hi, so nice discussion, New Year is coming, would you love to try something new to celebrate the great day? How about interracial hot dating? interracialsingleonline.com you will be surprised

Latest news, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, a sock puppet of Generalissimo Arbusto, sabotaged the deal.

As a Buddhist I have to defend a fellow Buddhist against the Christian thugs who post here. I can't think of a better pair than Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez who is like king Ashoka, and Oliver Stone who exposed the maggot infested underbelly of the U.S. with his film JFK.

I am a Colombian and I left Colombia in 1994 after my uncle lost his campaign for the Presidency and having endured too many funerals and two kidnapping attempts. I understand Mr. Stone also went to Colombia because he wanted to check it out so to speak because he wants to make a movie about Pablo Escobar, calling him a Robin Hood who gave to the poor. The analogy is a poor one. I don't dispute that Mr. Escobar gave household goods to the poor of Medellin. But he didn't take them for the rich did he? He paid for such goods with the enormous profits that his trade provided him and the practice was meant to buy protection in the slums of Medellin. Nor did Robin Hood put a bounty of $100 for every policeman killed, nor did Robin Hood decide to bomb an apartment building in order to kill a judge. Pablo Escobar did except he missed the judge but killed my aunt and 18 others.
Mr. Stone on his arrival to Villavicencio called the FARC a "peasant army". Well 44 million Colombians would argue otherwise. They are thugs, led ideologically by a man who thinks that it is still 1948but whose lieutenants run an extortion, drug, animal smuggling and kidnapping business all the while Mr. Marulanda lives his delusions on how the Colombian state is responsible for the murder of Jorge Eliecer Gaitan on April 9, 1948.
Elsewhere in Latin Americam armed conflict has been dumped on the trash bin of history but Colombia, while making great strides under Mr. Uribe, hasn't been able to completely shut the door because of the drug trade. The less cocaine Mr. Stone snorts, the better off we would be.

For the first time in 30 years right wing media in the US loves Oliver Stone.

They get to use him in the headline instead of having to compliment Hugo Chavez.

Hugo Chavez got this complicated deal with FARC to free innocent hostages.
Like or hate Chavez....he did a good thing here. And of course it would just kill us to admit it.
So lets all pretend the story is really about Oliver Stone.

Ray Manzerek on Stone's depiction of Jim Morrison
Yeah, absolutely. What a jive-ass thing to do. He should be ashamed of himself. Too sensationalistic. Too jivey. Jim with a bottle all the time. ... That was not my friend. I don't know who that guy was.
http://www.classicbands.com/RayManzarekInterview.html

History Channels' "Beyond Conspiracy" destroys Oliver Stone's Magic Bullet Theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikIRB3lvFvw&feature=related

Oliver Stone's epic movie 'Alexander' was panned by movie critics and historians alike.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8971-2004Nov23.html

Stone is an oportunistic revisionist who preys on the weak-minded. I expect no less from his interviews with FARC.

Chavez reportedly offered to take Stone to the secret hideaway in the Venuzuelan jungle where JFK, Elvis, and Marilyn Monroe have all be living in obscurity under the protection of Castro, the Mafia, and the CIA.

Oliver Stone is "controversial." Hugo Chavez is "controversial." I guess even global warming is "controversial," in spite of so much evidence that greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2) trap heat in the atmosphere and fuck up the planet's climate.

Hint to the mainstream media: To say that someone or something is "controversial" is not very informative. In principle, everything and everybody are "controversial."

Why not say that Oliver Stone's deed X, Y, or Z is right or wrong, that his statement A, B, or C is true or false, etc. -- and then make the case to prove it? Why not say that Chavez's policy number one, two, or three affect the Venezuelan poor in this or that specific way -- and then show why?

If you cannot do that, then when you mention Oliver Stone, or Hugo Chavez, or global warming, or whatever, please do not tell the reader that they are "controversial." Do not use any tendentious qualifier of the kind. Just cover the facts and let the readers judge.

I think Oliver Stone can only fuck up the mission with his presence.