U.S. Ambassador Stranded by Chavez Rally

[RandFan]

If you were not using the word in a negative sense, then why did you admit possible bias when you applied the same word to Bush?

While reactionary might not necessarily be pejorative it is not in my mind a good thing for a leader to have. I think a leader should be objective, impartial and pro-active. There is a reason that we have leaders and it is not to follow mob behavior.

Citizens who protest because they feel threatened are exercising their rights to effect change. In a perfect world we wouldn't need protests. In a perfect world people would only think objectively and there would not be any reactionaries but we don't live in a perfect world and citizens often feel powerless to control their own lives so they react.

So, long answer to a short question. I see things a bit different for leaders and citizens. Still, I think citizens can be irrational in their response and that simply being a reactionary can be a bad thing.

 

[FreeChile]

While reactionary might not necessarily be pejorative it is not in my mind a good thing for a leader to have.

RandFan, even though I used the name Bush, you were not talking about him exclusively. I had previously included "the Ambassador or Bush and his friends as possible reactionaries" to purposely establish group comparisons.

Possibly if they exhibit such behavior. I think I could make an argument that they are but I don't see them that way. However I recognize that I share common goals, values and sentiment so there is reason I might be blind to the behavior.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, even though I used the name Bush, you were not talking about him exclusively. I had previously included "the Ambassador or Bush and his friends as possible reactionaries" to purposely establish group comparisons.

Boy, you are really hung up on this. It's a non-issue FreeChile. I wasn't thinking of Bush's friends when I responded. By "they" I meant the President and the Ambassador. I don't know enough about Bush's friends to comment one way or the other and to be frank I don't know why you would include them. Who cares about Bush's friends? Diplomats shouldn't be reactionaries either under the logic I gave you. I concede that an argument could be made that they could be

Look, you asked me what I meant by reactionary. I honestly told you what I meant. You can either accept it or not. Going on and on with such meaningless drivel when my meaning has been established is pointless.

 

[WildCat]

What would Chavez do w/o the US to blame for the problems of Venezuela?

 

[DanishDynamite]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060323/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_us_protest

U.S. Ambassador Stranded by Chavez Rally

CARACAS, Venezuela - A raucus rally supporting leftist President Hugo Chavez stranded the U.S. ambassador and his delegation inside a social club for more than two hours Wednesday, officials said.

About 200 chanting Chavez supporters burned an American flag, set tires ablaze and blocked the gates of the Italian-Venezuelan social club during the visit by Ambassador William Brownfield to San Juan de los Morros, about 50 miles southwest of Caracas, said U.S. Embassy spokesman Brian Penn.

So, in short, not only is Chavez a nutjob, but his most fervent supporters are likewise.

What's your point, FreeChile?

 

[FreeChile]

So, in short, not only is Chavez a nutjob, but his most fervent supporters are likewise.

What's your point, FreeChile?

Even though much of the thread has been an effort between RandFan and I to understand each other, you may find an answer in two statements I made on this thread.

You may consider it simple news posted on the forum without any expressed opinion on the part of the submitter. It's your choice.

Taken individually, most stories don’t merit much attention. I tend to see it as a tension that is building up, unnecessarily.