Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Aug 15, 2007.
Chavez is starting to give socialism a bad name.
Funny that they didn't mention the reforms to create more local councils so that people can take responsibility for their own lives and end corruption between the top of the government so that aid money might actually get to them.
It's still disturbing but there were better things involved.
This guy has nothing on Bush...
I had heard that on NPR today. Goes to show that NPR is one of the few real places to get news these days.
BBC World News and Deutsche-Welle Journal are usually my sources for alternative t.v. news.
What do you expect us to say? Do you want us to defend it? Ain't gonna happen, no matter how popular he might be among voters there. Just like that thing with the radio station down there.
Nice try though.
Who is 'us', solvs? And I wasn't expecting anybody to defend it, because to me its indefensible. nice try though.
All sorts of other leaders have done things like that before. I am surprised that it took him this long to do it.
Besides its the only thing he could do to prevent be kept from office by the imperialist American term limits.
Wonder how Sean Penn and the other Hollywood halfwits that have chummed with Chavez feel after hearing this news about their socialist friend.
Another socialist dictatorship gone bad. Who could have predicted that?
We didn't have term limits until FDR decided that he was a better man than GW. I like limits, but if not for the skewed legislature in Venezuela, I wouldn't care what they decided. It's their country.
Conspiracy theories aside, what evidence in hand is there that Bush plans to stay in office past 1/20/09 or even to try and be reelected next year? The issue here is presidential term limits - that's it. No point in dragging every topic into the dirt...
Actually it5five and bousozoku, so far, are the only ones ballsy enough to try. So the question is, are you so much is favor of socialism that you wouldn't care about the dictatorship that comes with it.
I like limits too. Not just in how it prevents kingships and cuts down somewhat on corruption. It provides a sense of urgency to the office. If you know that you only have 8 years to get the job done. As a down side it creates a powerful bureaucracy.
Yeah, its not like his wife is running or anything.
\i keed, i keed
I found that funny!
Still waiting for the reporters to get a comment from Sean Penn. He was just down there snogging with ol' Chavez. I want him on tape repeating what a wonderful guy Chavez is. Anyone want to bet that Penn will be in deep cover for quite a while now?
i would say that too.. that's why my guess is that it won't get approved
on the other side the US isn't that limited ...after all a son of a former president got president just 8 years later ... in austria relatives are excluded up to a certain degree so that there can't be huge political dynasties like in the US (Bush, Kennedy most famous)
i think his father having been member of parliment can be enough to create some restrictions
Just another little tinpot dictator following the common model: "One man, one vote, one time." Chavez is setting up another Cuba, as has been expected and predicted. No surprise, there.
"...people can take responsibility for their own lives and end corruption between the top of the government so that aid money might actually get to them."
Chavez' policies to date have been ensuring that there's less and less money for the getting. He's run all the "capitalist pigs" out; he's run all the more highly skilled people out, and he's run off the expertise to deal with his sour crude in the Orinoco Basin. Were he not getting his crude refined in Corpus Christi, he'd be out of gasoline.
A really sharp cookie.
They probably felt about the same as you did when you found out that Rush Limbaugh was a lying, drug addict, hypocrite who ran to the ACLU like the whiny pathetic swine that he is. Let's not forget that rehab is good for him but not for the "pooer". They probably felt about like that.
This is just such a ridiculous statement... What happens when someone is in power has nothing to do with the system they come to power in or promote. It has to do with what power does to people and, especially in poorer countries, the abundant opportunities to usurp power for personal gain.
For example, in post colonial Africa numerous countries were set up as democracies by the various western governments that had their hand in the pot. Virtually everyone of those governments ended with a tyrannical dictator or military state because the lure of personal gain was too great and family politics too strong. So I guess by Swarmlord’s logic democracy should be condemned as a system because of its ability to be corrupted by power hungry individuals.
By the way Swarmie there are plenty of countries that are heavily guided by socialist principles that are very successful. We just usually call them Democratic welfare states.
I wasn't aware that Chavez had become a dictator. Has he suspended any elections? Overthrown any elected governments? Shut down opposition media? I'm not going to argue that he's a friend of democracy, or defend his power-grabbing, but clearly the Venezuelan people in whatever wisdom have chosen to elect him by wide margins, and to give him a large legislative majority. On a continent where truly dictatorial regimes, both left and right, have flourished, all of this hand-wringing over Chavez seems just a little over-blown.
Really? Who went into hiding after expressing public friendship and support for Rush? I must have missed that report.
As for your crack about "drug addict", he's the highest functioning drug addict that I've ever seen. Conservatives even make better drug addicts than liberals evidently.
Did Sean penn go into hiding? I must have missed that one too. Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, he'll admit he was wrong- something you conservatives have a hard time doing?
As for Limbaugh, who gives a crap if he was functioning or not? He was a drug addict who used his maid to get him drugs, when he himself has said that drug addicts don't need rehab, they need prison. I guess he doesn't stand by his convictions. And he is an addict, he's admitted as much. It wasn't a "crack", it was the truth.
As for Chavez, who here said he was a good guy? And don't you consider all of us who don't agree with you "liberals"? Shouldn't we all have been ga-ga for him? We weren't. Sorry to disappoint you and obeygiant.
It wasn't a defence. I was just perturbed by the poor reporting and omission of details to get ratings/hits, as I believe it5five was.
The Latin world seems to thrive on corruption. Chavez doesn't seem to be any worse or better than any other--just different and more outspoken.
Anyone who is willing to attack the U.S. President from another country gets attention but have people forgotten about all that? Apparently, the people who buy Citgo gasoline have forgotten already.
I'm well aware of this, and other actions the Chavez government has taken to intimidate opposition media, and I'm certainly not defending them. Something very similar occurred in Peru a few years ago and I don't recall much gnashing of teeth over it. Dictators do not allow opposition media to exist, period. My point is the definition of the word has apparently become highly elastic.
And another thing- the use of the words "socialist dictatorship" by some in this thread. It appears that the attempt is to always paint anything remotely socialist as also always being dictatorial. Let's be honest guys, a dictatorship is a dictatorship. There are plenty of socialist countries that aren't dictatorships.
If it was under Fujimori, I wouldn't be surprised. If I remember right, much of the reason his people cut him some slack was because he had broken the Shining Path. I think if Chavez was dealing with the problems Columbia has, people wouldn't be as concerned either.
As for within the US, our relationship with Venezuela is too strong to ignore what is happening there. I mean, how much have you read about the earthquake? Almost nothing. If that had happened in Caracas, we would see it everywhere.
I agree that we have expanded the definition of dictator to include a lot of folks that don't come near qualifying for it, which I think has caused it to lose a lot of meaning. But, I disagree that opposition media is stopped in a dictatorship. The smart dictator will closely monitor the media and turn the thumbscrews if it looks like it may go too far, but letting it be goes a long way towards placating the public and letting him maintain control. My point was that Chavez has clearly begun the march towards dictatorship, and his expressed interest in modelling himself after Castro (I think we can agree he is a dictator) indicates where he would like to end up.
And there are plenty of dictatorships that aren't socialist. The problem is that most states with socialist leanings still maintain their democracy - the socialism is in place because that is what the people want. If the people changed their minds, I would expect that the socialism would be scaled back. But, when you look at the more well known socialist states, you see more centralized control - where the people hold nominal control at best: N. Korea, Cuba, China, Vietnam. When you think of socialist, Sweden just doesn't get the same coverage. I don't think that the unstated goal is to paint socialists as dictators is the goal, just the most outspoken socialists are the dictators.