it is not perceived to be a laughing matter – and it is not so easy to write off or to ignore. It suddenly looks like a threat to the corporate capitalism, especially when said country has valuable oil resources that global powerhouses like the United States rely on.

For a flamboyant ideologue like Chavez, that meant him being seen by the transnational elite as much more than an insignificant rogue leader of a relatively small country. He came to be seen as a serious threat to the global system of corporate capitalism.

That, of course, is considered a high crime by the American political illuminati – a high crime prompting a special punishment.

As evidenced by the treatment of everyone from Martin Luther King to Michael Moore to Oliver Stone to anyone else who dares question neoliberalism and economic imperialism, that punishment is all about marginalization – the kind that avoids engaging on substance for fear of allowing the notion of socialism to even enter the conversation in the first place. Instead, the non-conformist is attacked and discredited with vapid invective and caricature, becoming a cartoon villain whose ideas, performance and record are ignored before they can be considered on the merits. He becomes, in other words, the Hugo Chavez we so often saw in American political ads.

Stating this, mind you, is not to claim that Venezuela’s economy under Chavez was perfect. As The Week correctly put it, while “Chavez’s policies of redistribution and nationalization of oil assets endeared him to Venezuela’s working class” and produced many laudable results, the country’s “oil-centric economy has taken away resources from other areas that are badly in need of development.”

However, it is to argue that at a moment when America faces a pivotal debate about taxation and the size of government in specific and free market fundamentalism in general, Chavez’s passing should prompt as much reflection on the individual iconoclast as on the overarching economic ideas he came to embody.

To start, that means asking important questions.

For example, the United States has adamantly rejected the concept of nationalization and instead pursued a bailout/subsidy strategy when it comes to rapacious banks and oil companies – and those firms have often gone on to wreak economic havoc. Are there any lessons to be learned from Venezuela’s decision to avoid that subsidization route and instead pursue full-onnationalization?

Likewise, in a United States whose poverty rate is skyrocketing, are there any lessons to be learned from Venezuela’s policies that so rapidly reduced poverty?

And in a United States that has become more unequal than many Latin American nations, are there any constructive lessons to be learned from Chavez’s grand experiment with more aggressive redistribution?

No doubt, there are few absolutely clear answers to those uncomfortable questions, if those questions are assessed honestly. Most likely, in fact, the answers are murky. But such questions need to be asked. The problem is that even gently raising them typically gets one tarred and feathered as a communist and then inevitably called a Hugo Chavez pal (even if Chavez’s overall record is also being criticized!). At the moment Chavez’s name is invoked, the conversation is inevitably terminated, ending any possibility of discourse.

That is by design – it is what the longtime caricaturing and marginalizing of Chavez was always supposed to do. But maybe now that the iconoclast is dead, the cartoon will end. Maybe now Chavez’s easily ridiculed bombast can no longer be used to distract from Venezuela’s record – and, thus, a more constructive, honest and critical economic conversation can finally begin.


 


 

 

NDPP

Hugo Chavez: Native Americans Have Lost an Ally  - by Robert Free Galvan

http://bsnorrell.blogspot.ca/2013/03/hugo-chavez-how-he-brought-heating-...

"How he brought heating oil to Native Americans..."

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

CBC:  Former PM Chretien in Caracas for the Chavez funeral.

ETA: CBC doesn't make clear whether Chretien went by himself, or part of Canada's delegation with two officials from Foreign Affairs.

6079_Smith_W

Just heard on the news that former PM Jean Chretien is attending Chavez's funeral, and that the sword of Simon Bolivar was placed on Chavez's casket as part of the ceremony.

 

 

Wilf Day

Those who think Chavez was so popular that he became an unbeatable elected democratic dictator are over simplifying.

Venezuela has 23 states. Chavez supporters govern 19 of them. Four have opposition governors: Miranda, Amazonas, Lara and Bolívar.

He survived a recall referendum in 2004, and was re-elected in 2006, but suffered a significant defeat in 2007 with the narrow rejection of a constitutional referendum.

And he made a big change for the worse in their voting system.

The 1993 parliamentary election was the first held under their new MMP system, the German and Scottish model so many want to see in Canada. The 1988 election had been dominated by the traditional rivals, Democratic Action (social democratic centre-left) and Copei (Christian democrats), who won 82% of the seats between them. A left alliance won 9% of the seats, and a local left party elected 3 MPs. But massive public discontent on many fronts with unsuccessful neoliberal reforms led to the two coup attempts in 1992. The decades-old two-party system was replaced by an MMP voting system with 50% local MPs and 50% top-ups.

So in 1993 five main parties emerged. Two left parties won 32% of the seats. As well, a new reform alliance of 17 smaller parties that included the Communist Party and three other left parties won another 13% of the seats, and the presidency.

In the 1998 parliamentary election Chavez' new party, the Fifth Republic Movement founded in 1997, won 17% of the seats (Maduro was first elected then) as the second largest of eight major parties; three others were leftist. The next month Chavez won the Presidential election.

But the 1999 constitution changed the MMP system. First, it cut the number of "top-up" seats to 40%. And it permitted the National Assembly to make further changes, so later it turned them into parallel seats rather than top-up, and cut them to 30%, leaving the country with a weakly proportional semi-proportional system. So by 2010 the country was back to a two-party system.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

30 heads of state attending the funeral. CBC covered a good part of it.

Unionist

Is Mulcair attending? Or would that be bad for polls?

ETA: I don't know why I even bothered checking, but has anyone seen a single statement by a single NDP MP honouring (or mentioning) Chavez?

[url=http://meganleslie.ndp.ca/node/514131]Megan Leslie[/url] at least had the dignity to advertise a memorial event on her website - an event where the NDP doesn't figure among the co-sponsoring organizations. That's all I could find.

They are really a shameful obsequious bunch.

Oh wait, maybe it's provincial jurisdiction, like the student strike?

My bad.

ETA again: Ok, for completeness, here's a tweet I found from Paul Dewar:

Quote:
Condolences to President Chavez’s family and the people of Venezuela. We reaffirm the enduring bonds between our two countries.

A fucking tweet and not a word of tribute.

 

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:
Is Mulcair attending? Or would that be bad for polls?

ETA: I don't know why I even bothered checking, but has anyone seen a single statement by a single NDP MP honouring (or mentioning) Chavez?

[url=http://meganleslie.ndp.ca/node/514131]Megan Leslie[/url] at least had the dignity to advertise a memorial event on her website - an event where the NDP doesn't figure among the co-sponsoring organizations. That's all I could find.

They are really a shameful obsequious bunch.

Oh wait, maybe it's provincial jurisdiction, like the student strike?

My bad.

ETA again: Ok, for completeness, here's a tweet I found from Paul Dewar:

Quote:
Condolences to President Chavez’s family and the people of Venezuela. We reaffirm the enduring bonds between our two countries.

A fucking tweet and not a word of tribute.

I'm not sure what the protocol is for the leader of the Opposition to attend funerals for foreign heads of state, but yeah, the silence from the NDP (and Green Party, for that matter), is discouraging.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I'm not sure what the protocol is for the leader of the Opposition to attend funerals for foreign heads of state, but yeah, the silence from the NDP (and Green Party, for that matter), is discouraging.

Yes it is discouraging but predictable.

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I'm not sure what the protocol is for the leader of the Opposition to attend funerals for foreign heads of state, but yeah, the silence from the NDP (and Green Party, for that matter), is discouraging.

Yes it is discouraging but predictable.

Yeah, there are statements about all kinds of things on the NDP website that aren't necessarily seen as major news items. How difficult is it to come up with a statement like, "On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I extend my sincere condolences to the people of Venezuela on the loss of their beloved President, Hugo Chavez. We join in their mourning, and our thoughts and prayers are with the Venezuelan people as they move forward in this difficult time."

Oh wait, I just did it. Hey Mr. Mulcair, if you're reading this, you're welcome to take that statement and use it as your own. Better late than never!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Mulcair was being interviewed on P&P as news of Chavez' death broke, and he was the very first Paliamentarian I know that expressed sincere condolences to the Chavez family and the country. Then Jean Cretien phoned in and gave a long expression of his memories with Chavez, meeting with him, and that Chavez wanted Chretien to come to Caracas and play a round of baseball with the Venezuelan leader.

So, Mulcair was first, Chretien second, and that shitty statement from Harper came a little later.

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
A fucking tweet and not a word of tribute. 

It'll upset corporate sponsors and their media stenographers, who may come to anticipate the future public mood against Liberal and Conservative gangsterism as a desire for a third viable option. Viable in the sense of signalling at every opportunity a willingness to do and say as they're told according to script, along with a demonstrated ability to hoodwink the public just like the rest of the brigands in Parliament. The best way to witness them fulfill every expectation is to expect nothing whatsoever, because nothing is what they'll deliver.

knownothing knownothing's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I'm not sure what the protocol is for the leader of the Opposition to attend funerals for foreign heads of state, but yeah, the silence from the NDP (and Green Party, for that matter), is discouraging.

Yes it is discouraging but predictable.

As Boom Boom said, Mulcair said nice words about Chavez on P and P. Maybe you should watch that instead of continuing your ridiculous crusade against Mulcair and the NDP.

Aristotleded24

knownothing wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I'm not sure what the protocol is for the leader of the Opposition to attend funerals for foreign heads of state, but yeah, the silence from the NDP (and Green Party, for that matter), is discouraging.

Yes it is discouraging but predictable.

As Boom Boom said, Mulcair said nice words about Chavez on P and P. Maybe you should watch that instead of continuing your ridiculous crusade against Mulcair and the NDP.

I won't speak for Krop, but regardless of what Mulcair said on P&P, there still should have been a public statement on the NDP's behalf on the party's website.

Slumberjack

knownothing wrote:
Mulcair said nice words about Chavez on P and P.  Maybe you should watch that instead of continuing your ridiculous crusade against Mulcair and the NDP.

According to the stature of Chavez in the world, this was...how do the Capitalists say it?.....'nothingburger.'

Unionist

knownothing wrote:

As Boom Boom said, Mulcair said nice words about Chavez on P and P. Maybe you should watch that instead of continuing your ridiculous crusade against Mulcair and the NDP.

I love your handle.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Slumberjack wrote:
According to the stature of Chavez in the world, this was...how do the Capitalists say it?.....'nothingburger.'

LOL!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Can't we all just get along? Frown

Pages