Hugo Chavez Dies, Left Has a Sad

So, Chavez is dead and his VP is blaming us for giving him cancer – but we know that is a lie because only Republicans give people cancer (though, perhaps Bush gave it to him before he left office?).  As we could expect, the useful idiots of the left wasted little time in mourning the loss of another Dear Leader:

Hugo Chavez was a leader that understood the needs of the poor. He was committed to empowering the powerless. R.I.P. Mr. President. – Rep Jose Serrano (D)

He was known for his grand overtures and bold attacks. – Bianca Jagger (she still alive?)

A good man and a friend of the USA has passed on.. Vaya Con Dios, Hugo. I hope they wear tight red dress shirts in heaven. – Colin Quinn

Hugo #Chavez has died. Commiserations to his family & the people of #Venezuela .Tragedy for Latin America & Caribbean. – Diane Abbott, MP, Shadow Public Health Minister, Great Britain

Farewell Comandante Hugo Chavez champion of the poor the oppressed everywhere. Modern day Spartacus. Rest in Peace – George Galloway

The working class people of Venezuala, Latin America and the world have today lost a fine socialist champion. RIP Hugo Chavez – Colin Fox, Scottish Socialist Party

Of course, not everyone is distressed…

In honor of Chavez, burrito warmers at Citgo rolling at half-speed – Iowahawk

59 thoughts on “Hugo Chavez Dies, Left Has a Sad

  1. Cluster March 5, 2013 / 8:54 pm

    I had this on the other thread but obviously belongs here:

    Hugo Chavez is dead and as expected, the liberal media gushes over him:

    Within minutes of the death of death of repressive socialist Hugo Chavez on Tuesday, MSNBC featured ex-Washington Post managing editor Eugene Robinson to fawn over the “quick,” “popular” leader. Though Robinson allowed that “freedom of speech suffered greatly” under Chavez, he praised, “He provided medical attention that the poor of Venezuela hadn’t received before, and, and, frankly, it was the first time in many decades that a leader had paid that kind of attention to the poor majority in Venezuela.”

    No mention of the $2 billion personal fortune that Chavez is reported to have amassed. BUT he did CARE for the poor.

  2. tiredoflibbs March 5, 2013 / 10:09 pm

    This sounds like something Chavez would do.

    Holder needs to keep his memory alive!

    Let’s see proggies are outraged and scream at the tops of their lungs when Bush arrests terrorists and puts them in Gitmo.


    Now Hugo Chavez can make a real contribution to the world…..

    …fertilizer comes to mind.

    • neocon01 March 6, 2013 / 5:29 pm

      More fertilizer ………here

      Oliver Stone, Sean Penn hail ‘hero’ Chavez

  3. pelirrojito March 5, 2013 / 11:44 pm

    Ok, so for the last 10 years (or however long its been), the right has been calling Chavez a dictator and saying how he oppresses the people. While I’ll admit he was a bit of a loud mouth I fail to see how he was a dictator (winning each election by large majorities) or how hes made life worse for the average person in venezuela.

    So now that his evil evil reign is over, could someone here please explain what exactly he did to make himself a dictator? Surely you can all point to elections where he clearly cheated (no, winning by a large majority doesn’t count as evidence of cheating). Also I’d like to see how the people of venezuela are worse off than they were. Or is it that you lot have been lying about him for the last 10 years? I’d also like someone on here to explain how the average person in venezuela would be better off today if the right had of continued to rule in Venezuela.

    • M. Noonan March 6, 2013 / 12:05 am

      Maybe it was in 2007 when he had his rubber stamp legislature vote him dictatorial powers which, in turn, allowed him to set up things so that as long as he lived, the opposition never could beat him at election time?

      • pelirrojito March 6, 2013 / 12:11 am

        You may want to check their laws, its been done many times before. Could you also answer my other 2 questions?

      • M. Noonan March 6, 2013 / 12:22 am

        Yeah, and lots of nations have had periods where a dictator managed to get the national legislature to pass an enabling act – doesn’t make them any less a dictator.

        In totality, Chavez’ dictatorship was akin in scope and brutality to the Franco dictatorship in Spain – even in Chavez’ uneasy relationship with the Church. But just like Franco, Chavez was a dictator and if you crossed him, you paid for it. But, he’s gone, now and we can hope that like Spain after the Franco era, Venezuela will transition to democracy.

      • pelirrojito March 6, 2013 / 12:29 am

        Let me get this right then, if someone doesn’t agree with you then they’re a dictator? or will you now provide some evidence? you can’t just say something and then make it true.

        As for his relationship with the church, what relationship? no country should have a relationship with any church.

      • pelirrojito March 6, 2013 / 12:30 am

        I’d also still like an answer to the other 2 questions. or just 1, how would the people have been better off if the elite had of maintained its rule over venezuela?

      • M. Noonan March 6, 2013 / 12:41 am


        If you are unaware of the interactions between Chavez and the Church in Venezuela during the Chavez dictatorship, then you are simply unaware of what has happened in Venezuela.

        That aside, of course Venezuela needed a revolution – we do, too. It was Venezuela’s misfortune that when revolution time arrived, the person to lead it was a corrupt thug like Chavez. To be sure, he was more humane, at times, then a lot of other dictatorships – and once again the comparison with Franco is apt, because both Franco and Chavez retained their ties to the Catholic Church and that tether to rationality prevented them from going the route of, say, a Castro.

      • Cluster March 6, 2013 / 3:13 am

        I’d also still like an answer to the other 2 questions. or just 1, how would the people have been better off if the elite had of maintained its rule over venezuela?

        This is priceless. It’s reported that Chavez amassed a fortune of approx. $2 billion during his reign, while 1 in 3 Venezuelans lived in poverty. And yet Pel seems to think that Chavez wasn’t part of the elite. Was it because Chavez often spoke so fondly of the poor? Is that all it takes? Obama must be balanced then, right?

      • pelirrojito March 6, 2013 / 4:37 am

        Fine then cluster, how would the poor have been better under the right wing that ruled for so long than they were under chavez? Or are they worse off now than they were 10 years ago? Or do the poor simply not matter?

      • Cluster March 6, 2013 / 10:07 am

        I don’t know Pel, you tell me. I just find it odd that someone who amassed a $2 billion dollar fortune during his reign while 1 in 3 people in his country lived in poverty is seen as some great leader by the left. And who’s to say the “right wing” governed before Chavez? I really don’t know much about Venezuela, maybe you can inform us all.

      • neocon01 March 6, 2013 / 10:46 am

        If hugo had a brother……….

      • M. Noonan March 6, 2013 / 8:56 pm


        Its impossible to say whether the poor of Venezuela are better off than they were pre-Chavez. To be sure, Chavez made a great show of helping the poor, but many measures of quality of life have clearly deteriorated under Chavez’ rule – most notably such things as the skyrocketing murder rate, which is almost certain to kill more poor people than anyone else. Chavez’ regime, though, is not all that great at telling the truth – and in some cases when statistics started to become embarrassing, they stopped publishing them.

      • M. Noonan March 6, 2013 / 8:57 pm


        From what I can gather, Venezuela was governed by big government liberals pre-Chavez…who were corrupt and didn’t give a rat’s patoot about the poor. But calling them “right wing” is just a leftist attempt to pretend that Chavez brought something actually new to Venezuela…all Chavez brought was the ability to bring out the mob on queue when needed for political purposes.

      • pelirrojito March 6, 2013 / 11:37 pm

        Cluster, so let me get this right. You don’t know what the conditions of the country were beforehand, you don’t know what chavez has done, and still you’re going to call him a horrible leader?

        Heres some reading for you.

        please note the chart showing poverty over time. As far as being an open government, what government is? Have you seen wikileaks documents?

        I’ll admit he I didn’t agree with him all of the time. Perhaps he shouldnt have been as outspoken about the US as he was, but thats what you get when you dont get a refined politican. I’d also say he shouldn’t have cuddled up to iran, but honestly, what options did he have? The US wasn’t an option, since he was trying to stop the US from effectively stealing their oil (it used to be sold for insanely low prices).

        It doesn’t worry me that people disagree with him, I would just like to see people be honest about the man. He was not a dictator. the “dictator” powers, as the media called them, that he recieved was limited in scope, and was used to make things faster. It was a normal part of venezuela and has been used before.

        I’m going to guess you’ll also cry “term limits!”, but most countries don’t have term limits and dont see the reason for them. Thus so long as he was doing a good job, people reelected him.

      • Cluster March 6, 2013 / 11:48 pm


        As a Mark pointed out, previous governments were just different versions of leftist authoritarianism, and I did a little research and found that to be true. It’s hilarious though watching you trying to spin the Chavez regime into something positive. Of course, you still think Obama is doing a good job so nuff said, right?

        Only two things you need to know about Chavez, $2 billion personal fortune amassed while he was in power. And 1 in 3 in poverty. There aren’t enough words in the English language to spin that Pel.

      • Cluster March 6, 2013 / 11:51 pm

        Oh and Pel, I noticed you abandoned your “right wing” Venezuelan government claim pretty quickly. If socialism and leftist governance is so successful, why isn’t Venezuela a world economic power? Why are so many people in poverty?

      • pelirrojito March 7, 2013 / 12:00 am

        Never stopped saying they were right wing, they clearly were. Though in your worldview any oppressive government suddenly becomes left wing. Next youll be claiming pinochet (who mark seems to have approved of) was a left wing leader.

        Like I said, he wasn’t a perfect leader. And as far as the 2 billion goes, I dont know how accurate it is (the US media is highly biased, half of what they say isn’t true about venezuela). But assuming that he did, well he was crooked like the rest, but at least the country is now moving forward.

        Did you even read the document I gave you? You asked to see how things have improved, so there it is.

      • M. Noonan March 7, 2013 / 12:38 am


        Oh, for goodness sakes, Venezuela is a crime, murder and corruption-ridden basket case right now. Chavez was a disaster from start to finish…you’re just buying Venezuelan government press releases.

      • pelirrojito March 7, 2013 / 2:13 am

        As I’ve said several times now, he wasnt the perfect leader, but the perfect leader wasn’t going to happen. And skyrocketing crime is to be expected when major changes take place. But he was far superior to previous governments.

        The hope is that future leaders will lean more and more to the left, get tougher on crime, and continue the policies of education, better working conditions, etc.

      • Cluster March 7, 2013 / 8:32 am

        The hope is that future leaders will lean more and more to the left, get tougher on crime, and continue the policies of education, better working conditions, etc. – Pel

        And now we know the problem. Pel is under the false impression that the left is a noble movement in favor of improved education and working conditions. And because of that, conservatives must obviously be opposed to those noble efforts. Another example of how the left has failed in education, particularly here in the states.

        And Pel, the government scale, from left to right, goes from total government authority (communism if you will) to anarchy. On the scale, conservatism leans towards less government, the left lurches towards total government. Again, something else you need to brush up on.

      • pelirrojito March 8, 2013 / 8:56 pm

        Of course in a simplistic worldview thats how it works. And next you’ll tell me allende was a rightwing hero and pinochet was a horrible evil leftie, right?

        And after all your writing, you still havent answered any of my questions. You asked for details on why the people are better off now, I gave you those details, and did you read them? was a chart too hard to read? if you’re going to run around calling someone a brutal dictator at least have the brains to back it up. Or are you simply going by what fox news says?

        And if you can’t manage to answer those 2 questions, could you explain how maintaining the old governments would have improved the lives of the poorest? (and no, I dont care about the wealth of the richest in cases like this, when you have 60% of the population starving while the rest live in luxury, their wealth no longer matters).

        Additionally, could you provide evidence that he had 2 billion stashed away? I’ve read it in the media, but as I’ve pointed out the US media lies non stop about chavez, and he appears to have lived a modest lifestyle.

      • M. Noonan March 8, 2013 / 11:06 pm

        Allende was a communist who was elected with a plurality of 36% of the vote and then proceeded to govern as if he had won 66% of the vote – essentially trying, via Presidential decree, to impose a socialism which a majority of Chileans had rejected in the 1970 elections. Pinochet emerged as the leader of the coup which overthrew Allende after he had already lost control of the legislative branch of government (I believe the legislature had declared his Presidency to be illegal given his unconstitutional acts – essentially, he was “removed” via impeachment before he was removed by military force).

        Here, though, is a major difference between right wing and left wing dictatorships – once the right wing dictatorship was shown to lack popular support, the dictatorship stepped aside voluntarily and re-instituted democratic government. Left wing dictatorship don’t tend to do that – the only place where I can see it truly happened was when the people of Nicaragua voted out the Sandinistas (who have since come back to power – and learning their lesson – have simply subverted the constitution to ensure they stay in power).

      • pelirrojito March 8, 2013 / 11:36 pm

        Mark, I think we need to get some definitions straight here.

        First of all, how do you define democracy? Chavez won every election fairly, and no one has been able to find any real issues with them (they find minor issues in every country). You also claim other countries aren’t democratic when they clearly are, so what is your standard for being democratic?

        I have explained that the powers he was given were not to make him a dictator as the media claims. So you can’t use that anymore. I’m not asking the world here, just that you explain why he was a dictator. You keep using the word, surely you can defend your use of the word.

        As for chile, allende was elected. Believe it or not, there are other forms of government, and in many you do not have to win the majority, only win the highest percentage of all parties. Allende won, the right overthrew him with the help of the US, then proceeded to murder 5,000 (known, another 5000 disappeared) chileans while thousands more fled for their lives. Then decided to rule with an iron fist. Then left when he was forced to leave, but after passing a law to make sure he could not be charged for the horrific crimes that he commited.

        You might notice a trend here that you wont like. Latin america is highly left wing, almost socialist. They want such governments, but everytime they move in that direction someone comes along and destroys it. I believe what really bugs you is that no one was able to do anything to Chavez, no one was able to kill him. Hell he even managed to survive a coup attempt.

      • M. Noonan March 9, 2013 / 1:54 am


        Chavez started to forbid foreign observers of his elections and stacked the electoral commission with four of his thugs and one opposition member – this allowed massive ballot box stuffing and, of course, Chavista thugs to intimidate people at the voting booths. His election was as “free and fair” as the 1933 German elections. Chavez silenced media critics, jailed judges who ruled against him and forced in to exile a great number of people. He was a dictator. You just refuse to see it because he spouted off about his concern for the poor – and you don’t even pay attention to the fact of food shortages, massive crime and rampant government corruption under the Chavez regime.

        Democracy is when a free and fair vote is taken – neither side able to intimidate the other. Venezuela has not had that since just after the first Chavez victory.

      • pelirrojito March 9, 2013 / 2:05 am

        I’ve already noted that I have noticed these problems, and again I will say he was not a perfect leader nor did he solve all of the problems. But at least he solved more than the other governments managed to do.

        Do you have any evidence that there was intimidation at the polling booths? (No, saying he was a dictator and thus of course there was is not evidence)

        And could you answer just 1 of my questions? you keep going off track.

        1) Proof he was a dictator – you tried to answer this, I disproved your logic, try again or please stop using the word.
        2) How would the people have been better off without him? And don;’t speak about the wealth of the richest, couldnt care less about them.
        3) What is your definition of democracy? – this should be an easy one, its your own definition.

      • M. Noonan March 9, 2013 / 2:47 pm


        Its common knowledge that Chavez suppressed the opposition. Google “chavez vote intimidation”, if you want to easily find scores of articles about it.

        Face it – the man was a dictator and you’re just too proud to admit that you’re wrong about it.

    • neocon01 March 6, 2013 / 10:36 am


      Requiem for a Despot: the Death of Hugo Chavez
      By John A. Huettner

      President Hugo Chavez, the acerbic tinpot who declared a Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela, demonized America, and resurrected tired leftist politics throughout Latin America, died Tuesday of cancer. Strongman and Vice President Nicolas Meduro announced the death saying Chavez died about 4:30 p.m. local time.

      Read more:

    • neocon01 March 6, 2013 / 4:11 pm


      Jung Un

      Kim Jung Un had NO military experience whatsoever before Daddy made him a
      four-star general. This snot-nosed twerp had never accomplished anything in his life that would even come close to military leadership. He hadn’t even so much as led a Cub Scout troop, coached a sports team, or commanded a military platoon. So he is made the “Beloved Leader” Of North Korea .

      Oh crap!

      I’m sorry.
      I just remembered that we did the same thing.
      We took an arrogant bastard community organizer, who had never worn a uniform, and made him Commander-in-Chief. A guy, who had never had a real job, worked on a budget, or led anything more than an ACORN demonstration, and we made him “Beloved Leader” of the United States
      TWICE !!!

      I’m sorry I brought this up.
      Never mind.

  4. bardolf2 March 6, 2013 / 2:14 am

    Well today’s lookin pretty good.
    No wait the ‘left is sad’ so I better start complaining.
    No I was right the first time, today’s lookin pretty good.

  5. tiredoflibbs March 6, 2013 / 8:21 am

    “Or do the poor simply not matter?”

    The poor are the tools of dictators (and proggies). The poor matter only so much to achieve their goals and continue to use them for their advantage. Their interest is keeping the poor, poor and throwing them scraps when necessary.

    I see you do not learn from history or the present for that matter.

    • neocon01 March 6, 2013 / 9:41 am

      AMF to another POS commie dictator.
      But but but I thought KKKubas socialized medicine was sooooo good…’d that work out fer ya thar hugo?? HUH room temp?? bummer 🙂 🙂 🙂

    • neocon01 March 6, 2013 / 10:39 am

      Chavez leaves a mess – and a fortune for his family
      Silvio Canto, Jr.

      Before the Venezuelan government calls me a CIA agent, let me tell you two things about the death of Hugo Chavez:

      1) He leaves a mess. Venezuela’s politics is in shambles or the usual consequence of Chavez’ “personality cult” politics;

      2) Chavez’ family will enjoy a massive fortune estimated at $2 billion:

      Read more:

  6. Cluster March 6, 2013 / 12:48 pm

    Not to be outdone by Chavez – Obama is doing his best to amass a personal fortune, take lavish vacations at tax payers expense and leave the country in shambles:

    The Coalition for the Homeless released its 2013 State of the Homeless report today showing that for the first time the number of homeless New Yorkers sleeping in emergency shelter each night has passed 50,000 – a 61% increase since Mayor Bloomberg took office in January of 2002. The number of homeless children is now over 21,000 per night, also an all-time high.

  7. mitchethekid March 6, 2013 / 5:26 pm

    I would like to know how you all square this with your ideological perspectives. Since this blog has shown support for Sarah Palin, what are your thoughts about her husband Todd’s snowmobile racing team being sponsored by Citgo and having him have worked for them for another capacity. Are the Palins communists by association or just innocent victims?
    I would also like to know why Neo has accused the government of the state of Florida, from the governor on down, of being involved in a conspiracy against George Zimmerman. Zimmerman, who insisted for months that he was “standing his ground” is now not going to use that defense in an effort to avoid conviction. It’s very confusing to a feeble minded dumbed down drone such as myself. Please help and advise.

    • Cluster March 6, 2013 / 6:37 pm


      Thank you once again for chiming in. Always refreshing. Why shouldn’t the Palin’s take sponsorship money from Citgo? Many Americans buy gas there and they are legitimate international company that the Chavez controlled (no longer thankfully) state of Venzuela had an ownership stake in, so I am not sure what the big deal is. Many Americans are employed by Citgo so their sponsorship of the Palin team is understandable. I also highly doubt the Palin’s consider themselves victims as they is strictly a liberal trait.

      In regards to neocon, I think he has some legitimate gripes as to the circus that surrounds the Travon Martin case and the rush to judgement that so many people engaged in. Al Sharpton, are you listening?

      • mitchethekid March 6, 2013 / 7:14 pm

        Oh I listen alright. Neo from the beginning had made up his mind about Travon Martin. And you defend him?? (Neo) Mr. Zimmerman is going to prison. He knows it, his lawyer knows it and Zimmerman is squirming like a deer in the headlights of an on coming 18 wheeler. Why else would he change the basis of his defense? Why would his wife lie? Why would Zimmerman change his story more times than a teenage girl at a clothing store? Neo assumed that because Martin was BLACK he was guilty.
        I can’t wait for the verdict and read Neo’s post about how it’s all a conspiracy. From the governor on down. That’s the ticket! As far as Ms. Palin and Citgo, I agree with you. Just don’t be so selective in your critiques about Chavez and how he was such a horrible communist. The Palins profited from his state owned company as do the “many Americans” you refer to.
        Don’t be such a hypocrite.

      • Cluster March 6, 2013 / 8:37 pm


        I don’t know much about the Trayvon case, and nor do I care much, but from what I do know, it is not a slam shut case. Trayvon was hardly the innocent teen he is painted out to be. Interesting though that you have seemingly already convicted Zimmerman.

        Chavez was nothing more than a banana republic thug. Amassing a fortune while starving the population and limiting prosperity. Hardly someone to look up to.

      • dbschmidt March 6, 2013 / 9:40 pm


        • Short of being omnipotent you cannot declare anything about anyone including Neo like “Neo from the beginning had made up his mind about Travon Martin”
        • Same with your following remark “Mr. Zimmerman is going to prison. He knows it, his lawyer knows it and Zimmerman is squirming like a deer in the headlights of an on coming (sic) 18 wheeler.”
        • “Why else would he change the basis of his defense?” could be because his case is strong and then why offer the prosecution an ‘extra bite at the apple”?

        Hate to mention this is a country founded on the rule of law and not political beliefs or “American Idol” type of governance. Now if you disagree, please counter the facts of the case—not the latest headlines from people of opinion.

        • Treyvon Martin was larger and stronger than Zimmerman.
        • Treyvon Martin was seen on film (convenience store) buying the requirements for a “spliff.”
        • Treyvon Martin bought the ingredients to complete a ‘Slim’—street slang for a powerful drink.
        • Treyvon Martin, at this point appears to have returned and attacked Zimmerman.

        Zimmerman may go to prison but I hope it is for a violation of law and not because of some political theory sucked up by little weenies like you based on squat. Nevertheless, you will defend someone who was liquored up, high, and possibly aggressive over facts

      • Amazona March 7, 2013 / 9:56 am

        mitche is nearly wetting himself with gleeful anticipation of the imprisonment of George Zimmerman. None of this “innocent till proven guilty” crap for ol’ mitche!

        To hell with the evidence, to hell with the witnesses, to hell with the testimony of those who were actually there! To hell with the rule of law! Barry said the thug who got shot could have been his own son, and the Panthers were right in putting up a reward for Zimmerman’s death, according to the carrion eaters like mitche. What more do you need to ruin a man’s life?

      • neocon01 March 7, 2013 / 10:04 am


        this is easy……….
        when the expelled street fighter, doper, thief, THUG was seen on PRIVATE GATED common property by a legal neighborhood watch person and REPORTED TO POLICE, he chose not only to violate his terms of being a visitor there, IE wearing an ID card and identifying him self and who he was visiting when asked.
        He chose to openly confront the man observing him then committing the FELONY of aggravated battery upon him.

        when TM had GZ on the ground and GZ was defenseless, incapable of fighting back and screaming for help, tra von began slamming his head onto the concrete.
        At that point he was allowed to use deadly force and did.
        The local police and prosecutor investigated and found the shooting to be a “good shoot” = legal.

        Months later the “good rev” and TM’s gold digging parents instigated a racial lynching including mobs of screaming nutcases, the black panthers, threats, one MURDER a white man by a gang of blacks (retribution for tra von completely ignored by everyone) and a HIT on GZ’s head by the BP.

        The wonderful GUTLESS GOP hierarchy panicked appointed a special prosecutor to find *******”justice”******** for tra von the doper thug, and the ensuing prosecutorial witch hunt began…….do some homework bmitch.

      • neocon01 March 7, 2013 / 10:19 am


        • Treyvon Martin bought the ingredients to complete a ‘Slim’—street slang for a powerful drink.

        Purple drank (slim)

        Purple drank (slim) is a slang term for a recreational *****drug******popular in the hip hop community in the southern United States, originating in Houston, Texas.

        Its main ingredient is prescription-strength cough syrup containing codeine and promethazine.[1] Cough syrup is typically mixed with ingredients such as iced tea, Sprite soft drink or Mountain Dew and pieces of Jolly Rancher candy, or SKITTLES.
        The purplish hue of purple drank comes from dyes in the cough syrup.

  8. shannacarson March 6, 2013 / 5:41 pm

    Hugo Chavez was definitely sincere about social justice, but I don’t believe he chose the best road to reach his goal. On the long run, socialism has always been detrimental to the people it was supposed to serve. Also, I don’t understand why Chavez hated the US so much. By the way, I noticed that countries whose leaders hate America are usually countries where atrocities are commited on a daily basis…

    • GMB March 6, 2013 / 8:06 pm

      Could I ask why that after twelve trillion dollars has been spent on the “war on poverty” we still have poor people in the United States?

      I have other questions but unfortunately they were sequestered.

    • dbschmidt March 6, 2013 / 9:44 pm

      Hugo Chavez was definitely sincere about social justice” is the start and end of Hugo. What is “Social Justice” short of robbing Peter to pay Paul while skimming off the top?” How much of my earnings do I need to ‘contribute’?

    • dbschmidt March 6, 2013 / 9:48 pm


      I would need two blogs and a year just to hit the tip of the iceberg starting with Woodrow Wilson & the Fabian society how socialism has been detrimental to the US.

      Care to mention how wonderful it has been?

    • dbschmidt March 6, 2013 / 9:49 pm

      Just in case you are going to start with “helping the poor”–No, he did not. Facts, not feelings, prove that out. Same as Obama.

      • neocon01 March 7, 2013 / 2:44 pm


        ◄ Matthew 26:11 ►

        (Jesus) “You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me”.

        communism = pie in the sky wet dream….

      • neocon01 March 8, 2013 / 9:37 am

        Jesse Jackson Sr. to attend funeral…

        one POS visiting another.

    • Amazona March 7, 2013 / 9:59 am

      Shanna, I don’t believe Hugo was truly sincere about anything but making Hugo rich and his hatred for America. He had plenty of opportunities to help his people. He governed one of the richest nations in the world. But he was driven by hatred and personal greed.

  9. Amazona March 7, 2013 / 9:51 am

    The Miami Herald writes about pel’s hero Hugo:

    “Hugo Chávez’s folksy charm and forceful personality made him an extraordinary politician. His enviable ability to win a mass following allowed him to build a powerful political machine that kept him in office from February of 1999 until his death on Tuesday. But as a national leader, he was an abject failure who plunged Venezuela into a political and economic abyss.

    Dead at 58, Hugo Chávez leaves behind a country in far worse condition than it was when he became president, its future clouded by rivals for succession in a constitutional crisis of his Bolivarian party’s making and an economy in chaos.”

    Read more here:

    • neocon01 March 7, 2013 / 10:13 am

      Latin American Herald Tribune

      Tal Cual: Crimes of Hugo Chavez

      If Venezuela had worthy people in public office who were half as able to enforce the Constitution as they are at showing adulation for the president, Hugo Chavez would have been removed from office and imprisoned long ago.

      This man never stops lying. He manipulates the people, falsifies history, carries out the systematic destruction of democracy, has multiplied the domestic problems of the Venezuelan people, and has involved us in dangerous international alliances with nations and terrorist groups.

      Ten years later, the result is a ramshackle country without institutions and the worst corruption in our nation’s history, exposing us to international ridicule and discredit.

      Confronted by the apparent failure of a government characterized by improvisation, irresponsibility and piracy, and with the well-founded fear that oil prices won’t recover to levels that would in any way compensate for the inefficiencies that come along with perks and sinecures, Chavez has decided to turn to military terror.

      This man is absolutely incapable of realizing what is going on. In his totalitarian delirium of boycotting democratically-elected governors and mayors, he is shitting on the souls of the citizens that elected them.

      Part of his scheme to destroy democratic options includes an end to decentralization as part of a plan to use a deviant centralization to bring the citizens to their knees before the leader.

      Chavez has the temerity of the ignorant; he should learn that the most important ports in the world, including Rio de Janeiro and Hong Kong, are run by private companies.

      • neocon01 March 7, 2013 / 10:13 am

        the bold was for the heading…..only

    • pelirrojito March 8, 2013 / 8:58 pm

      Amazona, you constantly complain about people putting words in your mouth. I have said several times I felt the man was flawed as a leader, so how on earth could you consider him my hero? Please don’t put words in my mouth.

      And given your grand education and wisdom, could you answer my questions? Or are you another fox news listener that can’t think for herself?

Comments are closed.