Chavez gets protested.

[coffey7]

This guy Chavez is a punk. He is not so loved like everyone thinks. He put my friends parents in prison for nothing. If He would let the real truth come out about his dictatorship people would learn the real deal about him

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071108/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_protest

My friend stayed with my family when he was going to school in the USA. When he tried to call his parents one day he found out they were in prison. The were both school teachers that had a very large amount of money. People with money are not on the side of a guy like Chavez. In his country all the money should be his. If you start a business he takes it over. Plus he closes down the media so you can't speak out against him. Kind of reminds me of Hitler when he started out.

[skunk]

You knew Hitler, did you?

[Peterkro]

He's seems to have a grasp on the slang of the thirties,it must be nearly that long since the use of "punk" was current.

[xsedrinam]

Not beating the Chavez drum, but there were not a few extremely corrupt and extremely wealthy Venezolanos who fled to other places like Miami to avoid both questionable/volatile political changes and any accompanying scrutiny of their acquired wealth in order to protect their assets and nepotistic, class advantage. Personally I find their ilk offensive, even more so.

[Agathon]

This guy Chavez is a punk. He is not so loved like everyone thinks. He put my friends parents in prison for nothing. If He would let the real truth come out about his dictatorship people would learn the real deal about him

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071108/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_protest

My friend stayed with my family when he was going to school in the USA. When he tried to call his parents one day he found out they were in prison. The were both school teachers that had a very large amount of money. People with money are not on the side of a guy like Chavez. In his country all the money should be his. If you start a business he takes it over. Plus he closes down the media so you can't speak out against him. Kind of reminds me of Hitler when he started out.

Yeah right.

I bet they deserved it.

[Queso]

The were both school teachers that had a very large amount of money.
Sounds suspicious already :p

[solvs]

Where were you in my Pakistan thread. Same type of thing. You'd think you'd be equally as pissed. Or is it only with those who've hurt someone you care about?

[Swarmlord]

Venuezula did this to themselves and now they're going to suffer for it. Hopefully this will serve as an example to their neighbors.

[saltyzoo]

People defending a dictator while saying the US administration is completely despotic. A lot of you really need to see what the real world is about. I've got chills.

[Swarmlord]

People defending a dictator while saying the US administration is completely despotic. A lot of you really need to see what the real world is about. I've got chills.

But, he's screwing the "rich" to help the poor. To some in this forum, that makes him a socialist, Robin Hood like hero with just a few warts. Obviously not near as dangerous as Darth Cheney and Ming the Merciless Bush. At least Chavez wants socialized medicine, so he can't be that bad. He at least cares for the children.:rolleyes:

[Queso]

People defending a dictator while saying the US administration is completely despotic. A lot of you really need to see what the real world is about.
Chavez isn't a dictator. He was democratically elected twice and has since won a recall vote. The opposition isn't banned, it just chooses not to participate in elections, probably because it knows it will just get humiliated. Maybe those who live and vote in Venezuela understand a bit better what a dictator is than someone in the USA, having actually lived under the rule of Perez.
I've got chills.
Are they multiplying? :p

[saltyzoo]

Chavez isn't a dictator. He was democratically elected twice and has since won a recall vote. The opposition isn't banned, it just chooses not to participate in elections, probably because it knows it will just get humiliated. Maybe those who live and vote in Venezuela understand a bit better what a dictator is than someone in the USA, having actually lived under the rule of Perez.

Are they multiplying? :p

Wow. Wear blinders much?

You can't suspend the constitution and not be a dictator.

[Queso]

You can't suspend the constitution and not be a dictator.
Read the OP's linked article. Chavez is seeking to amend the Venezuelan constitution, but only if a referendum of the Venezuelan people gives him the authority to do so. That's a long way short of suspending the constitution, as the dictator Musharraf has done in Pakistan.

[saltyzoo]

Read the OP's linked article. Chavez is seeking to amend the Venezuelan constitution, but only if a referendum of the Venezuelan people gives him the authority to do so. That's a long way short of suspending the constitution, as the dictator Musharraf has done in Pakistan.

LOL wow.

[Queso]

LOL wow.
Care to let us into just how you arrive at that conclusion? Or would that be too much to ask?

[saltyzoo]

If only you were so open minded about out own President.

I can only imagine you'd all be saying the same thing if Mr. Bush used his executive powers to force a change to the constitution to allow him to stay in power.

Good Lord.

[it5five]

To the OP, I know you've told us many times before about your friends parents who were school teachers and thrown in jail.

But this is the first time you have told us they were very wealthy. Now, I'm sorry, but even teachers in the United States aren't wealthy, so I have a hard time believing your friends parents had acquired their wealth legally. If that is the case, then they deserve to be put in jail.

Like xsedrinam had said earlier, there are some Venezuelans that left the country when Chavez was elected, in order to protect their illegally acquired wealth and to hold on to their class status, rather than face repercussions for their acts.

I have no sympathy for your friends parents.

[Queso]

If only you were so open minded about out own President.

I can only imagine you'd all be saying the same thing if Mr. Bush used his executive powers to force a change to the constitution to allow him to stay in power.

Good Lord.
What you still don't seem to be getting is that Chavez is asking for this change, not forcing it. If Bush asked the same, it would be up to the American people to decide whether or not it was a good idea.

If the Venezuelans don't want the changes enacted, and it seems by the protests that quite a few of them don't, then Chavez will lose the referendum and the changes will not go through. It's that simple.

[it5five]

If only you were so open minded about out own President.

I can only imagine you'd all be saying the same thing if Mr. Bush used his executive powers to force a change to the constitution to allow him to stay in power.

Good Lord.

Chavez isn't forcing a change to the constitution. He is allowing the Venezuelan people to VOTE on a change to the constitution. If the Venezuelan people want to change it, that is their decision, not yours.

Also, the changes to the Venezuelan Constitution wouldn't make Chavez president for life; it would remove term limits. While I don't quite agree with that, it is a far cry from what you and other capitalists are accusing Chavez of doing.

Chavez is extremely popular among the Venezuelan people. The opposition parties don't run in the elections because they know that. Nothing is stopping them from running, except for the fact that life for the average/poor Venezuelan is many times better now under Chavez, and they'd have nothing to run on.

[saltyzoo]

Yep, an ex-military leader is just "asking" please, may I rule you FOREVER!?

And nobody runs because they know they'd lose. LOL Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? Please, just step back and think about it.

[it5five]

I think you're the one that needs to step back and look at it.

Chavez is putting the vote to the Venezuelan people. You don't seem to understand this. If the Venezuelan people don't want the new Constitution, they won't vote for it.

Off topic, but what do you think of Musharref?

[Queso]

Yep, an ex-military leader is just "asking" please, may I rule you FOREVER!?
He's asking for the possibility of standing for presidential election beyond the current maximum, but he still has to be elected to rule, and each term will still end in another election where he may or may not get re-elected. Hardly "FOREVER!?".

And yes, he's just asking. This man is no Hitler, however the American right-wing like to spin it.

Oh and BTW, I love the way being "ex-military" is a bad thing in a leader for you ;)

[saltyzoo]

wow

[j26]

Oh and BTW, I love the way being "ex-military" is a bad thing in a leader for you ;)

Bush should be fine then :)

[Queso]

Bush should be fine then :)
Yep, but he wouldn't have voted for evil George Washington. No Sirree :D

[saltyzoo]

yeah, you guys don't see the difference here at all do you? :rolleyes:

Show me where George tried to change the constitution so he can run again?

You really don't see where a military LEADER becomes president because nobody else runs because "they will lose anyway" and then he wants to change the rules so he can stay in power forever is problematic? LOL

Blinders.

[leekohler]

If only you were so open minded about out own President.

I can only imagine you'd all be saying the same thing if Mr. Bush used his executive powers to force a change to the constitution to allow him to stay in power.

Good Lord.

He's already done plenty to our Constitution, don't wish any worse on us.

And all that's been pointed out to you are the differences between what Musharraf has done vs. Chavez. You can ignore those differences if you want, but it will be at the cost of people taking you seriously.

[it5five]

wow

Can you either:

1) Respond to the points/questions raised.

or

2) Don't post at all.

Thanks.

[saltyzoo]

He's already done plenty to our Constitution, don't wish any worse on us. He has in fact done nothing to our constitution, but facts don't seem to matter much here.

And all that's been pointed out to you are the differences between what Musharraf has done vs. Chavez. You can ignore those differences if you want, but it will be at the cost of people taking you seriously.

I haven't talked about Musharraf in regards to anything. He's irrelevant to Chavez. They're both dictators, but beyond that it doesn't matter.


Can you either:

1) Respond to the points/questions raised.

or

2) Don't post at all.

Thanks.

Can you either:

1) Raise a point / ask a question that isn't completely one-sided and ignorant?

or

2) Don't post at all.

Thanks.


PS> The above is a joke. You can post all you want.

[Queso]

yeah, you guys don't see the difference here at all do you? :rolleyes:

Show me where George tried to change the constitution so he can run again?

You really don't see where a military LEADER becomes president because nobody else runs because "they will lose" and then he wants to change the rules so he can stay in power forever is problematic? LOL

Blinders.
You're now talking in circles, yet still failing to make any useful points. If you want us to take your point of view seriously please present us with something that gives your argument foundation. At present it should be us using the LOL at you.

You should notice however that we have refrained from doing so.

[saltyzoo]

You're now talking in circles, yet still failing to make any useful points. If you want us to take your point of view seriously please present us with something that gives your argument foundation. At present it should be us using the LOL at you.

You should notice however that we have refrained from doing so.

Your complete failure to see the point is not my fault. It's what scares me.

[mactastic]

You can't suspend the constitution and not be a dictator.
Sure you can! (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2007/nov/94708.htm) When you're a right-wing dictator at least.
QUESTION: Ms. Bhutto, this morning, wrote flatly -- I know you spoke about this earlier, that Pakistan now is a military dictatorship.

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, I'm not going to play political scientist. The fact of the matter -- the fact of the matter is Pakistan has veered off the course of the democratic pathway because of the actions that this government has taken. We have urged this government to get back on the pathway to constitutional and democratic rule. That is in the interest of the Pakistani people and the -- certainly, in the interest of our -- in the interest of a lot of the goals that we have in common: fighting terrorism, fighting violent extremism, seeing a more stable South Asia region emerge in the years to come. So an important point of all those things, being successful in all of those things, as well as seeing a better future for the Pakistani people, is to return to democratic rule.
Said the man speaking for the POTUS...

[Queso]

Your complete failure to see the point is not my fault. It's what scares me.
Well, what exactly is your point then, beyond regurgitating Fox News' hyperbole? I've already made reference to George Washington in this thread, an ex-military man who changed a Constitution and benefited by taking the ultimate position of power. In your view of the world, Washington was a dictator!!

[it5five]

I haven't talked about Musharraf in regards to anything. He's irrelevant to Chavez. They're both dictators, but beyond that it doesn't matter.


Musharraf = Dictator. Came to power through a military coup. Has suspended the constitution to crack down on dissenters and to rid the Supreme Court of it's head judge.

Chavez = Elected President. Came to power after receiving 60% of the vote. Has not suspended constitution. Is putting the new constitution to vote, something a dictator would not to.

Someone here is failing to see the point, and it sure isn't dynamicv like you had suggested earlier.

[saltyzoo]

Sure you can! (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2007/nov/94708.htm) When you're a right-wing dictator at least.

Said the man speaking for the POTUS...

Sorry, but this discussion is so void in honest debate I can't continue. You obviously don't care to have an honest discussion. I am truly chilled by this close-minded and fact ignoring discussion.


You have no problem claiming our elected president is a dictator, but it's impossible for an actual dictator in another country to be labeled as such. That's a morally bankrupt argument.

[Queso]

Sorry, but this discussion is so void in honest debate I can't continue. You obviously don't care to have an honest discussion. I am truly chilled by this close-minded and fact ignoring discussion.
Once again, give us something that backs up your side of the story and we'll happily debate it. Otherwise the thread has indeed come to an end.

[it5five]

Sorry, but this discussion is so void in honest debate I can't continue. You obviously don't care to have an honest discussion. I am truly chilled by this close-minded and fact ignoring discussion.

Haha. Oh goodness.

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/181000/181253VbEA_w.jpg

[mactastic]

Sorry, but this discussion is so void in honest debate I can't continue. You obviously don't care to have an honest discussion. I am truly chilled by this close-minded and fact ignoring discussion.


You have no problem claiming our elected president is a dictator, but it's impossible for an actual dictator in another country to be labeled as such. That's a morally bankrupt argument.
WTF are you talking about? Please show me where I have said Bush is a dictator?

[leekohler]

Sorry, but this discussion is so void in honest debate I can't continue. You obviously don't care to have an honest discussion. I am truly chilled by this close-minded and fact ignoring discussion.


You have no problem claiming our elected president is a dictator, but it's impossible for an actual dictator in another country to be labeled as such. That's a morally bankrupt argument.

Who made a serious claim that Bush is a dictator? Where are you getting this? Now, he does like to act like one for sure, but he isn't one.

And talk about ignoring facts- you were presented with several that you brushed off. I guess the truth is only the truth when it's something you like.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>But this is the first time you have told us they were very wealthy. Now, I'm sorry, but even teachers in the United States aren't wealthy, so I have a hard time believing your friends parents had acquired their wealth legally. If that is the case, then they deserve to be put in jail.

<snip>
I have no sympathy for your friends parents.

Never takes you long to use class warfare to justify behavior like this. Like the way you were able to easily jump to the conclusion of their guilt too. I'll bet Chavez could use more talented people like you.

[xsedrinam]

People defending a dictator while saying the US administration is completely despotic. A lot of you really need to see what the real world is about. I've got chills.
I suppose you either ignored my post or didn't read it, but no prob. I'm used to it. Do you or have you lived in Venezuela? How many times have you been there to see what's going on? I was there hunkered down in a hotel room when they flew Chavez in to Maiquetía from exile. To suggest the "lot" of us need to see what the real world is about is a pretty insulting stance to take based on little substance.

No one I've read has called Bush a dictator or are defending dictatorships. The electoral process was in place in Venezuela. My point was that there were/are a lot of "wealthy" people who came about it through dishonest gain. And many of them either fled with their wealth in tact or have paid the price of scrutiny.

[obeygiant]

WTF are you talking about? Please show me where I have said Bush is a dictator?

Who made a serious claim that Bush is a dictator? Where are you getting this? Now, he does like to act like one for sure, but he isn't one.


Don't you guys remember the threads about how Bush is going to start a war to keep himself in power and how he's passing legislation to do so. Bush's opponents here routinely align him with Nazi's, fascist dictators, etc.

'tastic, you SOMETIMES refer to Bush as "King George" or "George II" have you not?

Otherwise here is some history on Chavez from, of course, Dictator of the Month (http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Chavez/Jun2005ChavezEN.htm). Enjoy :)

[mactastic]

Don't you guys remember the threads about how Bush is going to start a war to keep himself in power and how he's passing legislation to do so. Bush's opponents here routinely align him with Nazi's, fascist dictators, etc.
Yea I remember those. I don't recall ever saying Bush was a dictator in any of them. You are free, of course, to prove me wrong.

'tastic, you always refer to Bush as "King George" or "George II" have you not?Please show me where I refer to him as either of those. I don't recall ever having used those terms to describe Bush, and I most certainly do not "always refer" to him in those terms.

You are busy lumping all liberals into a single basket again.

[obeygiant]

You are busy lumping all liberals into a single basket again.

No sir, not all liberals. Just the ones in this forum. :D

[mactastic]

No sir, not all liberals. Just the ones in this forum. :D
So are you going to show me where I have used any of those terms you accused me of? Or are you going to admit you were making them up?

[obeygiant]

So are you going to show me where I have used any of those terms you accused me of? Or are you going to admit you were making them up?

Well here is one. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=613808&postcount=5)
But I remember one more recent, but I can't find it.

Edit: Oh, Here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2461260&postcount=62) it is.

[mactastic]

Well here is one. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=613808&postcount=5)
But I remember one more recent, but I can't find it.

Edit: Oh, Here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2461260&postcount=62) it is.
Twice is always now? You're really stretching...

[obeygiant]

I don't recall ever having used those terms

Twice is always now? You're really stretching...

I might be, but are you suffering from memory loss? :)

[Macky-Mac]

.... Is putting the new constitution to vote, something a dictator would not to....

Nonsense! Dictators hold elections all the time. It's a way of claiming legitimacy for their regime and to demonstrate how wide public support is for their regime . Of course they usually rig the election, but they still hold them. Do you really need examples?

[mactastic]

I might be, but are you suffering from memory loss? :)
Some for sure. I don't remember every word I type on these boards, but I know damn well that I don't "always refer" to him as King George, as you charged.

[leekohler]

Don't you guys remember the threads about how Bush is going to start a war to keep himself in power and how he's passing legislation to do so. Bush's opponents here routinely align him with Nazi's, fascist dictators, etc.

'tastic, you SOMETIMES refer to Bush as "King George" or "George II" have you not?

Otherwise here is some history on Chavez from, of course, Dictator of the Month (http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Chavez/Jun2005ChavezEN.htm). Enjoy :)

Yeah, Bush bears resemblance to a dictator, but he isn't one. And do I think he'd do something ********* up to stay in office? Yeah, I do. He conveniently ignores any other law he doesn't like.

[Macky-Mac]

in today's news (Los Angeles Times report (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-briefs8nov08,1,6333256.story?coll=la-headlines-world));


November 8, 2007

VENEZUELA

Anti-Chavez marchers are attacked

Gunmen opened fire on students returning from a march in Caracas, Venezuela, in which 80,000 people denounced President Hugo Chavez's attempts to expand his power. At least eight people were injured, including one by gunfire, officials said.

At least four gunmen -- their faces covered by ski masks or T-shirts -- fired handguns at the crowd. Terrified students ran through the campus as ambulances arrived.

National guard troops gathered outside Central University of Venezuela. The law bars them from entering the campus, but Luis Acuna, education minister, said they could be called in if the university requests them.

Venezuelans will consider constitutional changes expanding Chavez's power in December.

[skunk]

in today's news (Los Angeles Times report (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-briefs8nov08,1,6333256.story?coll=la-headlines-world));Interesting but not very useful: and how can "at least four gunmen" fire handguns at a crowd and only injure one person? :confused:

[mactastic]

Interesting but not very useful: and how can "at least four gunmen" fire handguns at a crowd and only injure one person? :confused:
They're worse shots than Cheney?

[it5five]

So, four guys in ski-masks = Chavez's personal assassination team?

Please. :rolleyes:

[xsedrinam]

Interesting but not very useful: and how can "at least four gunmen" fire handguns at a crowd and only injure one person? :confused:

They're worse shots than Cheney?
Either that, or they ducked.

[skunk]

Can you Shrub-fanciers and Chavez-haters stop and consider for a few moments how the US version of democracy would have been skewed - if not skewered - if a foreign superpower had financed and encouraged a right-wing coup d'êtat, announced the ousting of the democratically-elected President on US and foreign television news, seized and imprisoned the President, got their ambassador to publicly back the plotters, resisted the President's reinstatement, and then acted as if nothing untoward had happened when their outrageous scheme fell apart due to popular protest? It is nothing short of miraculous that Chavez has maintained any semblance of democracy in Venezuela.

[Swarmlord]

Can you Shrub-fanciers and Chavez-haters stop and consider for a few moments how the US version of democracy would have been skewed - if not skewered - if a foreign superpower had financed and encouraged a right-wing coup d'êtat, announced the ousting of the democratically-elected President on US and foreign television news, seized and imprisoned the President, got their ambassador to publicly back the plotters, resisted the President's reinstatement, and then acted as if nothing untoward had happened when their outrageous scheme fell apart due to popular protest? It is nothing short of miraculous that Chavez has maintained any semblance of democracy in Venezuela.

Now Chavez is a miracle worker. Wow!:eek:

[skunk]

Not what I said, of course, but don't let that stand in your way.

[Macky-Mac]

So, four guys in ski-masks = Chavez's personal assassination team?

Please. :rolleyes:

it is simply today's sample of a pattern of events.

For quite some time now groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others have been speaking out against political violence, intimidation of opponents and surppression of civil rights under the Chavez government. These groups have issued report after report filled with concerns about the situation in Venezuela.....some samples;

Here's part of a letter from that Human Rights Watch wrote to Chavez after another series of violent events;

Letter to President Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías

Washington, D.C., April 9, 2004

President Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías
President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
Palacio de Miraflores
Caracas – VENEZUELA

Fax: 58212 806 3221

Dear President Chávez:

I am writing to express Human Rights Watch’s deep concern about credible reports we have received that National Guard and police officers beat and tortured people who were detained during the recent protests in Caracas and other Venezuelan cities. Such cases were not unusual or exceptional. The abuses allegedly committed were widespread and appeared to enjoy official approval at some level of command in the forces responsible for them.... Human Rights Watch report (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/12/venezu8423.htm)

Here's a Human Rights Watch report about the arrest and trial of Chavez opponents;

Venezuela: Court Orders Trial of Civil Society Leaders

(Washington, July 8, 2005) — In ordering the trial of four civil society leaders on dubious charges of treason, a Venezuelan court has assented to government persecution of political opponents, Human Rights Watch said today.

Yesterday, a court in Caracas ordered that María Corina Machado and Alejandro Plaz be tried on treason charges brought by a public prosecutor because their nongovernmental organization, Súmate, accepted foreign funds for a program that encouraged citizen participation in a referendum on President Hugo Chavez’s presidency in 2004. Two other Súmate leaders, Luis Enrique Palacios and Ricardo Estévez, will also be tried on charges of complicity with this alleged crime.

“The court has given the government a green light to persecute its opponents,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “Prosecuting people for treason when they engage in legitimate electoral activities is utterly absurd.” Human Rights Watch report on trials of opponents (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/08/venezu11299.htm)


In another report, HRW says Chavez and his regime have packed the courts to destroy judicial independence;

Venezuela: Chávez Allies Pack Supreme Court

(Washington D.C., December 14, 2004) The Venezuelan Congress dealt a severe blow to judicial independence by packing the country’s Supreme Court with 12 new justices, Human Rights Watch said today. A majority of the ruling coalition, dominated by President Hugo Chávez’s party, named the justices late yesterday, filling seats created by a law passed in May that expanded the court’s size by more than half.... HRW report on court packing (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/14/venezu9864.htm)

And Human Rights Watch accuses Chavez of acting to suppress the freedom of expression in Venezuela;

Venezuela: TV Shutdown Harms Free Expression

(Washington, DC, May 22, 2007)—The Venezuelan government’s politically motivated decision not to renew a television broadcasting license is a serious setback for freedom of expression in Venezuela, Human Rights Watch said today. The decision will shut down Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), the country’s oldest private channel, when its license expires on May 27, 2007....

...“President Hugo Chávez is misusing the state’s regulatory authority to punish a media outlet for its criticism of the government,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “The move to shut down RCTV is a serious blow to freedom of expression in Venezuela.” HRW on curbing of freedom of expression (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/22/venezu15986.htm)


Human Rights Watch has issued quite a number of reports about the situation in Venezuela. Perhaps you should read some of what they have to say. It's about a whole lot more than four guys in ski masks.

Human Rights Watch on Venezuela (http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu)

[Macky-Mac]

Interesting but not very useful: and how can "at least four gunmen" fire handguns at a crowd and only injure one person? :confused:

well, you don't really think they were expecting to kill all 80,000 protesters do you? Perhaps in your experience it's the usual thing to send gunmen around to shoot up the opposition's rallies? I think it's safe to say that intimidation of the political opposition was the objective.

[SMM]

If only you were so open minded about out own President.

I can only imagine you'd all be saying the same thing if Mr. Bush used his executive powers to force a change to the constitution to allow him to stay in power.

Good Lord.

Thank God he does not have that ability. Otherwise, we would all be living in a totalitarian state, with no bill-of-rights. If bush attempted any such move right now, impeachment would begin immediately. That may not be far away. We cannot remove bush before we circumcise cheney first. This is coming soon. The preliminary ground-work was started this week. However, there are some strategic issues to be worked out. Neither of these idiots will be around much longer.

[solvs]

LOL wow.
I don't exactly agree with every post in this thread, definitely not in this forum, but at least there seems to be some sort of substance to most of them. Posts such as these are generally frowned upon. Feel free to make your point, but just saying "lol" and "wow" don't exactly sell your point of view. You disagree with the posts here, find some facts and post them as a response.


I, for one, reserve the right to dislike Chavez and Musharraf. Also Ahmadinejad and Bush. You don't have to pick sides. Difference with Bush is that he's the current President of my country. Of course I'm going to judge him the harshest.

I don't know if anyone here is trying to defend Chavez, I hope they aren't, but if this is about trying to provide some prospective and point out what's actually occurring over the rhetoric, I don't blame them for trying.

[Agathon]

The accusations against Chavez have dubious credibility.

As I said in another thread, if a major TV network said the things about the US government that that network said about Chavez, it wouldn't have lasted half the time. Or do you think that national networks who conspired in a coup against the government would be allowed to broadcast in the US. Or do you think that if CBS made it policy to refer to Condi Rice as a "******" on air, that this would somehow be acceptable.

Chavez waited for ages to do something about these people. I would have been a lot less tolerant myself.

As I've said on previous occasions, you Americans pretend to stand up for free speech, but you only do so as long as it is convenient. I'll note that the coup plotters

The talk about Chavez making himself president for life is ridiculous. For that to be the case two things have to happen:

1) The Venezuelan electorate have to vote for the constitutional change.

2) Chavez will have to win every election from now on until he dies.

In many ways what Chavez is doing is heroic. He's trying to turn Venezuela into a proper democracy. The sort where everyone has enough education to read and understand a voting card, and one that is not run for the small percentage of rich citizens.

I don't think he realized how long that was going to take, which is why he's requested the referendum on term limits.

Of course the US media just does its usual trick of accusing him of being a dictator, in an obvious attempt to force this meme into the public consciousness. Given it is the US public they are dealing with (notoriously stupid by international standards -- and before you complain, carefully consider the words "re-elected Bush") they will probably succeed.

But it doesn't matter because the US can't do anything anyway.

[Agathon]

I don't know if anyone here is trying to defend Chavez.

I'd defend him over any of the idiots in charge of our countries.

[solvs]

I'd defend him over any of the idiots in charge of our countries.

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

[skunk]

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.Nobody's perfect.

[solvs]

Nobody's perfect.

Probably better that way, because it still proves my point that we aren't all Chavez lovers here, or whatever the current distraction is whenever Bush or his cronies screw up.

[Queso]

Well, it looks as if El Rey d'España isn't exactly a fan. And using the familiar form too!! :D

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7089131.stm)

And a video (http://www.bbc.co.uk/spanish/avconsole/bb_rm_fs.shtml?redirect=fs.shtml&lang=es&nbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&ms3=20&ws_pathtostory=http://www.bbc.co.uk/spanish/avnews/avfile/2007/11/&ws_storyid=071110_chavezrey) from BBC Mundo

[Swarmlord]

<snip>In many ways what Chavez is doing is heroic. He's trying to turn Venezuela into a proper democracy. <snip>

A hero and a miracle worker. Wow part deux!. :rolleyes:

[skunk]

Eat your heart out. US politics could do with a little less complacency, too.

[skunk]

An interesting riposte to Señor Rey:

On Saturday King Juan Carlos told Mr Chavez to "shut up" at a summit in Chile after the president said ex-Spain PM Jose Maria Aznar was a "fascist".

The king was widely applauded in the media back home.

On Sunday Mr Chavez said the king was "imprudent" and asked if he knew in advance of the brief coup against him.

As he left the Ibero-American Summit in Chile's capital, Santiago, Mr Chavez questioned whether Spain's ambassador had appeared with Venezuelan interim president Pedro Carmona during the two-day coup in 2002 with the monarch's blessing.


But I think it's imprudent for a king to shout at a president to shut up - Mr King, we are not going to shut up
Hugo Chavez

"Mr King, did you know about the coup d'etat against Venezuela, against the democratic, legitimate government of Venezuela in 2002?" he asked at a news conference.

"It's very hard to imagine the Spanish ambassador would have been at the presidential palace supporting the coup plotters without authorisation from his majesty."

Spain's El Mundo newspaper quoted Mr Chavez as saying that on Saturday the king had "got very mad, like a bull".

"But I'm a great bullfighter - ole!" he said.

On Sunday, Mr Chavez said he hoped the spat would not damage relations.

"But I think it's imprudent for a king to shout at a president to shut up. Mr King, we are not going to shut up."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7089988.stm

[Queso]

Well, we all knew that was coming. Someone else Hugo can now waffle on about for hours and hours. Personally I think it's great that Latin America has found a voice, but it's a shame he likes the sound of it so much :rolleyes:

[skunk]

Well, we all knew that was coming. But I'd still like to know if Señor Rey has an answer to the question. Imagine if it was the other way round, and a former colonial occupier had publicly sided with Colonel Molina in 1981.

[mactastic]

it is simply today's sample of a pattern of events.

For quite some time now groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others have been speaking out against political violence, intimidation of opponents and surppression of civil rights under the Chavez government. These groups have issued report after report filled with concerns about the situation in Venezuela.....some samples;

Here's part of a letter from that Human Rights Watch wrote to Chavez after another series of violent events;

Human Rights Watch report (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/12/venezu8423.htm)

Here's a Human Rights Watch report about the arrest and trial of Chavez opponents;

Human Rights Watch report on trials of opponents (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/08/venezu11299.htm)


In another report, HRW says Chavez and his regime have packed the courts to destroy judicial independence;

HRW report on court packing (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/12/14/venezu9864.htm)

And Human Rights Watch accuses Chavez of acting to suppress the freedom of expression in Venezuela;

HRW on curbing of freedom of expression (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/05/22/venezu15986.htm)


Human Rights Watch has issued quite a number of reports about the situation in Venezuela. Perhaps you should read some of what they have to say. It's about a whole lot more than four guys in ski masks.

Human Rights Watch on Venezuela (http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu)
Just out of curiousity (since you appear to be such a huge fan of HRW and their investigations), do you put the same amount of stock in HRWs reports on abuses at Guantanamo and other US-run prisons?

[leekohler]

Just out of curiousity (since you appear to be such a huge fan of HRW and their investigations), do you put the same amount of stock in HRWs reports on abuses at Guantanamo and other US-run prisons?

Hmm...after reading those links, it sounds frighteningly similar to another leader we know and love to hate. It's only a matter of degrees.

[Macky-Mac]

Just out of curiousity (since you appear to be such a huge fan of HRW and their investigations), do you put the same amount of stock in HRWs reports on abuses at Guantanamo and other US-run prisons?

Haven't read it myself but I know that both HRW and Amnesty International issued extremely negative reports. That doesn't surprise me since there are so many reasons to criticize the situation at Guantanamo.

[mactastic]

Haven't read it myself but I know that both HRW and Amnesty International issued extremely negative reports. That doesn't surprise me since there are so many reasons to criticize the situation at Guantanamo.
Fair enough. I often notice that some people on the political right will be happy to quote chapter and verse of HRCs (or the UN, or Amnesty International, etc.) reports regarding Saddam, Chavez, and other US foes while simultaneously deriding those same people as "politically motivated" when their reports are brought up regarding behavior by the US or it's allies.

[solvs]

Like I said, it's just easier to hate everyone.

Unfortunately, you tend to be justified a majority of the time by doing so.

[Agathon]

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Someone has to fix Venezuela. It has been run by a small (white) elite for a very long time, and this has been to the detriment of its citizens. It really was awful.

Chavez is not a communist. If I were to categorize him it would be as an old fashioned New Dealer. He's closer to that than anyone I can think of. This "Bolivarian Revolution" stuff is really a name for community action and government sponsored development. Frankly, it seems worth trying, since more of the same was never going to work.

In the short run, the people who ran things before are going to lose out. In the long run, if Chavez succeeds, he will have created a the basis for a literate, participatory democracy, where most of the population feel like participating and voting. Right now they are, and they are voting for Chavez. Once the opposition realizes that the game has fundamentally changed, the revolution will have succeeded and Venezuela can become a normal country. What we take for granted, they have never had. So let's leave them to it. He's no Pol Pot. He's not even a Park Jung Hee. So let's let them work it out for themselves.

I think we need to step back and look at what he's doing. It really isn't about socializing Venezuela, but about creating a sustainable democracy in the long run. You cannot have a democracy with massive majority poverty.

I thought it was funny that Juan Carlos told him to shut up. I actually have a lot of respect for Juan Carlos, but he had no business being there because nobody voted for him.

[Swarmlord]

Someone has to fix Venezuela. It has been run by a small (white) elite for a very long time, and this has been to the detriment of its citizens. It really was awful.

Chavez is not a communist. If I were to categorize him it would be as an old fashioned New Dealer. He's closer to that than anyone I can think of. This "Bolivarian Revolution" stuff is really a name for community action and government sponsored development. Frankly, it seems worth trying, since more of the same was never going to work.

In the short run, the people who ran things before are going to lose out. In the long run, if Chavez succeeds, he will have created a the basis for a literate, participatory democracy, where most of the population feel like participating and voting. Right now they are, and they are voting for Chavez. Once the opposition realizes that the game has fundamentally changed, the revolution will have succeeded and Venezuela can become a normal country. What we take for granted, they have never had. So let's leave them to it. He's no Pol Pot. He's not even a Park Jung Hee. So let's let them work it out for themselves.

I think we need to step back and look at what he's doing. It really isn't about socializing Venezuela, but about creating a sustainable democracy in the long run. You cannot have a democracy with massive majority poverty.

I thought it was funny that Juan Carlos told him to shut up. I actually have a lot of respect for Juan Carlos, but he had no business being there because nobody voted for him.

Wow! You've been hitting the Kool Aid pretty hard if you believe that about Chavez.

By the way, Monarchs aren't elected, but that doesn't make them any less of a leader of their country. I hope you feel the same about Chavez in the future when he remains in power despite no one voting for him too.

[it5five]

I hope you feel the same about Chavez in the future when he remains in power despite no one voting for him too.

You can bitch about that if it happens. Until then, you need to realize that the Venezuelan people strongly support Chavez and overwhelmingly voted for him, and that you have absolutely no reason to dictate to them who their leader should be.

[Swarmlord]

You can bitch about that if it happens. Until then, you need to realize that the Venezuelan people strongly support Chavez and overwhelmingly voted for him, and that you have absolutely no reason to dictate to them who their leader should be.

Oh, I'm not complaining. I think the people of Venezuela should fully reap the fruits of what they've sown. It will become a textbook case of what people can collectively to do themselves voting someone like him into power.

[Queso]

It will become a textbook case of what people can collectively to do themselves voting someone like him into power.
*cough*

Bush administration

*cough cough*

[Ugg]

Oh, I'm not complaining. I think the people of Venezuela should fully reap the fruits of what they've sown. It will become a textbook case of what people can collectively to do themselves voting someone like him into power.

Hmmm, free access to education for all classes of society, access to health care, being able to vote for the candidate of your choice. These are bad things?

You conveniently fail to recognize that the American Revolution was also a revolt against the oligarchy and those privileged through birth alone.

Personally, Chavez is making some mistakes. Price controls are wreaking havoc on the economy. There's also a lack of investment in oil exploration. However, be creating a well educated healthy populace, at some point they'll be able to take the reins themselves. It won't always be pretty but the Venezuelans just like the American colonists will benefit in the long run.

[Swarmlord]

Hmmm, free access to education for all classes of society, access to health care, being able to vote for the candidate of your choice. These are bad things?

You conveniently fail to recognize that the American Revolution was also a revolt against the oligarchy and those privileged through birth alone.

<snip>

Well, if your assessment of a "good" leader is a couple freebies like that, then I guess it would work for you. A lot of dictators have provided these types of freebies and I wouldn't want to live under their regimes.

The AR was a revolt over taxes without representation. In fact, many wanted Washington to become King and not president.

[Ugg]

Well, if your assessment of a "good" leader is a couple freebies like that, then I guess it would work for you. A lot of dictators have provided these types of freebies and I wouldn't want to live under their regimes.

The AR was a revolt over taxes without representation. In fact, many wanted Washington to become King and not president.

The AR was about local control. Sure taxes were part of the problem but ultimately, self-determination was the issue of the day. Even then, suffrage was limited to white, land owning males. The AR was simply the first baby steps towards an enlightened democracy.

Free education in the US is a result of a dictatorship? That's news to me.

Chavez has provided Venezuelans with access to health care but it's not totally free. Also, the fact that all Venezuelans are able to vote is something that the upper classes in Venezuela absolutely didn't want.

So, "freebies" like highways are a bad thing and also sign of a dictatorship?

[mactastic]

Oh, I'm not complaining. I think the people of Venezuela should fully reap the fruits of what they've sown. It will become a textbook case of what people can collectively to do themselves voting someone like him into power.
Oh the irony...

[zap2]

wow

wow, what?

Admit it, you were wrong. Every step of the way, you made a statement about Chavez, and got proved wrong...and when you can't prove something you say

"Wow" or "LOL..Wow"

[Swarmlord]

<snip>
So, "freebies" like highways are a bad thing and also sign of a dictatorship?

You have it turned around. Freebies aren't signs of a dictatorship, dictators use them to placate the people they are subjugating.

I think that the Venezuelans are going to find that they sold themselves into slavery pretty cheap and they're going to have a heck of a time changing their minds.

[mactastic]

You have it turned around. Freebies aren't signs of a dictatorship, dictators use them to placate the people they are subjugating.
Sounds a lot like Congressional pork projects too. But of course we are not in a dictatorship here, are we?

I think that the Venezuelans are going to find that they sold themselves into slavery pretty cheap and they're going to have a heck of a time changing their minds.
Who are "the Venezualans"? Are they as monolithic as "the Americans"?

[Swarmlord]

Sounds a lot like Congressional pork projects too. But of course we are not in a dictatorship here, are we?

I find it ironic that our own politicians on both sides use the same porky techniques to purchase votes from people.


Who are "the Venezualans"? Are they as monolithic as "the Americans"?

Let's not go there. By Venezuelans I mean the people that live in the country marked Venezuala on my globe that voted in the election. Does that help?

[mactastic]

I find it ironic that our own politicians on both sides use the same porky techniques to purchase votes from people.
You better watch out. Saltyzoo will be along momentarily to accuse you of saying that our politicians are exactly like dictators...

Let's not go there. By Venezuelans I mean the people that live in the country marked Venezuala on my globe that voted in the election. Does that help?
Ok, but my point is that, just as with any wealth transfer scheme, there will be winners and there will be losers. Not all of "the Venezualans" are going to be sorry about any particular direction their country goes in. In fact, some will benefit from the direction Chavez has set. Others will lose out.

[ucfgrad93]

The fiery leftist leader of Venezuela all but openly warned Spain that his country doesn't need Spanish investment, and that he expects the king to offer an immediate apology.

"The king lost it," Chavez said at a political rally late Tuesday night. "He should say, '... I, the king, confess, I was beside myself, I made a mistake.' "

Spain has many investments, private companies here and we don't want to damage that, but if they are damaged, they are damaged. Spanish investment in Venezuela is not indispensable. ... We don't need it," Chavez said, mentioning Spanish banks Banco Santander SA and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA.

"Whatever has been privatized can be taken back, we can take it back," Chavez told Reuters. "If the government of Spain or the state of Spain ... start to generate a conflict, things are not going to go well."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311720,00.html

[solvs]

Oh the irony...
He'll never see it, but that's so true. The real irony being though that Chavez has a higher approval rating than Bush does. Again, not that that means much, so did Nixon, but it still says something.

wow, what?

Admit it, you were wrong. Every step of the way, you made a statement about Chavez, and got proved wrong...and when you can't prove something you say

"Wow" or "LOL..Wow"
He doesn't seem to want to come in here anymore because real intelligent discussion and debate like "wow" and "lol" aren't welcome here.

[killerrobot]

He's asking for the possibility of standing for presidential election beyond the current maximum, but he still has to be elected to rule, and each term will still end in another election where he may or may not get re-elected. Hardly "FOREVER!?".

And yes, he's just asking. This man is no Hitler, however the American right-wing like to spin it.


Actually, I remember watching daily news coverage about his re-election a while back, and Chavez does have some heavy military backing and some heavy gang backing -all with lots of powerful guns- that threatened to keep him in power by force if needed to, because they believed 100 percent in him. It was actually quite scary, and that's probably why there isn't much opposition.
Also, did you guys forget that he shut down a television station that criticized him and made a state-owned one out of it? Free speech is not exactly being tolerated during his "presidency".

Needless to say, he's lost everyone's respect here in Spain and with recent food shortages in Venezuela it doesn't look like his policies are working out too great, except for him.

[Peterkro]

Actually, I remember watching daily news coverage about his re-election a while back, and Chavez does have some heavy military backing and some heavy gang backing -all with lots of powerful guns- that threatened to keep him in power by force if needed to, because they believed 100 percent in him. It was actually quite scary, and that's probably why there isn't much opposition.
Also, did you guys forget that he shut down a television station that criticized him and made a state-owned one out of it? Free speech is not exactly being tolerated during his "presidency".

Needless to say, he's lost everyone's respect here in Spain and with recent food shortages in Venezuela it doesn't look like his policies are working out too great, except for him.

Could you provide some evidence for your assertions?

The television station (along with others) was openly calling for a military coup against the democratically elected government, I don't think any democracy would wear that.
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/7739

[killerrobot]

Could you provide some evidence for your assertions?


I'm not sure what assertions you want me to back up but....
Hugo Chavez accused RCTV of supporting the "golpe de estado" of 2002 (http://www.lavanguardia.es/lv24h/20070611/51360479589.html).
The Interamerican Society of Press (SIP) (http://politica.eluniversal.com/2007/10/16/pol_ava_sip-denuncia-graves_16A1132917.shtml) also tends to think that Venezuela and Hugo Chavez are the greatest obstacles to freedom of press/speech in Latin and South America.

I'm not sure where the division lies between supporting and participating and actively causing the coup as your article points out, but even if it were guilty, why did Chavez take over the network (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1850844.ece) instead of just sending the guilty to trial and then prison if found guilty? It's kind of odd that when he tried to overthrow the government in 1992 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1925236.stm), he was sent to jail.

As far as the news programs I watched, well those are almost a year old now and will take some time for me to narrow it down and find the specific ones I watched, but I wouldn't be saying it if I didn't watch it.

All in all, I think Chavez's first ideas and intentions were well meant as president - put power corrupts and I think he's personally benefiting more from his presidency than Venezuela is at the moment, and his threats and actions of taking control of private institutions and making them state owned, even banks, property and media has very scary potentials.
Is he a revolutionary man that just needs time and power to really change things around for Venezuela? Maybe. But if Latin American history and politics have taught me one thing, it's that every well intentioned revolutionary has a price, and high levels of corruption have never been dealt with at even a satisfactory level since before Simón Bolívar, and continue to exist today. I personally believe/see that Chavez is following all the same steps as every other LA dictator, and in the end, Venezuela will still be ran bey a few elite instead of the people.

[Peterkro]

Continuing to call Chavez a dictator when he is clearly not makes discussion difficult. There have been South American socialist lead governments that weren't corrupt and which tackled the appalling inequality in their countries so far none have survived long,usually because of the US's overwhelming economic and military force but people will continue to struggle until they win.I'm also interested in your assertion that he has no support in Spain something that is clearly ridiculous. Raising the idea that nationalisation is scary and will cause the end of the world as we know it is also odd given that very many countries have and do use it as a legitimate developmental strategy.I get the depressing feeling you want South America to follow the Chilean route. I'm sorry I can not comment on your links as I don't speak Spanish,a position you'd surely agree with if I linked to articles in Maori.

[killerrobot]

Continuing to call Chavez a dictator when he is clearly not makes discussion difficult. There have been South American socialist lead governments that weren't corrupt and which tackled the appalling inequality in their countries so far none have survived long,usually because of the US's overwhelming economic and military force but people will continue to struggle until they win.I'm also interested in your assertion that he has no support in Spain something that is clearly ridiculous. Raising the idea that nationalisation is scary and will cause the end of the world as we know it is also odd given that very many countries have and do use it as a legitimate developmental strategy.I get the depressing feeling you want South America to follow the Chilean route. I'm sorry I can not comment on your links as I don't speak Spanish,a position you'd surely agree with if I linked to articles in Maori.

I believe I've called him a well meaning president that has followed/taken some dictator like steps in my opinion.

Well, from all of my talks with friends of diverse backgrounds, they feel Chavez is a joke. Maybe I pushed it by saying no one supports him, but from all that I gather, after 30+ years of being under a dictatorship (which started with a coup d'état and Franco doing away with the constitution of the 2nd Republic, and holding rigged votes where believe it or not 100% of the population supported him), Spaniards have more experience with it than many countries and highly disapprove of his recent actions. I think it will grow even more, because of the recent stint with Rey Juan Carlos, a man who just about everyone loves, even if you hate the monarchy aspect.
Spaniards love to talk politics, and I've received earfuls about Bush, and now earfuls about Chavez. This is why/how I'm making my assertions - through personal experience. To say that Spain just wants another "Chilean-like" country is absurd seeing as how they have great relations with Cuba and for the most part with the rest of Latin America especially given that they highly depend on Latin American immigrants to stabilize their work force and population.

As far as my articles, just do a google search for SIP and Chavez and Freedoms and you'll get an eyeful.

As far as him privatizing all the money flow and communications of the country- you don't think there's any problem with that and that's its not going to create a new elite that run the whole show?

Yeah sure, it might work out perfectly, but I'd rather be a little weary.

[Peterkro]

I'm sorry I don't understand your reference to privatizing the money flow and communications surely what's happening is the opposite of privatizing.I just think it's rather odd to single out Chavez who although I don't approve of all he does (I'm a Anarchist I know all politicians are corrupt) is at least trying to help the general population instead of the usual government style of pouring money into a small corrupt international business class. I guess will agree to disagree and wait to see how it pans out.(Incidentally the reason he's such a hate figure is that he's a threat to the above corrupt Capitalists).

[killerrobot]

I'm sorry I don't understand your reference to privatizing the money flow and communications surely what's happening is the opposite of privatizing.

Yes. You're right. It is the opposite - chose the wrong wording. Nationalizing is a much better choice as you used earlier. My point being is that he's taking some power away from some others, to make himself and the state more powerful, thus creating a new elite group controlling everything.

I just think it's rather odd to single out Chavez who although I don't approve of all he does (I'm a Anarchist I know all politicians are corrupt) is at least trying to help the general population instead of the usual government style of pouring money into a small corrupt international business class.

We're talking about Chavez so we have to single him out. Is the single greatest threat ever. No way. I do think some countries and media are really trying to villanize him, but they do same with Bush and every other world leader as well.

I guess will agree to disagree and wait to see how it pans out.(Incidentally the reason he's such a hate figure is that he's a threat to the above corrupt Capitalists).

That's not the reason I don't like the guy. I've got no problem with "taking from the rich and given to the poor", or running government a different way than the western world. I do have a problem with diminishing freedoms under his presidency.

I agree to disagree as well, and hope for the best.

[princealfie]

when will we start to nationalize domestically?

[princealfie]

That's not the reason I don't like the guy. I've got no problem with "taking from the rich and given to the poor", or running government a different way than the western world. I do have a problem with diminishing freedoms under his presidency.

I agree to disagree as well, and hope for the best.

Didn't the famed Robin Hood do the same thing back to good ole days and guess what he's a hero... what makes Chavez any different?

[Swarmlord]

when will we start to nationalize domestically?

Why? What do you own that you want the government to take away from you for the benefit of the people? You come up with ideas like that and you better be the first in line for the consequences.

[Queso]

Why? What do you own that you want the government to take away from you for the benefit of the people? You come up with ideas like that and you better be the first in line for the consequences.
Some things, namely key infrastructure, do work better in a nationalised state. For instance, here in the UK our nationalised water boards were privatised by the last Tory government. Not only did that mean that hundreds of thousands of acres of previously common land was stolen by the Government and sold to private investors without the permission of the people, but ever since the water companies have made obscene profits whilst only making infrastructure improvements when forced to.

British Rail also took far less government subsidy and provided a more integrated transport service than the current system of separate publicly-owned infrastructure and privately-owned operating and rolling stock companies.

[Swarmlord]

Some things, namely key infrastructure, do work better in a nationalised state. For instance, here in the UK our nationalised water boards were privatised by the last Tory government. Not only did that mean that hundreds of thousands of acres of previously common land was stolen by the Government and sold to private investors without the permission of the people, but ever since the water companies have made obscene profits whilst only making infrastructure improvements when forced to.

British Rail also took far less government subsidy and provided a more integrated transport service than the current system of separate publicly-owned infrastructure and privately-owned operating and rolling stock companies.

You're confusing nationalization with privatization. And what is the heck are "obscene profits"? Is there some subjective measure of profits that I'm not aware of?

[princealfie]

You're confusing nationalization with privatization. And what is the heck are "obscene profits"? Is there some subjective measure of profits that I'm not aware of?

obscene profits include guys who pay themselves $140 million bonuses for doing nothing.

[Queso]

You're confusing nationalization with privatization. And what is the heck are "obscene profits"? Is there some subjective measure of profits that I'm not aware of?
Obscene profits by my definition are those that are creamed off by the shareholders of a company that have basically been sold a bunch of assets at a bargain basement price by a government purely for ideological reasons, that then fail to keep even the minimum of the promises they made in terms of infrastructure development/replacement or service improvement, all whilst continually increasing costs to their customers in virtual local monopoly conditions.

That do you? And how am I confusing nationalisation and privatisation exactly?

[Swarmlord]

obscene profits include guys who pay themselves $140 million bonuses for doing nothing.

That's a definition? That's what happened with the example I responded to? Or are you just pulling some number out of the air? I want to know what defines that term. Is a rate of return on investment? Mark up or what? Compensation to a person working at a company doesn't tell me a thing about the profit of a company.

[Swarmlord]

Obscene profits by my definition are those that are creamed off by the shareholders of a company that have basically been sold a bunch of assets at a bargain basement price by a government purely for ideological reasons, that then fail to keep even the minimum of the promises they made in terms of infrastructure development/replacement or service improvement, all whilst continually increasing costs to their customers in virtual local monopoly conditions.

That do you? And how am I confusing nationalisation and privatisation exactly?

You still haven't quantified what is meant by "obscene" profits. What are the levels above and below "obscene". Do they have names as colorful as "obscene"?

[princealfie]

That's a definition? That's what happened with the example I responded to? Or are you just pulling some number out of the air? I want to know what defines that term. Is a rate of return on investment? Mark up or what? Compensation to a person working at a company doesn't tell me a thing about the profit of a company.

That's too much of ROI for me to say that it is justified. What type of work really deserves $140 million bonus on top of a huge salary? It puzzles me. Compensation packages like that don't make sense honestly.

[killerrobot]

Didn't the famed Robin Hood do the same thing back to good ole days and guess what he's a hero... what makes Chavez any different?

I'll say it again - I do have problems with diminishing freedoms under his presidency.

[Queso]

You still haven't quantified what is meant by "obscene" profits. What are the levels above and below "obscene". Do they have names as colorful as "obscene"?
I take it by the tangential response you have no answer to my actual argument that nationalisation of core infrastructure is preferable to privatisation.

[Swarmlord]

I take it by the tangential response you have no answer to my actual argument that nationalisation of core infrastructure is preferable to privatisation.

I do have an answer, but I'm not ready to provide it until I get some answers on these buzz words that get thrown around in conjunction with the word profit.

Alphi above is still wrapped about the axle about compensation which has nothing to do with profit- obscene or not.

If the word "profit" itself is "obscene" and magnatude has nothing to do with it then any argument I have one way or another would be a waste of time.

[Queso]

I do have an answer, but I'm not ready to provide it until I get some answers on these buzz words that get thrown around in conjunction with the word profit.

Alphi above is still wrapped about the axle about compensation which has nothing to do with profit- obscene or not.

If the word "profit" itself is "obscene" and magnatude has nothing to do with it then any argument I have one way or another would be a waste of time.
The obscene label refers to the conditions the company is exploiting, not the amount. I'm talking about monopoly suppliers of essential utilities who increase their charges well above the rate of inflation year after year and funnel the extra raised to their shareholders rather than into investment in the supply.

[solvs]

I take it by the tangential response you have no answer to my actual argument that nationalisation of core infrastructure is preferable to privatisation.
He's obfuscating. Per usual. Obviously most of us know what you meant by that. Significantly raising costs while providing little to no, and sometimes even less, service all so they can make profits far above and beyond their own costs, and especially compared to what the gov used to, of a monopolized resource. It was cheaper and better under the gov, but now it's privatized, and it's more expensive and worse. But you see, for people like SL that's a good thing for some reason. It equals freedom or something. Because the gov is bad, even when run well, and privatizing is good, even when service goes down and end user cost goes up.

I don't exactly want gov to run everything, but for some things it should be a given. Preferably run well by politicians who don't believe that gov is the problem and go out of their way to prove it, even while proving privatizing doesn't work for everything either. We all know they're just lining their, and their friends, pockets too. But it's a balance that should be obvious, some private/some gov, with more oversight than bureaucracy and some things a little of both, but for some reason it isn't. Probably the lining the pockets thing, and a lack of wanting to pay attention or do anything but complain coming from the citizens, even if it affects us directly, probably because we feel powerless against it, especially since they all seem to be like that.

[fastbite]

Chavez is a crazy lunatic and nothing more -- A total wanker.

[skunk]

Chavez is a crazy lunatic and nothing more -- A total wanker.Congratulations on a fine and thoughtful contribution.

[solvs]

Congratulations on a fine and thoughtful contribution.

It does say he's in London, so at least it's not one of us this time. :p

[princealfie]

It does say he's in London, so at least it's not one of us this time. :p

Yeah he must have had a bad turkey day.

[Peterkro]

Chavez is a crazy lunatic and nothing more -- A total wanker.

Such biting and incisive criticism.

[Peterkro]

I'll say it again - I do have problems with diminishing freedoms under his presidency.

If you made clear what these freedoms are maybe we could debate them,as it stands I can only assume your referring to the "freedom" to exploit the majority of the population (a la Swarmy), I can't relate to any system where that is regarded as a freedom.

[mactastic]

You still haven't quantified what is meant by "obscene" profits. What are the levels above and below "obscene". Do they have names as colorful as "obscene"?
Same way you define "obscene" pay to a trial lawyer.

[Swarmlord]

If you made clear what these freedoms are maybe we could debate them,as it stands I can only assume your referring to the "freedom" to exploit the majority of the population (a la Swarmy), I can't relate to any system where that is regarded as a freedom.

The only freedom we've lost is freedom from extortionary taxation. It's the taxpayers that are being exploited. This has been going on long before GWB was elected president.

[Peterkro]

The only freedom we've lost is freedom from extortionary taxation. It's the taxpayers that are being exploited. This has been going on long before GWB was elected president.

Wasn't it you complaining about inflammatory terms being added to profit up there ^^^ ?

[Swarmlord]

Wasn't it you complaining about inflammatory terms being added to profit up there ^^^ ?

I'd say that close to 50% taxation when all's said and done meets the definition of extortion. I still haven't seen anyone quantify what is obscene profit though.

(I won't take you through the math on Federal, State and SSN taxes, but my property tax alone is 10% of my gross salary. Sales tax is 7% here too. That is extortionary. Thank God for tax free investments.)

[Peterkro]

I'd say that close to 50% taxation when all's said and done meets the definition of extortion. I still haven't seen anyone quantify what is obscene profit though.

(I won't take you through the math on Federal, State and SSN taxes, but my property tax alone is 10% of my gross salary. Sales tax is 7% here too. That is extortionary. Thank God for tax free investments.)


You obviously either don't understand the meaning of extortion or why aren't you suing the US government for criminal behaviour.

[mactastic]

You obviously either don't understand the meaning of extortion or why aren't you suing the US government for criminal behaviour.
Because it's just an inflammatory term.

[Macky-Mac]

I'd say that close to 50% taxation when all's said and done meets the definition of extortion. I still haven't seen anyone quantify what is obscene profit though.

(I won't take you through the math on Federal, State and SSN taxes, but my property tax alone is 10% of my gross salary. Sales tax is 7% here too. That is extortionary. Thank God for tax free investments.)

hmmm, maybe you should get a better paying job instead of expecting everybody else to pay your share

[Swarmlord]

hmmm, maybe you should get a better paying job instead of expecting everybody else to pay your share

Why would I increase my taxable income? Tax free investments and long term capital gains rates are where it's at.

[obeygiant]

hmmm, maybe you should get a better paying job instead of expecting everybody else to pay your share

Why would I increase my taxable income? Tax free investments and long term capital gains rates are where it's at.

Its the rich-dad poor-dad scenario. A "working" person can only make so much money. But when you let money work for you through investments your earning potential is unlimited.

[killerrobot]

If you made clear what these freedoms are maybe we could debate them,as it stands I can only assume your referring to the "freedom" to exploit the majority of the population (a la Swarmy), I can't relate to any system where that is regarded as a freedom.

Anytime you want to actually do an internet search using the key words I suggested before, then I could probably discuss them with you. If you did do a search and you feel that freedom of speech and press shouldn't exist, then I guess there really is nothing to discuss.

[Macky-Mac]

Why would I increase my taxable income? Tax free investments and long term capital gains rates are where it's at.

well there you go then.....since you're fat with tax free income, it sounds like your complaint about how horribly burdened you are by taxes is actually bogus......from what you say, the tax structure of our country works to your personnal advantage......indeed, maybe you should be careful not to alert the rest of the tax payers as to how lightly taxed you really are!

But then maybe this is getting off topic.

[Iscariot]

For everyone up in arms about the constitutional change, are you aware that Canada has no set limit on the number of terms a Prime Minister can serve, and the length of terms aren't set in stone either? Jean Chrétien served three terms over ten years, and in contrast Paul Martin, his successor, only served one two year term.

What Chavez is proposing isn't something I'd call radical, and, in response to what some others have said, I would support Bush in amending the constitution for a number of electoral reforms, including adjustments of term lengths.

[skunk]

Why would I increase my taxable income? Tax free investments and long term capital gains rates are where it's at.So in effect you are just another welfare scrounger living off the working man's taxes. Well I never!

[solvs]

Anytime you want to actually do an internet search using the key words I suggested before, then I could probably discuss them with you. If you did do a search and you feel that freedom of speech and press shouldn't exist, then I guess there really is nothing to discuss.
Well, that wasn't exactly what he meant. It wasn't about such vague terms, actually, I think that was his problem. That you were being vague. If you'd like to discuss the specifics of what is bothering you about Chavez, just exactly what "freedoms" and such they've lost under him, then we can. But it's not up to him, or any of us, to do your research.

[Agathon]

Hmmm.

The buzz is that Chavez is going to be the subject of another coup, and perhaps assassinated in the run up to the referendum. I wouldn't personally be surprised if that happens, although I would be surprised if our subservient media presented it as an outrage.

[killerrobot]

Well, that wasn't exactly what he meant. It wasn't about such vague terms, actually, I think that was his problem. That you were being vague. If you'd like to discuss the specifics of what is bothering you about Chavez, just exactly what "freedoms" and such they've lost under him, then we can. But it's not up to him, or any of us, to do your research.

My whole point was that it wasn't my job to do his research (much like you tried to accuse me of). I've linked to articles, others have linked to articles, and when someone just keeps saying I'm being vague or evasive instead of actually bringing up issues they have problems with within the articles other than it being in another language, then I assume it's because they never read anything. I also told him to do a search because it brings up thousands of articles to choose from. Did you want me to link to all of them? Well, I guess for those that can't use google and so I'm not told that I'm being vague anymore, here's a columbian's collection of articles (http://rolita816.blogspot.com/2007/10/sip-in-venezuela.html) - first page off (http://www.google.com/search?q=SIP+Chavez+Freedoms&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)of the search for SIP Chavez freedoms. Sorry for being short, but I'm sick of being "vague".

@Agathon
Sounds like all the other failed, US plotted attempts on his life. Like this one from last year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093001317.html).
I'm sure the media, like you said would present it as an outrage if it did happen though.

[Peterkro]

Well I actually have been doing some research and what's bothering me is SIP as a organisation,it appears to be control by a cabal of right wing publishers.

[solvs]

Sorry for being short, but I'm sick of being "vague".
I was mostly referring to this:

If you made clear what these freedoms are maybe we could debate them
If you have specifics that are valid, well, what he said.

[killerrobot]

Well I actually have been doing some research and what's bothering me is SIP as a organisation,it appears to be control by a cabal of right wing publishers.

So right-wingers can't stand for the freedom of press? I know its seems ironic since the right-wingers generally want to do the opposite - but I don't see how that makes their point less valid.

What about this student protest (http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-6-9/56294.html)for "freedoms". I'm sure that wasn't lead by a group of "cabal right-wingers". So are their ideas to be heard now?

Even if, ¨Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro has called them "students of the Venezuelan upper class" being used by opposition parties and media moguls (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/04/america/LA-GEN-Venezuela-Student-Protests.php)¨, does that make their feelings less valid? I doubt all of them are right-wingers, and I doubt they are all being "used", and I say they have every right to be heard about their fear of losing "freedoms" - especially freedom of speech - under Chavez.


@solvs
I did make clear what freedoms I was talking about - sure I could've probably done it sooner, but I did do it by the time you decided to post also criticizing my posts. I would like to thank you for side-tracking my points and criticizing my posts.

[Peterkro]

So right-wingers can't stand for the freedom of press? I know its seems ironic since the right-wingers generally want to do the opposite - but I don't see how that makes their point less valid.

What about this student protest (http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-6-9/56294.html)for "freedoms". I'm sure that wasn't lead by a group of "cabal right-wingers". So are their ideas to be heard now?

Even if, ¨Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro has called them "students of the Venezuelan upper class" being used by opposition parties and media moguls (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/04/america/LA-GEN-Venezuela-Student-Protests.php)¨, does that make their feelings less valid? I doubt all of them are right-wingers, and I doubt they are all being "used", and I say they have every right to be heard about their fear of losing "freedoms" - especially freedom of speech - under Chavez.


@solvs
I did make clear what freedoms I was talking about - sure I could've probably done it sooner, but I did do it by the time you decided to post also criticizing my posts. I would like to thank you for side-tracking my points and criticizing my posts.

O.K. I'm a bit clearer now on what you are trying to say.
First let me say of course I'm in favour of the autonomy of the Universities however that system as exists in Venezuela now is hierarchal,
elitist and moribund,where is the transparency the democratic control the community input. Why are students overly from the power elite and very much less the children of workers and ordinary people.I'm all in favour of education being free from government interference but don't expect sympathy from me if you merely want to defend the old elitist structure.

Much the same applies to broadcast media, while I wish there was a independent,varied and autonomous media the fact is there isn't and the propaganda pumped out by RCTV was ever bit as bad as anything done by state broadcasters, they were hoist by their own petard,again no sympathy from me it's a good thing they were closed down.

Venezuela is a much divided country on the one hand you have the broad mass of people who support Chavez and his government on the other the old elite who see their privileges in danger of being taken away and are fighting tooth and claw to hold onto them.I'm with the masses although I can see in the long term supporting a centralised hierarchal power structure will merely result in the rise of a new elite.It is amazing how a mildly left wing government such as Chavez's can rally the privileged worldwide, even such a weak challenge frightens them as it shows up how unnecessary they are.

[solvs]

So right-wingers can't stand for the freedom of press?
I don't know about those in your country, but some in this country sure seem to.

@solvs
I did make clear what freedoms I was talking about - sure I could've probably done it sooner
Can't speak for Petey, but all I was asking for.

Had you made this post earlier with more specifics and valid links, I probably would have agreed with you.

[Queso]

Oh look. Having lost the vote the BIG BAD DICTATOR has thanked the voters and conceded to the opposition. So much for being the New Hitler eh? :rolleyes:

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7124313.stm)

[Ugg]

Oh look. Having lost the vote the BIG BAD DICTATOR has thanked the voters and conceded to the opposition. So much for being the New Hitler eh? :rolleyes:

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7124313.stm)

Well, we can at least be assured that the elections in Venezuela were free enough. It's too bad the same can't be said for Russia.

Hopefully this will chasten Chavez and instead of ranting and raving like a tin pot dictator, he will truly devote himself to transforming Venezuelan poverty into something lasting.

[Swarmlord]

Well, we can at least be assured that the elections in Venezuela were free enough. It's too bad the same can't be said for Russia.

Hopefully this will chasten Chavez and instead of ranting and raving like a tin pot dictator, he will truly devote himself to transforming Venezuelan poverty into something lasting.

I have no doubts that Chavez will transform Venezuelan poverty into something lasting. :)

[killerrobot]

Oh look. Having lost the vote the BIG BAD DICTATOR has thanked the voters and conceded to the opposition.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7124313.stm)

What happened to the thralls of people backing him and his socialist plan? 44% of the population didn't vote - according to the article his main supporters?

It looks to me that even his own followers are starting to doubt him and his reforms-solely based on reading that article.

[Queso]

What happened to the thralls of people backing him and his socialist plan? 44% of the population didn't vote - according to the article his main supporters?

It looks to me that even his own followers are starting to doubt him and his reforms-solely based on reading that article.
He overstepped the mark and the people told him as much.

Now hopefully he will realise that the constant rhetoric, sabre-rattling and personality cult is actually preventing him from achieving his aims.

Either way, I think it's pretty much been shown that those who call Chavez a dictator are not basing their opinion on reality.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>

Either way, I think it's pretty much been shown that those who call Chavez a dictator are not basing their opinion on reality.

He just hasn't consolidated his power yet. Call him a dictator wannabe or dictator in waiting.

[skunk]

What happened to the thralls of people backing him and his socialist plan? 44% of the population didn't vote - according to the article his main supporters?

It looks to me that even his own followers are starting to doubt him and his reforms-solely based on reading that article.That's democratic politics for you. What a straw man that dictatorship thing was, eh?

[solvs]

He just hasn't consolidated his power yet. Call him a dictator wannabe or dictator in waiting.
And yet you chastise people for saying the same types of things about Bush. He's not my favorite guy in the world, no matter how much he blathers on, but he's well liked among his own people (unlike our guy) and conceded defeat on this issue. Unless he's a threat to us, or our allies, I don't get why we have to villainize him more than necessary.

[Swarmlord]

And yet you chastise people for saying the same types of things about Bush.
When Bush starts lobbying for a change in the law limiting the number of terms he can hold the presidency, then you might have a leg to stand on. I see no evidence of it.

He's not my favorite guy in the world, no matter how much he blathers on, but he's well liked among his own people (unlike our guy) and conceded defeat on this issue. Unless he's a threat to us, or our allies, I don't get why we have to villainize him more than necessary.

Well liked? I think it's more along the lines that they disliked the alternative more.

[mactastic]

He just hasn't consolidated his power yet. Call him a dictator wannabe or dictator in waiting.

When Bush starts lobbying for a change in the law limiting the number of terms he can hold the presidency, then you might have a leg to stand on. I see no evidence of it.
LOL! Changing the qualifiers once you realized what you'd actually said, eh?

First it was "consolidating power makes you a dictator in waiting". Then, realizing that Bush's entire presidency has been about consolidating powers perceived to have been lost after the Nixon years, you had to change the definitions! Now it's only those who seek to change a law limiting the number of terms they can serve that are dictators?

So Putin is just as democratic a fella as you or I until he changes the laws to allow him to serve indefinitely?

Priceless.

[Swarmlord]

LOL! Changing the qualifiers once you realized what you'd actually said, eh?

First it was "consolidating power makes you a dictator in waiting". Then, realizing that Bush's entire presidency has been about consolidating powers perceived to have been lost after the Nixon years, you had to change the definitions! Now it's only those who seek to change a law limiting the number of terms they can serve that are dictators?

So Putin is just as democratic a fella as you or I until he changes the laws to allow him to serve indefinitely?

Priceless.

Yes, it is priceless when you can't see the difference between consolidating powers of the office for what would be some future administration and Putin and Chavez that are doing it for themselves.

[solvs]

While Bush isn't doing exactly the same things Chavez is (and again, I don't like Hugo either, nor Putin) he has done and continues to do things that could definitely be seen as power grabs. And since that was the original criteria, I just found it odd that you seem to be ok when Bush does it. Especially given that whole thing we've be going through lately where every comparison becomes some ridiculous like for like, even if it isn't.

But if that's the new rule, you must not like Rudy, because that's exactly what he tried to do after 9/11, is stay in office.

[mactastic]

Yes, it is priceless when you can't see the difference between consolidating powers of the office for what would be some future administration and Putin and Chavez that are doing it for themselves.
A power grab is a power grab. It's just funny that the words made it out of your keyboard before you realized what they meant.

[Swarmlord]

A power grab is a power grab. It's just funny that the words made it out of your keyboard before you realized what they meant.

So, except for the Republicans, our Senate and Congress is filled with selfless, civil servants working tirelessly for the benefit of others. Yeah, right.

[solvs]

So, except for the Republicans, our Senate and Congress is filled with selfless, civil servants working tirelessly for the benefit of others. Yeah, right.
No one said that. Or anything like it. But who's the President right now? Who's been making those power grabs the last couple of years, with until recently a rubber stamping Congress, and Courts, and all of his cronies who were hired for their loyalty rather than competence, and let go or quit if they didn't follow the program? No one is talking about Congress, Dems or GOP. You criticize Chavez for wanting power, and obfuscate again, talking about something that has nothing to do with anything anyone said so you can make your strawman argument, but defend Bush and others in your own party for also pushing for more power for themselves. Your only excuse being that we must be defending the Dems, which again, none of us are or have done. Do I even need to say it anymore? You. Have. Nothing.

And you still haven't answered my question about Rudy, who went even further than Chavez did to keep his power after 9/11.

[obeygiant]

Oh look. Having lost the vote the BIG BAD DICTATOR has thanked the voters and conceded to the opposition. So much for being the New Hitler eh? :rolleyes:

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7124313.stm)

This is a victory for the people of Venezuela. Its sounds like the opposition who boycotted his election in the first place decided to turn out and vote. Narrowly. Although his methods in which he would "continue in the battle to build socialism" seem a little strange, i.e. ending limits on presidential terms and halting the central bank's autonomy. Is that really how one builds socialism?

[Ugg]

This is a victory for the people of Venezuela. Its sounds like the opposition who boycotted his election in the first place decided to turn out and vote. Narrowly. Although his methods in which he would "continue in the battle to build socialism" seem a little strange, i.e. ending limits on presidential terms and halting the central bank's autonomy. Is that really how one builds socialism?

There's no blueprint for a socialist society, rather a process of evolution.

The presidential term limit was the least worrying of the proposed reforms. His power grab in local areas and the central bank coming under his control were extremely bad ideas.

Hopefully, he'll take this election as a sign that Venezuelans simply aren't ready for his totalitarian ways and simply want him to continue to equalize Venezuelan society. His universities and health clinics will have an enormous impact in the future.

Let's hope that he's able to allow the baby he's nurtured, grow to maturity on its own.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>

And you still haven't answered my question about Rudy, who went even further than Chavez did to keep his power after 9/11.

I'm supposed to be concerned about the power seeking activities of a mayor of a city and state I don't live in? :confused:

However, if I was in his position I'd probably do the same. I don't like government by committee. :p

[solvs]

I'm supposed to be concerned about the power seeking activities of a mayor of a city and state I don't live in? :confused:
Maybe you haven't heard, but he did the same type of things you're condemning Chavez for trying to do and is running for President from your party.

However, if I was in his position I'd probably do the same. I don't like government by committee. :p
Proving you either completely missed the point, are ok with it when one of your guys is doing it, or are being flip proving you have no excuse. Got it. Let's see how you'd feel if Hillary tried to do it. Bet you'd suddenly change your tune again like you are with Hugo.

[Swarmlord]

M<snip>Let's see how you'd feel if Hillary tried to do it. Bet you'd suddenly change your tune again like you are with Hugo.

She will do it. We'll wait and see how outraged you will be when that happens.

[mactastic]

So, except for the Republicans, our Senate and Congress is filled with selfless, civil servants working tirelessly for the benefit of others. Yeah, right.
Oh yes, because that's EXACTLY what I said, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Lol... you're really grasping at straws these days. Or straw men anyway.

[solvs]

She will do it. We'll wait and see how outraged you will be when that happens.
You must not pay any attention to my posts then. I already criticize her. All the time actually. I've clearly stated that I don't like her. I've also criticized other Dems, and defended Repubs. And have criticized Chavez. I'm glad this failed. But you see me criticizing those in power pulling this crap, and must automatically assume I'm some partisan like you are and if I don't like "your side" I must automatically defend the other side, no matter what. It's the opposite. If I do have to vote for her if she's the only viable choice against the GOP and she pulls something like this, I would actually be even more pissed, because I want to support her, not just be voting against the other side as I have been.

But that's the difference between us. You defend it or ignore it when it's your party, even as you call for the heads of those on the other side, or even those who dare criticize one of your own. So no, I wouldn't defend it if she did it. I don't defend her now when she does stupid things, why would I defend something like that when I hate others for doing it? That would make me some sort of hypocrite.

So are going to actually answer my question about Rudy, or keep dodging and ignoring it, even if he does end up being your nominee?

Oh yes, because that's EXACTLY what I said, isn't it? :rolleyes:
Of course it isn't. Nowhere close. To anything anyone said actually. But what do you expect?

Lol... you're really grasping at straws these days. Or straw men anyway.
I'll have to remember that one.

Desperation certainly is ugly isn't it?

[Swarmlord]

<snip>

So are going to actually answer my question about Rudy, or keep dodging and ignoring it, even if he does end up being your nominee?

<snip>

I hope that Rudy isn't our nominee, but he'll still be preferable to the alternatives on the other side to me.

[Swarmlord]

Who but his ex wife would best know?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22133035/

[mactastic]

Who but his ex wife would best know?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22133035/
Does that mean you think we should listen to Rudy Guiliani's family about his qualifications?

[leekohler]

I hope that Rudy isn't our nominee, but he'll still be preferable to the alternatives on the other side to me.

That there are people like you who still think this way is amazing to me. So let's see- you're for:

1. Unnecessary and illegitimate pre-emptive war
2. Unlimited deficit spending with no accountablity
3. Tax breaks for big business and the wealthy. Small business and the middle class can just go ******* themselves.
4. Capping medical malpractice lawsuit awards no matter how much someone has been impacted by the misdeed, while ignoring the rest of the causes of high medical costs.


Hmm...what did I miss? ;)

[Dont Hurt Me]

I hope that Rudy isn't our nominee, but he'll still be preferable to the alternatives on the other side to me.History shows America likes governors. But somehow I dont think thats going to happen this time.

[solvs]

I hope that Rudy isn't our nominee, but he'll still be preferable to the alternatives on the other side to me.
Thus proving my point that you're ok when one of your guys does what you throw a hissy over others doing.

[obeygiant]

Thus proving my point that you're ok when one of your guys does what you throw a hissy over others doing.

What others?

[Swarmlord]

Does that mean you think we should listen to Rudy Guiliani's family about his qualifications?

You constantly bring up Guiliani as if he were the darling of Conservatives everywhere. Far from it.

As far as your comment though, I can assure you that many of us DO take into account Rudy's family track record. I'm not voting for him in the primaries if you are wondering.

[mactastic]

You constantly bring up Guiliani as if he were the darling of Conservatives everywhere. Far from it.
You constantly bring up Chavez as if he were the darling of Liberals everywhere, then complain when the favor is returned? What is about about Conservatives that makes them so able to dish it out, but unable to take it in return?

As far as your comment though, I can assure you that many of us DO take into account Rudy's family track record. I'm not voting for him in the primaries if you are wondering.
I don't care who you vote for. If you're going to claim family members (or in this case ex-family members) should influence our opinions of politicians, then that goes for everyone. Or should.

Bill thinks Hillary would make a great president. Does that sway your opinion of Senator Clinton one bit? Then why would you put forth that argument?

[Swarmlord]

<snip>
Bill thinks Hillary would make a great president. Does that sway your opinion of Senator Clinton one bit? Then why would you put forth that argument?

Bill's already demonstrated his decision making prowess. It got him impeached, disbarred and almost thrown out of office. I usually take anything Bill (or Hillary by proxy) says and do and believe exactly the opposite. He hasn't failed me yet.

[mactastic]

Bill's already demonstrated his decision making prowess. It got him impeached, disbarred and almost thrown out of office. I usually take anything Bill (or Hillary by proxy) says and do and believe exactly the opposite. He hasn't failed me yet.
OK, Elizabeth Edwards thinks John Edwards would make a great President. Does that sway your view?

[Swarmlord]

OK, Elizabeth Edwards thinks John Edwards would make a great President. Does that sway your view?

Maybe...if he didn't get so distracted at the sound of an ambulance.

[mactastic]

Maybe...if he didn't get so distracted at the sound of an ambulance.
The ambulence was probably called because Romney abused another puppy. Either that or Old Man Thompson finally keeled over...

Since we're just taking cheap shots now.

[solvs]

What others?
Uh:

You constantly bring up Chavez as if he were the darling of Liberals everywhere, then complain when the favor is returned?
What the thread is about, Chavez.

I'm not voting for him in the primaries if you are wondering.
You could have just said that in the first place, but it doesn't change the fact that you dislike Chavez for something Rudy has done, that you're still ok with.

Bill's already demonstrated his decision making prowess.
While I won't bother arguing with that, Bush hasn't exactly demonstrated his either, but you still support his screw ups, and those affect more people than Clinton's lie.

[Agathon]

Hopefully, he'll take this election as a sign that Venezuelans simply aren't ready for his totalitarian ways and simply want him to continue to equalize Venezuelan society. His universities and health clinics will have an enormous impact in the future.

This is simply wrong headed. What totalitarian ways? There's nothing totalitarian about a democratic socialist country as long as free and fair elections are held on a regular basis.

There's no necessary connection between any particular economic system and democracy.

The Venezuelans actually got the opportunity to make a choice as to the kind of economy they wanted their country to have. That is a damn sight more than any of us have ever had, since all major parties in our countries promote essentially the same economic platform.

When other countries elected socialist governments, they tended to be brought down by the establishment. Cases in point: there were three elected socialist leaders (real socialists, not the fake kind we have now) at the beginning of 1973. Gough Whitlam in Australia, Norman Kirk in New Zealand and Salvador Allende in Chile. A couple of years later all of them were gone by unconventional means. Allende was murdered, Whitlam ousted in what basically amounted to a coup, and Kirk died (even then the hawks were circling around him at the time and he would not have been permitted to enact his policies).

The Venezuelans actually have the luxury of real democracy and real choices. We don't.