My extended family are all from Venezuela. They are all stalwartly anti-Chavistas.
Did they vote on Sunday? Apparently here in Toronto Venezuelan ex-pats trying to vote at the consulate were picketed and protested by Chavez supporters. Nice to see that everything was clean and fair :roll:
Now, because I'm bored at work - here are some pictures of Chavez and his pals . . .
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, blatantly stole national elections this time last year.
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. Where do I even begin?
Hey, it's Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Chavez's "brother and trenchmate"
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Now there's someone who knows a thing or two about meddling in the politics of his neighbours.
Of course, last but certainly not least, good old Fidel himself.
TLM: Currently Chavez is using the hatred of the US as a mainstay of his political platform. The US is currently acting against the Venezualan Government and is breeding it's own unpopularity. That's the situation. If you don't want to look at historical situations, how about current ones, like the Middle East? US is yet again creating it's own enemies.
You keep on changing the subject. I'm not going to argue about the Middle East and US foreign policy in a thread discussing Hugo Chavez, that's for another thread. I love looking at historical situations, I'm a history and political science major, but they're not winning you any points and diverting attention away from the original argument. It doesn't matter what the US's involvement is in Venezuela or what had happened in the past, Hugo Chavez is a horrible leader and will eventually bankrupt his people.
I've never said a single damn thing about his leadership skills. Just that a dictator is required in a situation like Venezuala's. Whether or not that man is Chavez remains to be seen (you feel it isn't). However, do you not at least feel that you must not try to, you know, justify Chavez's political rhetoric by attempting to undercut his Government repeatedly?
No because leaders like him don't care about their country, they're opportunists. Dictators are never required, they only take advantage of the situation and lead their nations on a path of self destruction and cultural/intellectual backwardness. I would not be surprised that by the time this is all over that Venezuela is worse off than it was 20-30 years ago.
If the US had no involvement in Venezuela, he would still find an enemy to direct the peoples attention at. He uses the US because they are pretty much untouchable and unstoppable in his current situation, the perfect scapegoat. He would probably under other circumstances use his neighbors like Colombia as scapegoats but the US is so very convenient and he can't deal with them. The US would also not be in the equation as much as they are but Chavez provokes the US and wants them to have a vested interest in Venezuela so he can stay in power.
If the US had no involvement in Venezuela, he would still find an enemy to direct the peoples attention at. He uses the US because they are pretty much untouchable and unstoppable in his current situation, the perfect scapegoat. He would probably under other circumstances use his neighbors like Colombia as scapegoats but the US is so very convenient and he can't deal with them. The US would also not be in the equation as much as they are but Chavez provokes the US and wants them to have a vested interest in Venezuela so he can stay in power.
Chavez was elected by a mass majority of his people. If the people are willing to give power to this guy so he can ammend the constitution for a 3rd term, let them elect him democratically for a 3rd time in 2012. Who are we to judge "democracy"?
Its also funny to read how clueless you are about Venezuela.
People who planned and executed the coup are still living, freely in Venezuela. One of them actually still is the leader of the opposition.
In 2002, when they were getting ready to take down Chavez, the opposition who owns the mass majority of tv media in the country simply ordered Chavez to be displayed as evil. No members of the Chavez administration were given any interview time. The state chanel's signal was blocked by somewhat technologically advanced foreign powers, *cough*.
Electoral transparency? Hmm, interesting, I guess he must have cheated 30% of the total votes to win over that guy. You know, 30% is nothing, he probably hand carried the ballots.
Well, because I was asleep people have beat me to it by about 2 pages. But how would you feel if the republicans still controlled the house and senate and Bush was going to amend the constitution to stay in power until 2012 because of the "terrorist threat"?
If the election is rigged, exactly how much Chavez has won by is meaningless. He's completely packed all of the oversight committees with Chavistas. I have no doubt that he still commands a large measure of support in his country, but that doesn't invalidate my assessment of his approach to democracy or the results of his policies. Go look up my claims instead of just claiming I'm "clueless." Specifically: media act, court packing, inflation, crime rate.
And I don't care about whether he has some fairly nasty media opponents in venezuela. His opposition is doing nothing that fox news isn't doing. Making it illegal to say *anything* bad about the government in response? Not good. Again, how would you feel if Bush gagged the daily show?
I'm not saying he's done nothing for the poor, or that there weren't gross wrongs in the older governments of venezuela. But you far leftists who want to fall at chavez's feet and worship him because he calls bush satan are being willfully delusional about exactly what he represents. Like most true believers, he's leading his society off a cliff because he doesn't think his power should be restricted.
The difference is, as far as I understand, Chavez is trying to change the constitution to allow him for a 3rd term if he gets elected, NOT putting in a clause there saying "if the current president wants to, he can sit at the palace for another 6 years or bla bla." He still needs to get elected by people.
If the election on sunday was so rigged, why have hundreds of international observers such as the European Union, Carter Institute, AAS have said the election was transparent, legit and efficient?
About the media comment, this is why I said "you are clueless". Most of the tv channels and newspapers in Venezuela are owned by neoliberals, Chavez's opponents.
Anyways, Chavez won 21 regions + the capital. That's the entire country. Not even one region lost. This tells me a lot about him, and more about his opponents.
Basar on
i live in a country with a batshit crazy president and no, english is not my first language
My extended family are all from Venezuela. They are all stalwartly anti-Chavistas.
Did they vote on Sunday? Apparently here in Toronto Venezuelan ex-pats trying to vote at the consulate were picketed and protested by Chavez supporters. Nice to see that everything was clean and fair :roll:
Wow, I think you got him. I totally agree. Chavez should have sent his army to Canada to put some order in place!
:roll:
Don't blame Chavez supporters because your country couldn't handle the situation.
I also find it amusing and ironic how you complain about people protesting.
Ok, just ironic perhaps?
Basar on
i live in a country with a batshit crazy president and no, english is not my first language
Chavez was elected by a mass majority of his people. If the people are willing to give power to this guy so he can ammend the constitution for a 3rd term, let them elect him democratically for a 3rd time in 2012. Who are we to judge "democracy"?
Its also funny to read how clueless you are about Venezuela.
People who planned and executed the coup are still living, freely in Venezuela. One of them actually still is the leader of the opposition.
In 2002, when they were getting ready to take down Chavez, the opposition who owns the mass majority of tv media in the country simply ordered Chavez to be displayed as evil. No members of the Chavez administration were given any interview time. The state chanel's signal was blocked by somewhat technologically advanced foreign powers, *cough*.
Electoral transparency? Hmm, interesting, I guess he must have cheated 30% of the total votes to win over that guy. You know, 30% is nothing, he probably hand carried the ballots.
Well, because I was asleep people have beat me to it by about 2 pages. But how would you feel if the republicans still controlled the house and senate and Bush was going to amend the constitution to stay in power until 2012 because of the "terrorist threat"?
If the election is rigged, exactly how much Chavez has won by is meaningless. He's completely packed all of the oversight committees with Chavistas. I have no doubt that he still commands a large measure of support in his country, but that doesn't invalidate my assessment of his approach to democracy or the results of his policies. Go look up my claims instead of just claiming I'm "clueless." Specifically: media act, court packing, inflation, crime rate.
And I don't care about whether he has some fairly nasty media opponents in venezuela. His opposition is doing nothing that fox news isn't doing. Making it illegal to say *anything* bad about the government in response? Not good. Again, how would you feel if Bush gagged the daily show?
I'm not saying he's done nothing for the poor, or that there weren't gross wrongs in the older governments of venezuela. But you far leftists who want to fall at chavez's feet and worship him because he calls bush satan are being willfully delusional about exactly what he represents. Like most true believers, he's leading his society off a cliff because he doesn't think his power should be restricted.
The difference is, as far as I understand, Chavez is trying to change the constitution to allow him for a 3rd term if he gets elected, NOT putting in a clause there saying "if the current president wants to, he can sit at the palace for another 6 years or bla bla." He still needs to get elected by people.
If the election on sunday was so rigged, why have hundreds of international observers such as the European Union, Carter Institute, AAS have said the election was transparent, legit and efficient?
About the media comment, this is why I said "you are clueless". Most of the tv channels and newspapers in Venezuela are owned by neoliberals, Chavez's opponents.
Anyways, Chavez won 21 regions + the capital. That's the entire country. Not even one region lost. This tells me a lot about him, and more about his opponents.
Popular public opinion and support does not equate to good and just leadership. What the people want is not always good for the people or their country.
Chavez was elected by a mass majority of his people. If the people are willing to give power to this guy so he can ammend the constitution for a 3rd term, let them elect him democratically for a 3rd time in 2012. Who are we to judge "democracy"?
Its also funny to read how clueless you are about Venezuela.
People who planned and executed the coup are still living, freely in Venezuela. One of them actually still is the leader of the opposition.
In 2002, when they were getting ready to take down Chavez, the opposition who owns the mass majority of tv media in the country simply ordered Chavez to be displayed as evil. No members of the Chavez administration were given any interview time. The state chanel's signal was blocked by somewhat technologically advanced foreign powers, *cough*.
Electoral transparency? Hmm, interesting, I guess he must have cheated 30% of the total votes to win over that guy. You know, 30% is nothing, he probably hand carried the ballots.
Well, because I was asleep people have beat me to it by about 2 pages. But how would you feel if the republicans still controlled the house and senate and Bush was going to amend the constitution to stay in power until 2012 because of the "terrorist threat"?
If the election is rigged, exactly how much Chavez has won by is meaningless. He's completely packed all of the oversight committees with Chavistas. I have no doubt that he still commands a large measure of support in his country, but that doesn't invalidate my assessment of his approach to democracy or the results of his policies. Go look up my claims instead of just claiming I'm "clueless." Specifically: media act, court packing, inflation, crime rate.
And I don't care about whether he has some fairly nasty media opponents in venezuela. His opposition is doing nothing that fox news isn't doing. Making it illegal to say *anything* bad about the government in response? Not good. Again, how would you feel if Bush gagged the daily show?
I'm not saying he's done nothing for the poor, or that there weren't gross wrongs in the older governments of venezuela. But you far leftists who want to fall at chavez's feet and worship him because he calls bush satan are being willfully delusional about exactly what he represents. Like most true believers, he's leading his society off a cliff because he doesn't think his power should be restricted.
The difference is, as far as I understand, Chavez is trying to change the constitution to allow him for a 3rd term if he gets elected, NOT putting in a clause there saying "if the current president wants to, he can sit at the palace for another 6 years or bla bla." He still needs to get elected by people.
If the election on sunday was so rigged, why have hundreds of international observers such as the European Union, Carter Institute, AAS have said the election was transparent, legit and efficient?
About the media comment, this is why I said "you are clueless". Most of the tv channels and newspapers in Venezuela are owned by neoliberals, Chavez's opponents.
Anyways, Chavez won 21 regions + the capital. That's the entire country. Not even one region lost. This tells me a lot about him, and more about his opponents.
Popular public opinion and support does not equate to good and just leadership. What the people want is not always good for the people or their country.
Perhaps the opposition should offer something better for the people and the people themselves may elect the opposition next time around. Venezuela was in a much worse shape pre-Chavez, so I can see why these people worship Chavez.
As I mentioned in the 1st page, its amusing how the opposition leaders, their friends and families, supporters all ride in Mercedes-Benz, Range Rover, etc. vehicles and live in multimillion dollar homes. I can also see why these people didn't vote for them.
Basar on
i live in a country with a batshit crazy president and no, english is not my first language
My extended family are all from Venezuela. They are all stalwartly anti-Chavistas.
Did they vote on Sunday? Apparently here in Toronto Venezuelan ex-pats trying to vote at the consulate were picketed and protested by Chavez supporters. Nice to see that everything was clean and fair :roll:
Wow, I think you got him. I totally agree. Chavez should have sent his army to Canada to put some order in place!
:roll:
Don't blame Chavez supporters because your country couldn't handle the situation.
I also find it amusing and ironic how you complain about people protesting.
Oh, I don't blame Chavez for a protest here in Toronto. I blame silly leftists like yourself who have never been to Venezuela but get it in their heads that Chavez is way cool and that his opponents ought to be harassed for simply daring to vote against him.
There's a time and a place for political protests. Outside a polling station on an election day is not one of them.
However, I don't recall ever defending W. This thread is not about him and whatever my opinion on him might be, it has no bearing on Hugo Chavez and the state of Venezuelan democracy. Nice try though.
EDIT: Since you're so persistent in comparing Chavez to Bush (as if that absolves him of anything) . . .
Cool. So we're agreed. At best these protestors can claim to be about as classy as some of George W. Bush's supporters. They're sure reaching for the top.
Though, all in all, I would consider a place where election officials count ballots to be a lot different than a place where the general public are casting their ballots.
My extended family are all from Venezuela. They are all stalwartly anti-Chavistas.
Did they vote on Sunday? Apparently here in Toronto Venezuelan ex-pats trying to vote at the consulate were picketed and protested by Chavez supporters. Nice to see that everything was clean and fair :roll:
Wow, I think you got him. I totally agree. Chavez should have sent his army to Canada to put some order in place!
:roll:
Don't blame Chavez supporters because your country couldn't handle the situation.
I also find it amusing and ironic how you complain about people protesting.
Oh, I don't blame Chavez for a protest here in Toronto. I blame silly leftists like yourself who have never been to Venezuela but get it in their heads that Chavez is way cool and that his opponents ought to be harassed for simply daring to vote against him.
There's a time and a place for political protests. Outside a polling station on an election day is not one of them.
I don't see anything wrong with the protest. Here in the U.S. I saw people yelling Bush's name outside my office on election day in 2004 (Washington DC). Did these Chavez supporters attack the supporters of the opposition? If not, its just a protest, nothing like what the opposition did to Chavez when they tried to take over the country and prohibited any statements by Chavez supporters on TV & papers.
Basar on
i live in a country with a batshit crazy president and no, english is not my first language
Outside a vote recount center when the vote is being recounted is also not one of them. Didn't stop George W. Bush's supporters.
Well no shit. All your rhetoric has been "B-b-but America!" "B-b-but Bush!" You have become the same as the "B-b-but Clinton!" crowd. Just because a political opponent of yours does something bad doesn't mean you should do it too.
About the media comment, this is why I said "you are clueless". Most of the tv channels and newspapers in Venezuela are owned by neoliberals, Chavez's opponents.
You mean the news outlets that have been repeatedly threatened by Chavez, and are losing their licenses next year because Chavez has barred their renewal?
Anyways, Chavez won 21 regions + the capital. That's the entire country. Not even one region lost. This tells me a lot about him, and more about his opponents.
Yeah, an electoral sweep tells me alot about the election, too, but somehow I don't think it is telling me the same thing it is telling you.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
About the media comment, this is why I said "you are clueless". Most of the tv channels and newspapers in Venezuela are owned by neoliberals, Chavez's opponents.
You mean the news outlets that have been repeatedly threatened by Chavez, and are losing their licenses next year because Chavez has barred their renewal?
We'll see when time comes around next year. Let's see the hard facts, about now? Thanks.
Basar on
i live in a country with a batshit crazy president and no, english is not my first language
AJ, man, that's right, if only I could find pictures of the current US leader shaking hands with people suspected of murdering political opponents, subverting democracy, brutalising their people...
China's President Hu Jintao and US President George Bush
Oh, well that's just one so...
George Bush and Vladimir Putin.
Hmm...
Bush is not friends with Hu Jintao and does not claim to be. By your logic, a picture of Nixon shaking hands with Nikita Khrushchev at Disney Land would denote them as best friends. The US and China have good relations now but they are almost in a state of Cold War. Though the American corporations rely on China for cheap labor, America sees very little in return for this, something the US government does not like. The US is also stunting the growth of China and making sure that they don't make the jump from a 2nd world nation to a 1st world one. China is also one of the highest in demand sectors for CIA intelligence, the other is the middle east.
The US is very critical of Russia, especially in the handling of Chechnya. Vladimir Putin is not democratically elected, he is the Prime Minister and put into place by his party, the majority party elected by the people. He may use assassination from time to time, this has never been proved but it's sort of the old Russian way of doing things since the beginnings of the Russian nation state so it wouldn't surprise me. The Russian government is by no means perfect but at least they're working on improvement and still recovering from the Cold War. Old habits die hard but at least they are dieing in Russia. If you're looking for the oppressive soviet dictator, look at Alexander Lukashenko, because Putin is far from it.
Venezuela was in a much worse shape pre-Chavez, so I can see why these people worship Chavez.
Oh, I get it too. I feel like I've seen this pattern about 30 times before in various countries with previous authoritarian regimes. I'm disappointed that either the people of venezuela don't see it, or that the situation in their country is so bad that he's the best option they have.
About the media comment, this is why I said "you are clueless". Most of the tv channels and newspapers in Venezuela are owned by neoliberals, Chavez's opponents.
And he passed the Media Act. Was this an acceptable way to respond, in your opinion?
Anyways, Chavez won 21 regions + the capital. That's the entire country. Not even one region lost. This tells me a lot about him, and more about his opponents.
They nearly disintegrated and have made an amazing comeback in the face of Chavista intimidation like the polling-place picketing you seem to be so fond of. You say people power, I say mob rule.[/url]
Democracy is peaceful rule by the people, mob rule is violent rule by a faceless mass that may or may not represent the will of the general populace, usually doesn't. You're really making yourself look like someone who has no idea what they're talking about right now.
And he passed the Media Act. Was this an acceptable way to respond, in your opinion?
Yes, and you expect me to click a Weekly Standard link? Bloddy hell, no.
The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative [1] magazine published 48 times per year. It made its debut on September 17, 1995 and is owned by the public company News Corporation. It is viewed as a leading conservative magazine. Its current editors are founder William Kristol, chairman of the Project for the New American Century, and Fred Barnes. The Weekly Standard produces "The Daily Standard" with commentary and articles written for the magazine's website.
Basar on
i live in a country with a batshit crazy president and no, english is not my first language
Yes, and you expect me to click a Weekly Standard link? Bloddy hell, no.
So you support censorship, and you won't look at the article, even to debunk it with countervailing sources? We're done here. I've only wasted my time with you on the off chance some 14 year old is reading and happens to decide chavez is cool rather than a thuggish man with strong autocratic tendencies who's leading his country in thewrong direction
Ooh, more neoconservative sources like the new york times and human rights watch.
[quote=CPJ]Under Article 29, for instance, television and radio stations that disseminate messages that "promote, defend, or incite breaches of public order" or "are contrary to the security of the nation" may be forced to suspend broadcasts for up to 72 hours. If a media outlet repeats the infractions within the next five years, its broadcasting concession may be suspended for up to five years. Article 7 of the law forbids "graphic descriptions or images of real violence" on the air from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m., except when the broadcast is live and the content is either "indispensable" or emerges unexpectedly.
Yes, and you expect me to click a Weekly Standard link? Bloddy hell, no.
So you support censorship, and you won't look at the article, even to debunk it with countervailing sources? We're done here. I've only wasted my time with you on the off chance some 14 year old is reading and happens to decide chavez is cool rather than a thuggish man with strong autocratic tendencies who's leading his country in thewrong direction
Ooh, more neoconservative sources like the new york times and human rights watch.
Yes, and you expect me to click a Weekly Standard link? Bloddy hell, no.
So you support censorship, and you won't look at the article, even to debunk it with countervailing sources? We're done here. I've only wasted my time with you on the off chance some 14 year old is reading and happens to decide chavez is cool rather than a thuggish man with strong autocratic tendencies who's leading his country in thewrong direction
Ooh, more neoconservative sources like the new york times and human rights watch.
Until now, the Chávez government has largely respected press freedom even in the face of a strident and well-resourced opposition press. Indeed, as part of the often heated and acrimonious debate between supporters of the government and its opponents, the press has been able to express strong views without restriction. Private television companies have often adopted a blatantly partisan position, and their news and debate programs have been extremely hostile to the Chávez government.
At the same time, however, many journalists working for the primarily private media that support the opposition have been victims of aggression and intimidation by government supporters. And, to a lesser degree, journalists working for the primarily state media sympathetic to the government have also been subject to acts of intimidation.
So let me get this clear, you are not against media restriction when it is neoliberals in power, but against it when Chavez is?
Ok, I am glad we got that cleared up.
Oh and about your age comment, .... nevermind. Maybe when you are old enough to get a job and a bank account we can talk. Your daddy's money gets you just about ----> this far.
Basar on
i live in a country with a batshit crazy president and no, english is not my first language
[quote=CPJ]Under Article 29, for instance, television and radio stations that disseminate messages that "promote, defend, or incite breaches of public order" or "are contrary to the security of the nation" may be forced to suspend broadcasts for up to 72 hours. If a media outlet repeats the infractions within the next five years, its broadcasting concession may be suspended for up to five years. Article 7 of the law forbids "graphic descriptions or images of real violence" on the air from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m., except when the broadcast is live and the content is either "indispensable" or emerges unexpectedly.
Damnit, I totally forgot its perfectly ok and Americans along with Bush would just sit and watch if CNN broadcasted a message stating, "We support Bin Ladin and his war against the West." Should go well with popcorn, ja?
Basar on
i live in a country with a batshit crazy president and no, english is not my first language
Yes, and you expect me to click a Weekly Standard link? Bloddy hell, no.
So you support censorship, and you won't look at the article, even to debunk it with countervailing sources? We're done here. I've only wasted my time with you on the off chance some 14 year old is reading and happens to decide chavez is cool rather than a thuggish man with strong autocratic tendencies who's leading his country in thewrong direction
Ooh, more neoconservative sources like the new york times and human rights watch.
Until now, the Chávez government has largely respected press freedom even in the face of a strident and well-resourced opposition press. Indeed, as part of the often heated and acrimonious debate between supporters of the government and its opponents, the press has been able to express strong views without restriction. Private television companies have often adopted a blatantly partisan position, and their news and debate programs have been extremely hostile to the Chávez government.
At the same time, however, many journalists working for the primarily private media that support the opposition have been victims of aggression and intimidation by government supporters. And, to a lesser degree, journalists working for the primarily state media sympathetic to the government have also been subject to acts of intimidation.
So let me get this clear, you are not against media restriction when it is neoliberals in power, but against it when Chavez is?
Ok, I am glad we got that cleared up.
Oh and about your age comment, .... nevermind. Maybe when you are old enough to get a job and a bank account we can talk. Your daddy's money gets you just about ----> this far.
Nobody is saying that you Chavez cheerleading bitch. We're just saying Chavez's ruling sucks but it seems that since he is your fellow socialist that you'll support him no matter and thats dumb and dangerous.
Yes, and you expect me to click a Weekly Standard link? Bloddy hell, no.
So you support censorship, and you won't look at the article, even to debunk it with countervailing sources? We're done here. I've only wasted my time with you on the off chance some 14 year old is reading and happens to decide chavez is cool rather than a thuggish man with strong autocratic tendencies who's leading his country in thewrong direction
Ooh, more neoconservative sources like the new york times and human rights watch.
So let me get this clear, you are not against media restriction when it is neoliberals in power, but against it when Chavez is?
Ok, I am glad we got that cleared up.
Oh and about your age comment, .... nevermind. Maybe when you are old enough to get a job and a bank account we can talk. Your daddy's money gets you just about ----> this far.
How about no media restriction, regardless of who's in power? Sweet jesus. You're a great representative of something I tend to notice with the far left (i.e. well left of kossacks or whatnot), just as with the far right: a lack of respect for democratic institutions unless they help your side to power.
As for the age stuff, you misread my comment. I'm only sticking around to prevent younger, more impressionable people from getting one side of the story although it is quite clear to me I'm wasting my time on you.
By the way, I graduated from a top university and have a good job (working in the public sector for far less than I could make privately, I might add). I appreciate your implications in the spirit that they were intended, i.e. to derail an argument you're losing. Let's get back on topic.
So let me get this clear, you are not against media restriction when it is neoliberals in power, but against it when Chavez is?
Ok, I am glad we got that cleared up.
Oh and about your age comment, .... nevermind. Maybe when you are old enough to get a job and a bank account we can talk. Your daddy's money gets you just about ----> this far.
How about no media restriction, regardless of who's in power? Sweet jesus. You're a great representative of something I tend to notice with the far left (i.e. well left of kossacks or whatnot), just as with the far right: a lack of respect for democratic institutions unless they help your side to power.
As for the age stuff, you misread my comment. I'm only sticking around to prevent younger, more impressionable people from getting one side of the story although it is quite clear to me I'm wasting my time on you.
By the way, I graduated from a top university and have a good job (working in the public sector for far less than I could make privately, I might add). I appreciate your implications in the spirit that they were intended, i.e. to derail an argument you're losing. Let's get back on topic.
Look above. Did I ever say I am pro-censorship?
Points I made in chronological order:
1. Chavez is not ordering anyone to shut down private television.
2. He wants to hold a public referandum to close 4 private televisions he considers dangerous to the public. So its a choice of the people.
3. I am all for freedom of speech too, read my previous posts in this forum with regards to France and Germany, but I also know full freedom of speech will be used only for American interests in Venezuela. Not for the interests of people of Venezuela.
4. I questioned the integrity of people's views on Venezuelan media because: America was perfectly happy and did not seemed bothered when Chavez's opponents raided the state tv before the coup and prohibited them to broadcast anything by Chavez or his administration.
---
Good for you. I graduated from a decent university (Virginia Tech), not a top school. I work within the UN family for the development and improvement of health systems in Africa, Latin America and Central Asia. Please do not care for my extremism and the irony of my job, I am on annual leave. You could say the same thing about my salary but that's not the point.
Basar on
i live in a country with a batshit crazy president and no, english is not my first language
Posts
Now, because I'm bored at work - here are some pictures of Chavez and his pals . . .
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, blatantly stole national elections this time last year.
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. Where do I even begin?
Hey, it's Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Chavez's "brother and trenchmate"
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Now there's someone who knows a thing or two about meddling in the politics of his neighbours.
Of course, last but certainly not least, good old Fidel himself.
No because leaders like him don't care about their country, they're opportunists. Dictators are never required, they only take advantage of the situation and lead their nations on a path of self destruction and cultural/intellectual backwardness. I would not be surprised that by the time this is all over that Venezuela is worse off than it was 20-30 years ago.
If the US had no involvement in Venezuela, he would still find an enemy to direct the peoples attention at. He uses the US because they are pretty much untouchable and unstoppable in his current situation, the perfect scapegoat. He would probably under other circumstances use his neighbors like Colombia as scapegoats but the US is so very convenient and he can't deal with them. The US would also not be in the equation as much as they are but Chavez provokes the US and wants them to have a vested interest in Venezuela so he can stay in power.
Oh well, people get what they vote for. It's a shame, South America is paradise on earth, if you could ever get rid of its politicians.
The difference is, as far as I understand, Chavez is trying to change the constitution to allow him for a 3rd term if he gets elected, NOT putting in a clause there saying "if the current president wants to, he can sit at the palace for another 6 years or bla bla." He still needs to get elected by people.
If the election on sunday was so rigged, why have hundreds of international observers such as the European Union, Carter Institute, AAS have said the election was transparent, legit and efficient?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/04/world/americas/04venezuela.html
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-12-05T031401Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-278962-1.xml&archived=False
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2006/diciembre/lun4/gano.html
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200612040753/polling_underway_in_venezuela_election
http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B79C71A63-CB81-425C-AE7C-5159FA1D3E44%7D)&language=EN
About the media comment, this is why I said "you are clueless". Most of the tv channels and newspapers in Venezuela are owned by neoliberals, Chavez's opponents.
Anyways, Chavez won 21 regions + the capital. That's the entire country. Not even one region lost. This tells me a lot about him, and more about his opponents.
Wow, I think you got him. I totally agree. Chavez should have sent his army to Canada to put some order in place!
:roll:
Don't blame Chavez supporters because your country couldn't handle the situation.
I also find it amusing and ironic how you complain about people protesting.
Ok, just ironic perhaps?
Popular public opinion and support does not equate to good and just leadership. What the people want is not always good for the people or their country.
Perhaps the opposition should offer something better for the people and the people themselves may elect the opposition next time around. Venezuela was in a much worse shape pre-Chavez, so I can see why these people worship Chavez.
As I mentioned in the 1st page, its amusing how the opposition leaders, their friends and families, supporters all ride in Mercedes-Benz, Range Rover, etc. vehicles and live in multimillion dollar homes. I can also see why these people didn't vote for them.
There's a time and a place for political protests. Outside a polling station on an election day is not one of them.
However, I don't recall ever defending W. This thread is not about him and whatever my opinion on him might be, it has no bearing on Hugo Chavez and the state of Venezuelan democracy. Nice try though.
EDIT: Since you're so persistent in comparing Chavez to Bush (as if that absolves him of anything) . . .
Cool. So we're agreed. At best these protestors can claim to be about as classy as some of George W. Bush's supporters. They're sure reaching for the top.
Though, all in all, I would consider a place where election officials count ballots to be a lot different than a place where the general public are casting their ballots.
I don't see anything wrong with the protest. Here in the U.S. I saw people yelling Bush's name outside my office on election day in 2004 (Washington DC). Did these Chavez supporters attack the supporters of the opposition? If not, its just a protest, nothing like what the opposition did to Chavez when they tried to take over the country and prohibited any statements by Chavez supporters on TV & papers.
Well no shit. All your rhetoric has been "B-b-but America!" "B-b-but Bush!" You have become the same as the "B-b-but Clinton!" crowd. Just because a political opponent of yours does something bad doesn't mean you should do it too.
Yeah, an electoral sweep tells me alot about the election, too, but somehow I don't think it is telling me the same thing it is telling you.
- John Stuart Mill
We'll see when time comes around next year. Let's see the hard facts, about now? Thanks.
Bush is not friends with Hu Jintao and does not claim to be. By your logic, a picture of Nixon shaking hands with Nikita Khrushchev at Disney Land would denote them as best friends. The US and China have good relations now but they are almost in a state of Cold War. Though the American corporations rely on China for cheap labor, America sees very little in return for this, something the US government does not like. The US is also stunting the growth of China and making sure that they don't make the jump from a 2nd world nation to a 1st world one. China is also one of the highest in demand sectors for CIA intelligence, the other is the middle east.
The US is very critical of Russia, especially in the handling of Chechnya. Vladimir Putin is not democratically elected, he is the Prime Minister and put into place by his party, the majority party elected by the people. He may use assassination from time to time, this has never been proved but it's sort of the old Russian way of doing things since the beginnings of the Russian nation state so it wouldn't surprise me. The Russian government is by no means perfect but at least they're working on improvement and still recovering from the Cold War. Old habits die hard but at least they are dieing in Russia. If you're looking for the oppressive soviet dictator, look at Alexander Lukashenko, because Putin is far from it.
Just put "Chavez shutting down private television" in google.
Oh, I get it too. I feel like I've seen this pattern about 30 times before in various countries with previous authoritarian regimes. I'm disappointed that either the people of venezuela don't see it, or that the situation in their country is so bad that he's the best option they have.
And he passed the Media Act. Was this an acceptable way to respond, in your opinion?
They nearly disintegrated and have made an amazing comeback in the face of Chavista intimidation like the polling-place picketing you seem to be so fond of. You say people power, I say mob rule.[/url]
Democracy is peaceful rule by the people, mob rule is violent rule by a faceless mass that may or may not represent the will of the general populace, usually doesn't. You're really making yourself look like someone who has no idea what they're talking about right now.
He is not shutting them down. He wants to hold a public referandum.
Oh my god!... oops, I mean Iraq!
Yes, and you expect me to click a Weekly Standard link? Bloddy hell, no.
You obviously are not familiar with the definition of democracy, a term that has existed for almost 5,000 years.
So you support censorship, and you won't look at the article, even to debunk it with countervailing sources? We're done here. I've only wasted my time with you on the off chance some 14 year old is reading and happens to decide chavez is cool rather than a thuggish man with strong autocratic tendencies who's leading his country in the wrong direction
Ooh, more neoconservative sources like the new york times and human rights watch.
EDIT: one more from the ny times, for kicks
Private television stations have altered programming to comply with the "social responsibility" law. Elsy Barroeta, news director of the 24-hour news channel Globovisión, told CPJ that the station had not restricted coverage, but she acknowledged that some colleagues were concerned about self-censorship. Barroeta said that images of violence during street protests could be aired live but could not be repeated throughout the day, according to the new guidelines. The Instituto Prensa y Sociedad (IPYS), a regional press freedom organization, found that three prominent television stations—Venevisión, Televén, and Radio Caracas Televisión—dropped half of their opinion programs since late 2004.[/quote]
- John Stuart Mill
Um, that last article was published in 1989. o_O
So let me get this clear, you are not against media restriction when it is neoliberals in power, but against it when Chavez is?
Ok, I am glad we got that cleared up.
Oh and about your age comment, .... nevermind. Maybe when you are old enough to get a job and a bank account we can talk. Your daddy's money gets you just about ----> this far.
Damnit, I totally forgot its perfectly ok and Americans along with Bush would just sit and watch if CNN broadcasted a message stating, "We support Bin Ladin and his war against the West." Should go well with popcorn, ja?
Nobody is saying that you Chavez cheerleading bitch. We're just saying Chavez's ruling sucks but it seems that since he is your fellow socialist that you'll support him no matter and thats dumb and dangerous.
I'm going to go with the ex-girlfriend.
*spelling
Oops. That's what I get for doing things fast, irritated, and at work. :oops:
ROFL. I knew something was wrong with that article as I posted in the first page that the inflation was around 16-18% in 2005.
How about no media restriction, regardless of who's in power? Sweet jesus. You're a great representative of something I tend to notice with the far left (i.e. well left of kossacks or whatnot), just as with the far right: a lack of respect for democratic institutions unless they help your side to power.
As for the age stuff, you misread my comment. I'm only sticking around to prevent younger, more impressionable people from getting one side of the story although it is quite clear to me I'm wasting my time on you.
By the way, I graduated from a top university and have a good job (working in the public sector for far less than I could make privately, I might add). I appreciate your implications in the spirit that they were intended, i.e. to derail an argument you're losing. Let's get back on topic.
Look above. Did I ever say I am pro-censorship?
Points I made in chronological order:
1. Chavez is not ordering anyone to shut down private television.
2. He wants to hold a public referandum to close 4 private televisions he considers dangerous to the public. So its a choice of the people.
3. I am all for freedom of speech too, read my previous posts in this forum with regards to France and Germany, but I also know full freedom of speech will be used only for American interests in Venezuela. Not for the interests of people of Venezuela.
4. I questioned the integrity of people's views on Venezuelan media because: America was perfectly happy and did not seemed bothered when Chavez's opponents raided the state tv before the coup and prohibited them to broadcast anything by Chavez or his administration.
---
Good for you. I graduated from a decent university (Virginia Tech), not a top school. I work within the UN family for the development and improvement of health systems in Africa, Latin America and Central Asia. Please do not care for my extremism and the irony of my job, I am on annual leave. You could say the same thing about my salary but that's not the point.