Hugo Chavez Loves Free Speech...

[dudalb]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/02/14/venezuela.chavez.expelled.dictator/index.html


Countdown until his supporters here show up to tell us how wonderful and necessary his action was....3...2....1....

[Texas]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/02/14/venezuela.chavez.expelled.dictator/index.html


Countdown until his supporters here show up to tell us how wonderful and necessary his action was....3...2....1....
Bush sent him to form a coup.

[mikeyx]

Hugo is a toady lil man.

[funk de fino]

Lech Walesa was also told he could not enter the country unless he was closely monitored by Chavez goons.

Chavez asked the population to cancel Valentines day and he would give them a love week (if he wins) and made it a non alchohol day.

[dudalb]

I used to think Chavez was just another Latin American Dictator who used Marxist rhetoric to fool the suckers, but now I think the guy really does see himself as a messiah. Which, of course, makes him more dangerous.
And, of course, he finds his gang of Useful Idiots in the US and Europe who supporting his every move, a lot like Useful Idiots told us what a wonderful misunderstood buy Stalin was in the 30's,40's and 50's.
Truth is, the Useful idiots do not have much use for individual freedom. That is a Bourgeois idea anyway......

[geni]

I used to think Chavez was just another Latin American Dictator who used Marxist rhetoric to fool the suckers,

Marxist rhetoric? 21st century calling. Rhetoric in any case would not have won him a second term.

No his rhetoric for foreign consumption was anti-americanism which understandably sold well enough during the Bush years. Attacking José María Aznar can probably be considered a miscalculation.

His left wing stuff is mostly for domest consumption and is backed by action. Unfortunately it is also backed by dictatorial tendancies but to be fair so was the oposition he originaly beat. The current oposition probably less so.

[moon1969]

Did you know that majority of the russians support Chavez because they see Chavez as anti-american? Did you know that? Why do you americans haver over 2 million russians in the USA? :mad:

[funk de fino]

Did you know that majority of the russians support Chavez because they see Chavez as anti-american? Did you know that? Why do you americans haver over 2 million russians in the USA? :mad:

The majority of russians I know do not even know who he is. Yawn X2

[Alex Libman]

Coup shmoop. Us capitalists would have assassinated Hugo Chavez by now if the U.S. government wasn't standing in our way, and the same applies to every other third world dictator out there disrespecting our property rights. All governments are in bed together...

[corplinx]

Which, of course, makes him more dangerous.

Dangerous to who? I used to create the most chavez criticism threads here. I never thought he was a danger to anyone except himself and his people.

During the oil bubble he was able to spend their money on "defensive" fighter planes and weaponry. However, the oil bubble is over and he's just another crackpot world leader of a country nobody cares about anyway again.

[geni]

Coup shmoop. Us capitalists would have assassinated Hugo Chavez by now if the U.S. government wasn't standing in our way, and the same applies to every other third world dictator out there disrespecting our property rights. All governments are in bed together...

Err given the result of the first coup attempt I would suggest any capitalist trying that would end up spending a fair amount of time in jail.

[geni]

Dangerous to who?

Colombia. Chevez has been too close to FARC.

[dudalb]

Did you know that majority of the russians support Chavez because they see Chavez as anti-american? Did you know that? Why do you americans haver over 2 million russians in the USA? :mad:



Uh, they came here because they felt they would be a lot better off in the US then Russia?

[dudalb]

Dangerous to who? I used to create the most chavez criticism threads here. I never thought he was a danger to anyone except himself and his people.

During the oil bubble he was able to spend their money on "defensive" fighter planes and weaponry. However, the oil bubble is over and he's just another crackpot world leader of a country nobody cares about anyway again.


Dangerous was maybe the wrong world. "More Crazy" was probably better.

[Texas]

Err given the result of the first coup attempt I would suggest any capitalist trying that would end up spending a fair amount of time in jail.
If oil prices stay as low as they are now an internal coup is not out of the question. He needs a minimum of 60 dollar oil to maintain his spending.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I don't know what to think of my country anymore. I can only say that all it takes is revisiting once every year to be able to see very clearly that the social, economical and political situation are going down to Hell. I wouldn't directly blame Chavez, but I think the fanatism that has developed from this party isn't helping much.

[Texas]

I don't know what to think of my country anymore. I can only say that all it takes is revisiting once every year to be able to see very clearly that the social, economical and political situation are going down to Hell. I wouldn't directly blame Chavez, but I think the fanatism that has developed from this party isn't helping much. Are you from Venezuela? I spent a lot of time in Caracas in the early nineties and loved it there. I have never seen more beautiful women in my life and that constant 72 degree weather was heaven since I am from Houston.

[KingMerv00]

Did you know that majority of the russians support Chavez because they see Chavez as anti-american? Did you know that? Why do you americans haver over 2 million russians in the USA? :mad:

Because almost all of those "Russians" are actually Americans?

I don't think there are many Russian illegal immigrants. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Present-day_countries_of_origin).

[DC]

Did you know that majority of the russians support Chavez because they see Chavez as anti-american? Did you know that? Why do you americans haver over 2 million russians in the USA? :mad:

you have links to those polls?

[geni]

If oil prices stay as low as they are now an internal coup is not out of the question.

Questionable. The first coup kinda gave him the opertunity to remove anyone likely to try that kind of thing.

[DC]

instead of thinking about a coup, the venezuelan opposition should finaly realise what is going on, and try to creat or be an alternative to bolivarianism.

But so far it looks like they just want back to the pre chavez time. but the poor majority of Venezuelans dont want that.

The time is over when a small minority of Venezuelans profited from all the Oil money. now those in need profit from it.

[tomwaits]

The time is over when a small minority of Venezuelans profited from all the Oil money. now those in need profit from it.

There isn't too much oil money to be had these days (relatively anyway). Prices are pretty cheap.

[DC]

There isn't too much oil money to be had these days (relatively anyway). Prices are pretty cheap.

yes thats true, lets hope it is still enough to keep up the Missions. Healthcare and Education etc. And that they keep making the effort for geting away from the Oil dependency.

[INRM]

Alex Libman,

All governments are in bed together...

Would you care to elaborate on that?


corplinx,

Dangerous to who? I used to create the most chavez criticism threads here. I never thought he was a danger to anyone except himself and his people.

Isn't a leader that's dangerous to his own people a cause for opposition, dislike, and criticism in itself?


INRM

[Alex Libman]

Would you care to elaborate on that?

I've seen both sides of the so-called "iron curtain" (my father worked for the Soviet version of the military-industrial complex), and I understand very well how the war between the two was never a possibility, but both sides wanted to pretend that there was. The reality is that the United States, which in effect created the USSR as the result of its interventionism (WW1 and WW2), is also what kept it from collapsing even earlier than it did by giving its hardliners an excuse to quell dissent due to the "Cold War". Everyone in Washington loved it, including the welfare mongers trying to shame people into believing communist propaganda and trying to one-up it here.

Even with a small nut like Chavez or Kim Jong-il, the other governments play by the rules that keep them in power, the United Nations and all that, while monopolizing the defense market. Heck, even in the case of Bin Laden, the government monopoly pulled a "whoopsie daisy" that is pretty difficult for a person who exists outside the nationalistic brainwashing bubble to believe. A free market defense sector, consisting of many competing agencies, would have done much better.

All kings are foes of all the men they rule!

[Texas]

I've seen both sides of the so-called "iron curtain" (my father worked for the Soviet version of the military-industrial complex), and I understand very well how the war between the two was never a possibility, but both sides wanted to pretend that there was. The reality is that the United States, which in effect created the USSR as the result of its interventionism (WW1 and WW2), is also what kept it from collapsing even earlier than it did by giving its hardliners an excuse to quell dissent due to the "Cold War". Everyone in Washington loved it, including the welfare mongers trying to shame people into believing communist propaganda and trying to one-up it here.

!The United States created the USSR? That is a new one to me? Which Soviet history book did you get that from?

[KingMerv00]

Even with a small nut like Chavez or Kim Jong-il, the other governments play by the rules that keep them in power, the United Nations and all that, while monopolizing the defense market.

So nations never go to war with each other?

[Alex Libman]

The United States created the USSR? That is a new one to me? Which Soviet history book did you get that from?

What do you think would have happened if USA had decided to sit out World War I all the way through (as it was constitutionally bound to do)?


So nations never go to war with each other?

Nationalist concept of war: bad.

Free people cutting the throat of a tinpot dictator: good.

[KingMerv00]

What do you think would have happened if USA had decided to sit out World War I all the way through (as it was constitutionally bound to do)?

What part of the constitution are you referring to?




Nationalist concept of war: bad.

Free people cutting the throat of a tinpot dictator: good.

Does that answer my question?

[TriskettheKid]

What do you think would have happened if USA had decided to sit out World War I all the way through (as it was constitutionally bound to do)?


Pardon?

Care to explain what part of the Constitution bound us from keeping out of WWI?

[geni]

[QUOTE=Alex Libman;4448438]What do you think would have happened if USA had decided to sit out World War I all the way through ?[/qupte]

The british blockade would have held and germany would have been stalved into submission. It would likely have ceased to existed shortly thereafter.

[Texas]

What do you think would have happened if USA had decided to sit out World War I all the way through (as it was constitutionally bound to do)?




Nationalist concept of war: bad.

Free people cutting the throat of a tinpot dictator: good.
I still don't get your assertion that the United States created the USSR. Please explain that to me?

[Donal]

Don't you guys get it? The only reason the vast majority of history contradicts what he says is because "they" make it seem that way. The total lack of evidence of what he is saying is the evidence.

Wake up, sheeple.

[dudalb]

Coup shmoop. Us capitalists would have assassinated Hugo Chavez by now if the U.S. government wasn't standing in our way, and the same applies to every other third world dictator out there disrespecting our property rights. All governments are in bed together...


Wow, just wow.
You know, I have finally figured out why we get so much total craziness from Anarchists. If they were not at least a little crazy, they would not be Anarchists to begin with.

[HawksFan]

The US created the USSR? Is there anything the US isn't responsible for?

[Donal]

All the good things in the world. Remember we only do the bad things. Not only that, but we kick puppies while we do them too.

[balrog666]

I'm sure Chavez loves puppies too!












For dinner!

[Texas]

The US created the USSR? Is there anything the US isn't responsible for?Well we gave them the first 2 letters of their name.

[geni]

Wow, just wow.
You know, I have finally figured out why we get so much total craziness from Anarchists. If they were not at least a little crazy, they would not be Anarchists to begin with.

He's not an Anarchist. Anarchists belive in freedom.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Are you from Venezuela? I spent a lot of time in Caracas in the early nineties and loved it there. I have never seen more beautiful women in my life and that constant 72 degree weather was heaven since I am from Houston.

Yes, sir. I am from Venezuela and despite this current social hell, I'm proud of being a Venezuelan.

I mean, this speaks for itself:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sZSPBk_TGaI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sZSPBk_TGaI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


But it saddens me that we have to go through this

I just hung out with a friend of mine from Venezuela and she was telling me that in the last year she has been robbed thrice and kidnapped twice. On one of the occasions they beat her up.

And she's such a humble, beautiful, hard working human being.

I mean, WHY??

[Alex Libman]

What part of the constitution are you referring to?

OK, I screwed up there. This forum is the last on my "to troll" list, and that constitution bit must have been the last thing I typed before collapsing that day. Please disregard. My points about US involvement in WW1 (http://www.google.com/search?q="world+war+i"+site%3Alewrockwell.com) being manipulative and having having many unintended consequences still stand though.


Does that answer my question?

Just because governments fight wars doesn't mean they don't have mutual interests in holding on to power. The European history is filled with examples of monarchs writing letters to their neighbors: "dear cousin, the plebs are getting restless, let's demonize each-other and have us a war to bring both our principalities to order"... :rolleyes:

[TriskettheKid]

Just because governments fight wars doesn't mean they don't have mutual interests in holding on to power. The European history is filled with examples of monarchs writing letters to their neighbors: "dear cousin, the plebs are getting restless, let's demonize each-other and have us a war to bring both our principalities to order"... :rolleyes:

Please cite a few examples.

[Alex Libman]

Please cite a few examples.

Bah, I come here on my time off, and this ain't the kind of forum where scholarly diligence is called for. Do your own "small picture" research. And read Machiavelli. And 1984 (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/35513.html).

PS: all governments suck. :p

[tomwaits]

pst...1984 is fiction.

[Alex Libman]

Of course it is. But I'm pretty sure Atlas Shrugged is totally real. :rolleyes:

[tomwaits]

Of course it is. But I'm pretty sure Atlas Shrugged is totally real. :rolleyes:

Uhmm...what? He asked for examples of (as you put it) "monarchs writing letters to their neighbors: "dear cousin, the plebs are getting restless, let's demonize each-other and have us a war to bring both our principalities to order"". In response, you cited a fictional book? And why did you bring up Atlas Shrugged?

[Alex Libman]

Humor. I don't remember specific examples, and I won't waste time trying to dig some up, because that would dilute the argument and reduce it to those specific (and perhaps controversial) examples.

You miss the point - I'm talking about the very nature of government here. You don't need a list of murderers to know that human beings are capable of murder!

The United States government doesn't want to see Chavez taken down - his power rests on the same silly notions as their own!

[tomwaits]

I don't remember specific examples, and I won't waste time trying to dig some up

Good, then I won't waste time arguing with you.

[dudalb]

pst...1984 is fiction.

pssstt...George Orwell was a socialist.
That's gonna shock Alex..

[dudalb]

Good, then I won't waste time arguing with you.


Probably a wise move, since Alex's idea of arguing is calling people who disagree with him names, repeat the same AnCap BS ad infinitum, and generally acting with all the arrogance of a hero from a Ayn Rand Novel.

[Alex Libman]

pssstt...George Orwell was a socialist.

Yeah, and Shakespeare was a Catholic. I'm very tolerant of other people's quirks until they initiate force against me. And it clearly doesn't take away from his literary talents.


That's gonna shock Alex..

Why would you assume I didn't know? :confused:

[Donal]

Humor. I don't remember specific examples, and I won't waste time trying to dig some up, because that would dilute the argument and reduce it to those specific (and perhaps controversial) examples.

Huh. It would have been a lot more efficient to say "I lied and have no idea what I am talking about."

You miss the point - I'm talking about the very nature of government here. You don't need a list of murderers to know that human beings are capable of murder!

Yes, but you are saying something we've never actually seen proven.

The United States government doesn't want to see Chavez taken down - his power rests on the same silly notions as their own!

Do actually believe this crap, or are you one of these people that likes to contradict everyone else for the hell of it?

[WildCat]

More radio station closures on the way (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/06/venezuela.media/index.html):
The Venezuelan government initiated a new charge against a private television broadcaster and said that 29 additional radio stations would soon be closed, the latest move in what critics call a crackdown on freedom of expression.

The Saturday announcement by Minister of Public Works and Housing Diosdado Cabello, who oversees the state telecommunications regulator, came at a counter-rally to marches protesting the hardline tactics of President Hugo Chavez.
Nope, nothing to see here...

[WildCat]

Bump!

Venezuela arrested Globovison head Guillermo Zuloaga today. Globovision was the last remaining media outlet critical of Chavez.

The crime? Offending Dear Leader.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/int?guid=20100325/e7c6eceb-2894-4707-b390-412ae1e02790

Where are all the Chavez apologists in this thread?


Pro-Chavez lawmaker Manuel Villalba urged prosecutors on Wednesday to investigate Zuloaga for allegedly saying that Venezuela's government is cracking down on its critics and purportedly commenting that it was a shame a short-lived 2002 coup against Chavez failed.

"He must assume his responsibility," Villalba told state-run Radio Nacional.
Arrest him for saying we crack down on our critics!

Christ on a stick...

[geni]

Arrest him for saying we crack down on our critics!

Christ on a stick...

I think the significant accusation was saying good things about a coup in a south american country that was launched agaisnt the current leader. If you have to praise coups it would probably be safer to stick to those attempted by the current leader.

Of course how much either accusation has anything to do with reality is open to question.

[dudalb]

I guess shutting down the opposition is only evil if you are a right wing dictator. If you are a Left Wing Dictator it OK.
I get the impression that freedom of speech does not hold a high spot in geni's scale of values.

[Virus]

I've seen both sides of the so-called "iron curtain" (my father worked for the Soviet version of the military-industrial complex), and I understand very well how the war between the two was never a possibility, but both sides wanted to pretend that there was. The reality is that the United States, which in effect created the USSR as the result of its interventionism (WW1 and WW2), is also what kept it from collapsing even earlier than it did by giving its hardliners an excuse to quell dissent due to the "Cold War". Everyone in Washington loved it, including the welfare mongers trying to shame people into believing communist propaganda and trying to one-up it here.

Even with a small nut like Chavez or Kim Jong-il, the other governments play by the rules that keep them in power, the United Nations and all that, while monopolizing the defense market. Heck, even in the case of Bin Laden, the government monopoly pulled a "whoopsie daisy" that is pretty difficult for a person who exists outside the nationalistic brainwashing bubble to believe. A free market defense sector, consisting of many competing agencies, would have done much better.

All kings are foes of all the men they rule!

:crazy:

You got some real live ones on this forum don't you?

America created the USSR.

War was never a possibility.

The US prevented the soviet union from collapsing.

[funk de fino]

The Chavistas on here seem to be very quiet nowadays.

[DC]

I think its wrong to arrest him when he indeed only said what is claimed.

Globovision was the last remaining media outlet critical of Chavez

not true, even your article quoted another media outlet's critique :)

[daenku32]

I guess shutting down the opposition is only evil if you are a right wing dictator. If you are a Left Wing Dictator it OK.
I get the impression that freedom of speech does not hold a high spot in geni's scale of values.

I think it's because some people started attacking him in the beginning simply for nationalizing their oil company.

There is a lot of anti-socialist hate against Chavez and getting through that to the real violations takes some effort. You have to separate the facts from fiction.

[DC]

Globovision was the last remaining media outlet critical of Chavez.

evidence?

[JihadJane]

Dangerous to who? I used to create the most chavez criticism threads here. I never thought he was a danger to anyone except himself and his people.

During the oil bubble he was able to spend their money on "defensive" fighter planes and weaponry. However, the oil bubble is over and he's just another crackpot world leader of a country nobody cares about anyway again.


Are you suggesting than oil prices aren't going to skyrocket again?

Because Venezuela has large oil deposits and is a major oil supplier to the US, not to mention that Chavez is a socialist, it is very naive to claim that "nobody cares about" him!


Yes, sir. I am from Venezuela and despite this current social hell, I'm proud of being a Venezuelan.

I mean, this speaks for itself:

...

But it saddens me that we have to go through this

I just hung out with a friend of mine from Venezuela and she was telling me that in the last year she has been robbed thrice and kidnapped twice. On one of the occasions they beat her up.

And she's such a humble, beautiful, hard working human being.

I mean, WHY??


Which social class is your friend from?

Was life better for the majority of Venezuelans before Chavez came to power?

[WildCat]

I think its wrong to arrest him when he indeed only said what is claimed.



not true, even your article quoted another media outlet's critique :)
The only one left broadcasting.

[WildCat]

I think it's because some people started attacking him in the beginning simply for nationalizing their oil company.
It's one thing to nationalize, it's quite another to do it by seizing private property without compensation. And his rhetoric made it clear this was the path he was going down, obvious to anyone but those with blinders on.

But he called Bush the devil, so he must be an OK guy!

[WildCat]

Was life better for the majority of Venezuelans before Chavez came to power?
Yes, there wasn't a food shortage and hyperinflation for one. How are those price controls working?

Oh, and Caracas has the highest murder rate in the world. They stopped keepng track it was so embarrassing to Dear Leader.

[DC]

The only one left broadcasting.
even RCTV is still broadcasting.

[WildCat]

even RCTV is still broadcasting.
Are they allowed to be critical of Dear Leader?

[DC]

Yes, there wasn't a food shortage and hyperinflation for one. How are those price controls working?

Oh, and Caracas has the highest murder rate in the world. They stopped keepng track it was so embarrassing to Dear Leader.

LOL

no shortage?

ever heard of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo

[DC]

Are they allowed to be critical of Dear Leader?

afaik yes, aslong they spread no false information.

[DC]

The only one left broadcasting.

http://www.livetvcenter.com/canal_i_1605.asp

here you can watch Canal_I

a privately owned Venezuelan News Channel that provides both, Pro Chavez and Anti Chavez programm.

sofar for the claim, the only remainng media outlet.

[daenku32]

Yes, there wasn't a food shortage and hyperinflation for one. How are those price controls working?

Oh, and Caracas has the highest murder rate in the world. They stopped keepng track it was so embarrassing to Dear Leader.

Maybe the "problem" is that the poor and extremely poor are now actually eating fair portions of food.

I found this article helpful:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/restarting-relations-withvenezuela/

[daenku32]

http://www.livetvcenter.com/canal_i_1605.asp

here you can watch Canal_I

a privately owned Venezuelan News Channel that provides both, Pro Chavez and Anti Chavez programm.

sofar for the claim, the only remainng media outlet.

My work blocks the site. Darn you Chavez! Darn you to heck!!

;)

[Childlike Empress]

wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Venezuela) (bolding mine):

Some of Venezuela's mass media are privately operated and derive most of their revenues from advertising, subscriptions, and sale or distribution of copyrighted materials. A substantial proportion of the Venezuelan television, newspaper, and radio markets is controlled by state-owned outlets. The government has its own news agency, Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias.

The main private television networks are RCTV; Televen; Venevisión; Globovisión. State television includes Venezolana de Televisión, TVes, ViVe (cultural network) and teleSUR (Caracas-based pan-Latin American channel sponsored by seven Latin American states). There are also local community-run television stations such as Televisora Comunitaria del Oeste de Caracas (CatiaTVe). The Venezuelan government also provides funding to Avila TV, Buena TV and Asamblea Nacional TV (ANTV).


Numbers (http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/4780) from venezuelanalysis half a year ago:

Private owners control 472 of Venezuela's FM stations, 243 are local community-based operations and 79 are public, of the country's AM stations 184 are privately owned and 26 are public.

In television, more than 60% of broadcasting concessions (65 stations) are in private hands, while just under 35% (37) are community-based and six are state owned television stations.

[Childlike Empress]

An observation and prediction (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/18/venezuela-election) from Mark Weisbrot in the Guardian:

Venezuela has an election for its national assembly in September, and the campaign has begun in earnest. I am referring to the international campaign. This is carried out largely through the international media, although some will spill over into the Venezuelan media. It involves many public officials, especially in the US. The goal will be to generate as much bad press as possible about Venezuela, to discredit the government, and to delegitimise the September elections – in case the opposition should choose to boycott, as they did in the last legislative elections, or refuse to recognise the results if they lose.


But:

There's no need for conspiracy, since the principal actors all know what to do. Occasionally some will be off-message due to lack of co-ordination. A fascinating example of this occurred last week when Senator John McCain tried to get General Doug Fraser of the US Southern Command to back his accusations that Venezuela supports terrorist activities. Testifying before the Senate armed services committee on March 11, General Fraser contradicted McCain:

"We have continued to watch very closely … We have not seen any connections specifically that I can verify that there has been a direct government-to-terrorist connection."

Oops! Apparently Fraser didn't get the memo that the Obama team, not just McCain, is in full campaign mode against Venezuela. The next day, he issued a statement recanting his testimony:

"Assistant Secretary Valenzuela [the state department's top Latin America official] and I spoke this morning on the topic of linkages between the government of Venezuela and the Farc. There is zero daylight between our two positions and we are in complete agreement.

"There is indeed clear and documented historical and ongoing evidence of the linkages between the government of Venezuela and the Farc … we are in direct alignment with our partners at the state department and the intelligence community."

Well it's good to know that the United States still has civilian control over the military, at least in the western hemisphere.

[dudalb]

:crazy:

You got some real live ones on this forum don't you?

America created the USSR.

War was never a possibility.

The US prevented the soviet union from collapsing.

Actually, Libman is now a dead one as far as this forum is concerned.
Last June, he was banned after he advocating the killing of Federal Law Enforcement officials in a post.

[dudalb]

The Chavez defenders remind me strongly of those who in the 1930's could see no evil in the wonderful job that Comrade Joe Stalin was doing in the Soviet Union.
None is so blind as those who refuse to see for ideological reasons.

[dudalb]

Maybe the "problem" is that the poor and extremely poor are now actually eating fair portions of food.

I found this article helpful:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/restarting-relations-withvenezuela/

ANd Mussolini made the trains run on time.

[Virus]

Hooking people into an authoritarian regime with a few welfare programs is the oldest trick in the book.

Hamas and Hezbollah benefit the poor. Might as well support them too.

[funk de fino]

I think its wrong to arrest him when he indeed only said what is claimed.

not true, even your article quoted another media outlet's critique :)

Now RCTV are off cable and satellite he got what he wanted there eh?

[Pardalis]

afaik yes, aslong they spread no false information.

"False" according to whom? The Venezuelan "Ministry of Truth"? :rolleyes:

[funk de fino]

Are you suggesting than oil prices aren't going to skyrocket again?

Because Venezuela has large oil deposits and is a major oil supplier to the US, not to mention that Chavez is a socialist, it is very naive to claim that "nobody cares about" him!

Yet, if he keep pissing off the service companies or just stealing them he will not be able to get the oil out of the ground. Thats why he has backed down to US companies recently.

Chavez needs these companies as much as the US needs his oil.

[funk de fino]

afaik yes, aslong they spread no false information.

That was a lie as well.

[funk de fino]

even RCTV is still broadcasting.

really? really?

http://http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/category,COI,,,VEN,4b66e35e23,0.html (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/category,COI,,,VEN,4b66e35e23,0.html)

[funk de fino]

The Chavez defenders remind me strongly of those who in the 1930's could see no evil in the wonderful job that Comrade Joe Stalin was doing in the Soviet Union.
None is so blind as those who refuse to see for ideological reasons.

He can do no wrong.

[daenku32]

The Chavez defenders remind me strongly of those who in the 1930's could see no evil in the wonderful job that Comrade Joe Stalin was doing in the Soviet Union.
None is so blind as those who refuse to see for ideological reasons.

They could see no evil because no evil was broadcasted. When his atrocities became widely known his defenders fell off pretty darn quick. Stalin managed to single-handedly kill off Communism as a viable political faction in the US.

What I'm saying is that the initial complaints about Chavez and the old Communist revolution were just ideological, regarding the marketplace and social welfare. There was a massive campaign to discredit Chavez before he had attempted to silence anyone, simply because of his socialism.

Right now there is a creditability problem with a lot of outlets when it comes to Venezuela and it is because he wanted socialism from get go. You want our condemnation? Hey, this article looks pretty wide spread so it looks like the real deal. But even then it is hardly anywhere near what Stalin was caught doing.

[dudalb]

They could see no evil because no evil was broadcasted. When his atrocities became widely known his defenders fell off pretty darn quick. Stalin managed to single-handedly kill off Communism as a viable political faction in the US.

What I'm saying is that the initial complaints about Chavez and the old Communist revolution were just ideological, regarding the marketplace and social welfare. There was a massive campaign to discredit Chavez before he had attempted to silence anyone, simply because of his socialism.

Right now there is a creditability problem with a lot of outlets when it comes to Venezuela and it is because he wanted socialism from get go. You want our condemnation? Hey, this article looks pretty wide spread so it looks like the real deal. But even then it is hardly anywhere near what Stalin was caught doing.


Sorry,but your first paragraph is BS.
What Stalin was up to was exposed by the mainstream media as early as the early Thirties. The Militant Left chose to ignore it with the classic chant of "Lies! Lies! All Capitalists Lies"!
And Stalin had many hardline defenders on the left until Krushchev did his famous "Expose" speech in 1956.

[JihadJane]

Hooking people into an authoritarian regime with a few welfare programs is the oldest trick in the book.

Hamas and Hezbollah benefit the poor. Might as well support them too.

Does that count as a Godwin?

[Praktik]

Wondering where all the Chavez lovers are...

oh wait... was I too late with that one? ;)

[Captain.Sassy]

Politician kicked out of country for insulting elected president= forced starvation of Ukraine

Surely invoking Stalin is a form of Godwinning?

[Praktik]

The Chavez defenders remind me strongly of those who in the 1930's could see no evil in the wonderful job that Comrade Joe Stalin was doing in the Soviet Union.
None is so blind as those who refuse to see for ideological reasons.

Someone needs to brush up on their history, may I suggest these books. (http://www.simonsebagmontefiore.com/books.aspx)

Comparing Chavez to Stalin is ridiculous.

[Virus]

Compare him to Castro instead. That's who he openly admires and supports with free oil. Castro also happens to run one of the least free countries in the world.

[dudalb]

Someone needs to brush up on their history, may I suggest these books. (http://www.simonsebagmontefiore.com/books.aspx)

Comparing Chavez to Stalin is ridiculous.

Agreed,..Chavez is just a minor league dictator compared to Uncle Joe...but the way some of his supporters refuse to see anything wrong with Chavez is the same as the worshippers of Uncle Joe in the 1930's.

[WildCat]

The apologists come out of the woodwork... I wonder how long before Hugo replaces Che as the icon of the head-in-the-sand left?

[Captain.Sassy]

Am I an apologist for thinking there must be some reason he seems to enjoy substantial support at home?

[WildCat]

Am I an apologist for thinking there must be some reason he seems to enjoy substantial support at home?
So did Saddam, he got 100% of the vote!

[Captain.Sassy]

lol

really?

c'mon man.

Really?

[Pardalis]

So did Saddam, he got 100% of the vote!

And his son Uday controlled the media.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/uday.htm

[Captain.Sassy]

And his son Uday controlled the media.



Plus, he gassed his own people.

If I were the state department I'd be shipping CBW outfits into Venezuela.

But that's just me.

[geni]

I guess shutting down the opposition is only evil if you are a right wing dictator. If you are a Left Wing Dictator it OK.
I get the impression that freedom of speech does not hold a high spot in geni's scale of values.

It's more that Chavez fundimently fails on my scale of values (coup attempt back in the 90s) so I prefer to move on to how to deal with him pragmaticaly rather than bothering with an assment that isn't going to improve.

[Skeptic]

I guess shutting down the opposition is only evil if you are a right wing dictator. If you are a Left Wing Dictator it OK.
I get the impression that freedom of speech does not hold a high spot in geni's scale of values.

There is freedom of speech in both Venezuela and the USA. In both countries you can walk down the street saying Obama is an idiot and NOTHING WILL HAPPEN to you.

Look, dudalb. The moment Chavez was elected, many people here, myself included, said this is bad news -- yet another South American country on the way to dictatorship. The allegedly "sophisticated" "progressive" folks went over the top about such hurtful, unjustified accusations. How dare we say that about someone who SAYS ALL THE RIGHT THINGS about socialism and Bush being evil and American imperialism! We're just stooges for the right-wing media who hates Chavez for exposing Bush and America as the evil entities that they are! Well, turns out we were right. The "sophisticated progressives" were once more shown to be useful idiots of the latest dictator who gains their undying support by saying a few anti-USA, pro-communism cliches as he plans complete takeover.

Once again, they were played for suckers. You'd think they might have learned something from their previous support of Che, Castro, Mao, Stalin, Arafat, Khumeini, Ho chi Minh and the rest, but nooooooooooo.....

[Skeptic]

Am I an apologist for thinking there must be some reason he seems to enjoy substantial support at home?

Yes, because merely having a support base doesn't mean you're not a dictator. Hitler, Mussolini, Nasser (or Egypt), and the Ayatollah Khomeini (to name a few obvious examples) had mass public support -- at least for a while.

H'm -- you can add Bush to the list, can't you? We all know BUSH IS AN EVIL DICTATOR despite winning two elections and having many BRAINWASHED AND STUPID supporters. At least Chavez supporters like to claim this.

Funny how it's the man-of-the-people Chavez who puts reporters he doesn't like in jail and closes all opposition papers, not Bush. But that's just me. I'm sure if I were only a little smarter, like progressives are, it would all make perfect sense to me.

[quixotecoyote]

Funny how it's the man-of-the-people Chavez who puts reporters he doesn't like in jail and closes all opposition papers, not Bush. But that's just me. I'm sure if I were only a little smarter, like progressives are, it would all make perfect sense to me.

I know! Just look at all those progressives talking about Bush in this thread!

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f253/quixotecoyote/oneoffs/threadsearch.png

Grrrrrr. We'll get dem durn progressives one of these days..

[Virus]

To the pro-Chavez crowd: Did it even raise an eyebrow when he praised Carlos the Jackal as a freedom fighter and Idi Amin as a patriot?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Are you suggesting than oil prices aren't going to skyrocket again?

Oh heaven help me, I think I'm about to agree with JihadJane on something...

Because Venezuela has large oil deposits and is a major oil supplier to the US, not to mention that Chavez is a socialist, it is very naive to claim that "nobody cares about" him!

Aaaaannnd she lost me again. False alarm people.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I know! Just look at all those progressives talking about Bush in this thread!

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f253/quixotecoyote/oneoffs/threadsearch.png

Grrrrrr. We'll get dem durn progressives one of these days..

As one of the token conservatives here, I officially concede that there is a definite lack of Chavez love in this thread.

With the exception of JihadJane (and she doesn't count because she and Chavez are both 9/11 truthers) you all passed. Grats.

[NWO Sentryman]

There's a good video i am reminded of which shows people's contemporary attitudes towards chavez

04IfpCGX61s

Should have gone to specsavers.

ETA: I already made a thread on this.

[JihadJane]

Recommended reading (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Society-Spectacle-Guy-Debord/dp/0946061122/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269690531&sr=8-1) for all spectacle lovers:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/263894badf188d382d.jpg

If you would like a thread discussing Society of the Spectacle, we can split these comments off. In this thread, please stay on topic, Hugo Chavez. Thank you.

[JihadJane]

...

Because Venezuela has large oil deposits and is a major oil supplier to the US, not to mention that Chavez is a socialist, it is very naive to claim that "nobody cares about" him!





Aaaaannnd she lost me again. False alarm people.



What is it about my statement that lost you?

Powerful people in the US and elsewhere seem to care about him very much and just the mention of his name gets the familiar JREF pond life frothin' madly about Stalin etc!

[Childlike Empress]

Yeah, when he was elected in 1998, "Skeptic" even timetravelled to 2001 just to complain on the newly founded JREF Forum! :D

[geni]

There is freedom of speech in both Venezuela and the USA. In both countries you can walk down the street saying Obama is an idiot and NOTHING WILL HAPPEN to you.

Look, dudalb. The moment Chavez was elected, many people here, myself included, said this is bad news -- yet another South American country on the way to dictatorship. The allegedly "sophisticated" "progressive" folks went over the top about such hurtful, unjustified accusations. How dare we say that about someone who SAYS ALL THE RIGHT THINGS about socialism and Bush being evil and American imperialism! We're just stooges for the right-wing media who hates Chavez for exposing Bush and America as the evil entities that they are!

Actaualy no you were just stooges for the people who tried to overthrow him using force. The result of which is that while Bush remained in charge the US had exactly zero credbility on the issue and things have only marginaly improved since that time.

Backing the ideology of coup in south america is one thing. There can be good money in that. Backing the ideology of a failed coup shows a painful lack of judgment.

[WildCat]

Plus, he gassed his own people.
A popular move, as evidenced by his getting 100% of the vote.

[Virus]

I dislike the term "his own people". I live in one of the most liberal democracies in the world and I'd object to being called "Kevin Rudd's person."

Society of the Spectacle? Wouldn't bother. It's post-modernist garbage on stilts. For example:

Once ideology — the abstract will to universality and the illusion associated with that will — is legitimized by the universal abstraction and the effective dictatorship of illusion that prevail in modern society, it is no longer a voluntaristic struggle of the fragmentary, but its triumph. Ideological pretensions take on a sort of flat, positivistic precision: they no longer represent historical choices, they are assertions of undeniable facts.

The whole book reads like that. You might as well just randomly generate it with a computer program like here: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

[funk de fino]

What I'm saying is that the initial complaints about Chavez and the old Communist revolution were just ideological, regarding the marketplace and social welfare. There was a massive campaign to discredit Chavez before he had attempted to silence anyone, simply because of his socialism.

BS, he had been involved in a coup previous to that. Many people knew what kind of character he was. It was only after some of my friends told me of what was happening to them and others in the country that I got involved with threads about him. I would probably be classed as a left winger in the US.

[funk de fino]

Am I an apologist for thinking there must be some reason he seems to enjoy substantial support at home?

Not in recent months he has not.

[funk de fino]

Powerful people in the US and elsewhere seem to care about him very much and just the mention of his name gets the familiar JREF pond life frothin' madly about Stalin etc!

It Chavez who has the obsession with the US, not the other way about.

[WildCat]

I wonder if Venezuelan-born White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen is subject to arrest now when he goes back?


Oh my god seam penn defended ours president hugo chavez thas easy when you no leave in venezuela and have money lol is a joke shame on y ...
10:45 AM Mar 12th via txt

Sean penn defended chavez is easy when you have money and no leave in out country shame on you mr penn
10:48 AM Mar 12th via txt

Oh god you are very crazy go and move to our country you will change you mind
10:50 AM Mar 12th via txt

Sean penn deviera vivir en venezuela para hablar tanta paja un izquierdista estupodo vete a guarenas a ver
11:00 AM Mar 12th via txt
http://twitter.com/OzzieGuillen

:dl:

And less than 5 years ago Ozzie let Hugo slobber all over the WS trophy...

[JihadJane]

I dislike the term "his own people". I live in one of the most liberal democracies in the world and I'd object to being called "Kevin Rudd's person."

Society of the Spectacle? Wouldn't bother. It's post-modernist garbage on stilts. For example:



The whole book reads like that. You might as well just randomly generate it with a computer program like here: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

In what way is The Society of the Spectacle "post-modernist"?

Debord and the Postmodern Turn: New Stages of the Spectacle (http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/kell17.htm)


If you would like a thread discussing Society of the Spectacle, we can split these comments off. In this thread, please stay on topic, Hugo Chavez. Thank you.

[Pardalis]

Got anything to say about Chávez, Jihad?

[Captain.Sassy]

To the pro-Chavez crowd: Did it even raise an eyebrow when he praised Carlos the Jackal as a freedom fighter and Idi Amin as a patriot?

Nope.

He's a blowhard so I'm not surprised when he says wacky stuff.

Of course, some of what he 'says', he actually never really said...

[Captain.Sassy]

Yes, because merely having a support base doesn't mean you're not a dictator.

Fair enough, but he's held contested elections and referenda.

[Pardalis]

Nope.

He's a blowhard so I'm not surprised when he says wacky stuff.

So I take it if Palin gets elected (I hope she doesn't), if she says wacky stuff you'll just excuse her because she's just a "blowhard"?

The fact that Chávez is a blowhard and the president of a country doesn't bother you?

Glenn Beck is a blowhard too, but he's not the head of state of a large multitude, and doesn't have relations with Iran and Russia.

Remember what Shermer said: Beliefs drive behaviors.

If someone says wacky stuff, that someone is most likely to do wacky stuff, and when such a wacko is in a position of power, people should start to worry.

[Captain.Sassy]

So I take it if Palin gets elected (I hope she doesn't), if she says wacky stuff you'll just excuse her because she's just a "blowhard"?

The fact that Chávez is a blowhard and the president of a country doesn't bother you?

Glenn Beck is a blowhard too, but he's not the head of state of a large multitude, and doesn't have relations with Iran and Russia.

I won't be surprised if any of them say wacky stuff, no.

I won't condone it either.

I don't like that Chavez voiced support for Idi Amin or Carlos the Jackalope, but I'd definitely like to see the full text of the speech before reaching any definitive conclusions.

[Pardalis]

I don't like that Chavez voiced support for Idi Amin or Carlos the Jackalope, but I'd definitely like to see the full text of the speech before reaching any definitive conclusions.

In this day and age of telecommunications, it's baffling that you haven't found it yet.

[Captain.Sassy]

In this day and age of telecommunications, it's baffling that you haven't found it yet.

Flabbergasted as you might be, care to post the link?

[Pardalis]

Flabbergasted as you might be, care to post the link?

Must we do everything for you?

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CAoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psuv.org.ve%2Ffiles%2Ftcdocum entos%2Fpartidos.izq.clausura.pdf&rct=j&q=yo+a+estas+alturas+por+ejemplo%2C+tengo+dudas+ac erca+de+algo+que+uno+daba+como+cierto%2C+por+all%C 3%A1+cuando+%C3%A9ramos+adolescentes%2C+ustedes+no +hab%C3%ADan+nacido%2C+Arist%C3%B3bulo+s%C3%AD%2C+ un+Presidente+africano+que+nosotros+aqu%C3%AD+cre% C3%ADamos+que+%C3%A9l+era+can%C3%ADbal%2C+el+Presi dente+de+Uganda%2C+aquel+se%C3%B1or+que+se+llam%C3 %B3+Idi+Am%C3%ADn+Dad%C3%A1%2C+a+estas+alturas+yo+ digo%2C+oye%2C+no+s%C3%A9%2C+a+lo+mejor+era+un+gra n+nacionalista%2C+un+patriota%2C+bueno+vean+como+t ratan+a+nuestro+hermano+y+amigo+el+Presidente+de+Z imbabwe%2C+c%C3%B3mo+lo+tratan%2C+igual%2C+casi+qu e+Idi+Am%C3%ADn%2C+casi+que+un+can%C3%ADbal+pues%2 C+adem%C3%A1s+utilizando+el+arma+bastarda+y+sucia+ del+racismo%2C+aqu%C3%AD+mismo%2C+la+burgues%C3%AD a+aqu%C3%AD+se+r%C3%ADe+y+le+han+hecho+una+pantomi ma+tragic%C3%B3mica+al+Presidente+de+Zimbabwe%2C+q ue+es+un+luchador+por+los+intereses+de+su+pueblo+y +contra+el+viejo+colonialismo+y+el+nuevo+coloniali smo+de+los+que+se+creen+superiores%22.+&ei=BTeuS5PuE4SBlAfRpojUDQ&usg=AFQjCNEr6X8tr9pVgeT5Sk2kteZOeSngbg

Have a good read.

[Captain.Sassy]

Have a good read.

Cheers!

how did you find it?

[Pardalis]

Cheers!

how did you find it?

Something called the interwebs. It's an electronic device of somekind.

Very useful.

[Captain.Sassy]

Relax, snippy.

I meant what terms did you search for?

If you don't want to have to find things for me in the future, then it's in your interest to teach me!

:D

[Ausmerican]

I dislike the term "his own people". I live in one of the most liberal democracies in the world and I'd object to being called "Kevin Rudd's person."

Would you also have a problem with Australians being called your people? Or with using the phrase "fellow Australians"?
There is no difference. It does not denote ownership, merely membership.
It is not comparable to being called "Kevin Rudds person", but rather with being called "one of Kevin Rudds own people" or, for that matter, "one of Viruses own people".
In other words, a member of that specific populace that includes the person in question.

[Tailgater]

LOL

no shortage?

ever heard of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo



http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_12/b4171046603604.htm

[funk de fino]

Nope.

He's a blowhard so I'm not surprised when he says wacky stuff.

Of course, some of what he 'says', he actually never really said...

He does say plenty on his ego massaging weekly shows. Try watching it.

[cornsail]

Wow the ignorance of Venezuela ITT is amazing. Try doing a minimal amount of research before spouting off opinions. I'm not a big fan of Chavez's personality (clearly he's a flawed individual), but only in bizarro world is a democratically elected president a "dictator", or is Globovision "the last remaining media outlet critical of Chavez". Actually it's impressive that a news organization that rallied for the violent overthrow of a democratic government has been allowed to remain a business there.

[funk de fino]

Wow the ignorance of Venezuela ITT is amazing. Try doing a minimal amount of research before spouting off opinions. I'm not a big fan of Chavez's personality (clearly he's a flawed individual), but only in bizarro world is a democratically elected president a "dictator", or is Globovision "the last remaining media outlet critical of Chavez". Actually it's impressive that a news organization that rallied for the violent overthrow of a democratic government has been allowed to remain a business there.

I get my stuff from people there.

What do you normally call a political leader who use the military to seize private property and business?

How did RCTV do by being anti Chavez? Thrown off air, cable and sat and accused of orchestrating a coup. Same will happen to Globo for the same false accusations.

[cornsail]

I get my stuff from people there.

Have they considered voting for someone else? Or is the majority of the population pro-dictatorship?

How did RCTV do by being anti Chavez? Thrown off air, cable and sat and accused of orchestrating a coup. Same will happen to Globo for the same false accusations.

The agenda of both RCTV and Globovision was pretty clear: support the coup. Couldn't they have supported voting for someone else? I'm not agreeing with their censorship, but if that happened in the US I seriously doubt the government would tolerate it.

[Captain.Sassy]

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_12/b4171046603604.htm

Chavez takes over the grocery stores, now there's no food.

No mention of any drought.

Odd.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hqizmmbJyyZeh30urxp5lWMS8FyQ

Perhaps the food crisis in Guatemala is similarly due to Chavez taking over grocery stores?

[WildCat]

Chavez takes over the grocery stores, now there's no food.

No mention of any drought.

Odd.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hqizmmbJyyZeh30urxp5lWMS8FyQ

Perhaps the food crisis in Guatemala is similarly due to Chavez taking over grocery stores?
When you set the price of food at less than the cost of production you will get shortages, drought or no drought.

Had Chavez kept his infrastructure maintained they could weather the drought better, but like all kleptocrats he put off those expenses to buy votes from the poor. How is his oil production and revenues going? Ooops, he's not maintaining those assets very well either, is he? And there's none left to seize from others...

"A hungry mob is an angry mob"

Gonna get a lot worse in Venezuela. At least there's no nukes up for grabs when the feces hits the fan.

[funk de fino]

Have they considered voting for someone else? Or is the majority of the population pro-dictatorship?

Look up Tascons list and the other "database". people do not have a free vor secret vote in Venezuela. They learned to their cost what voting against or signing petition against him means. I guess you are lucky to be able to vote and no-one knows who you voted for?

The agenda of both RCTV and Globovision was pretty clear: support the coup. Couldn't they have supported voting for someone else? I'm not agreeing with their censorship, but if that happened in the US I seriously doubt the government would tolerate it.

They supported the protests, they were not ivolved in the coup no matter what Chavez lies were told later. I guess you do not know much about that day eh? There were counter protests also and its not like Chavez has been involved in coup before is it?

Is Fox News biased enough for you? Glenn Beck and his 9/12 lot or the Tea partiers?

[Tailgater]

Chavez takes over the grocery stores, now there's no food.

No mention of any drought.

Odd.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hqizmmbJyyZeh30urxp5lWMS8FyQ

Perhaps the food crisis in Guatemala is similarly due to Chavez taking over grocery stores?

Agriculture is about 3% of GDP. They import most food. Maybe that's why it's not important.

ETA: and you're comparing a country with 7 times the GDP to one that relies on agriculture for almost half of it's economy. Staggering difference.

[cornsail]

Look up Tascons list and the other "database". people do not have a free vor secret vote in Venezuela. They learned to their cost what voting against or signing petition against him means. I guess you are lucky to be able to vote and no-one knows who you voted for?

Not defending the Tascón List, but that was a list of signees for a petition, not an election or even the recall vote.

They supported the protests, they were not ivolved in the coup no matter what Chavez lies were told later. I guess you do not know much about that day eh? There were counter protests also and its not like Chavez has been involved in coup before is it?

I didn't say they were directly involved in the coup. They gave it favorable coverage and loads of free airtime to the opposition group though. And to my knowledge they didn't cover the counter-protests.

Is Fox News biased enough for you? Glenn Beck and his 9/12 lot or the Tea partiers?

Huh?

[Pardalis]

I don't like that Chavez voiced support for Idi Amin or Carlos the Jackalope, but I'd definitely like to see the full text of the speech before reaching any definitive conclusions.


So have you come to a conclusion?

[Captain.Sassy]

Yes I have.

He said it in the context of what he perceives to be media bias against him in the West. Still inexcusable. Idi Amin, I mean come on. The Ugandan press was pissed!

So, will you share your search secret?

Even after you provided the document it was still tricky to find independently. I looked at your google search and it seems you searched for a bunch of phrases that were in the doc, yes? How did you find these?

Are you a fluent Spanish speaker?

[Captain.Sassy]

Agriculture is about 3% of GDP. They import most food. Maybe that's why it's not important.

ETA: and you're comparing a country with 7 times the GDP to one that relies on agriculture for almost half of it's economy. Staggering difference.

Agriculture as a share of GDP has always been fairly low in Venezuela, by Latin American standards (apparently)
http://countrystudies.us/venezuela/25.htm

But agriculture as a share of GDP is a poor choice of denominator to evaluate the impact of a drought. Venezuela does import about 60% of the food it consumes (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35766.htm) (a figure that went up dramatically after Chavez started using oil revenues to subsidize food imports for the poor) but this means that something like 30-40% of its food needs are still met domestically. Combine the worst drought in 50 years with shutting off imports from Colombia because of geopolitical factors (and probably a poor calculation by Hugo) and you've got food supply problems.

[Pardalis]

I looked at your google search and it seems you searched for a bunch of phrases that were in the doc, yes? How did you find these?

Are you a fluent Spanish speaker?

I know a little but mostly I tried to find the original phrases he said, and cross-referenced those with spanish blogs to find at what event and what date he said it.

[Captain.Sassy]

I know a little but mostly I tried to find the original phrases he said, and cross-referenced those with spanish blogs to find at what event and what date he said it.

Clever.

[Pardalis]

Clever.

No, that's the long route, we could just as well have gone to the Party's site (http://psuv.org.ve/) directly and search there, which is what the Google search found anyway.

[Tailgater]

Agriculture as a share of GDP has always been fairly low in Venezuela, by Latin American standards (apparently)
http://countrystudies.us/venezuela/25.htm

But agriculture as a share of GDP is a poor choice of denominator to evaluate the impact of a drought. Venezuela does import about 60% of the food it consumes (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35766.htm) (a figure that went up dramatically after Chavez started using oil revenues to subsidize food imports for the poor) but this means that something like 30-40% of its food needs are still met domestically. Combine the worst drought in 50 years with shutting off imports from Colombia because of geopolitical factors (and probably a poor calculation by Hugo) and you've got food supply problems.

Yes, odd that they use 1/4 of land for 3-4% AND 10% labor. I didn't see the 60%, but all sites I've visited estimate 2/3 thirds and up, whch would be 66% or more. Regardless, a food shortage in Veneuela should be minor compared to Guatemala when making the drought comparison. Maybe more variables should be researched if I have time.

[Captain.Sassy]

Yes, odd that they use 1/4 of land for 3-4% AND 10% labor.

Yes you're right 66%.

This ratio (3-4% GDP and 10% of labour) is not that odd, especially when you consider Venezuela's oil sector growth. I think you're implying low labour productivity in the sector. This is fair, but even in Canada agriculture has lower labour productivity than the economy as a whole
http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1205769582306&lang=eng

1.3% of GDP, 1.9% of labour force.

The Venezuelan numbers are worse, evidently, but that's to be expected.

Comparing agriculture productivity is also complicated by things like the fertility of the land, I would imagine.

[Childlike Empress]

Apropos, good read (http://www.mediacoop.ca/blog/steve/3081):

Comparing Democratic Institutions in Venezuela and Canada
Steve Caines, March 18th 2010

Recent remarks by Canadian State of Foreign Affairs Minister Peter Kent with regard to the media and “shrinking democratic space” in Venezuela [1] are but a few of a number of disapproving comments expressed by the Canadian government over events in the country in the past few years. But given that the remarks came during a three month prorogation of the Canadian Parliament, it was only to be expected that criticisms would arise over whether the government's comments actually stem from genuine concerns over democracy [2]. Regardless of what full motivations may be behind Kent's comments, the Canadian government's ongoing sweeping claims of faltering democracy in the country are deserving of close examination. Deciding whether democracy is improving or “shrinking” in Venezuela requires a more thoroughgoing and contextualized look at the country's democratic institutions, rather than short glimpses into single events. [...]

[Skeptic]

During the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s, the bien pensants first claimed it didn't happen, or that it is the fault of a bad harvest or some other external cause that has nothing to do with Stalin's dictatorship, or that those who are say the famine occurred are spreading anti-Communist hysteria and scare stories, or all three.

I am not claiming the food shortages in Venezuela are comparable to the great famine in the Ukraine, but the list of threadbare excuses apparently doesn't change, as the Chavez threads in this forum show.

Chavez is a tin-pot dictator who arrests or silences or kills anybody who dares challenge him and is driving Venezuela to pauper's status through idiotic collectivist economic policies. A blind man can see that.

[Pardalis]

Apropos, good read (http://www.mediacoop.ca/blog/steve/3081):


It's "à propos", and what is your point? Is this a new logical fallacy, the appeal to Canada?

An article by a Socialist writer who is an obvious Chávez apologist making weird biased comparisons between Venezuela and Canada, is that supposed to impress anyone?

As far as I know, the Canadian government never took upon itself to close any news outlets or media because it didn't tell the "Truth".

We don't have a Ministry of Truth in Canada, obviously Venezuela does.

[Skeptic]

It's "à propos", and what is your point? Is this a new logical fallacy, the appeal to Canada?

It's the "but there are hungry people in America too" excuse that was used when the Ukrainian famine was exposed, or the "but McCarthy put people on 'black lists' too" excuse that was used when Stalin's killing of anybody who opposed him politically was exposed, only in a new dress.

[funk de fino]

Not defending the Tascón List, but that was a list of signees for a petition, not an election or even the recall vote.

I take it you are ignorant of the Maisanta database then? Do you defend it?

Do you defend the use of the list/database to persecute people who are in opposition to Chavez?

I didn't say they were directly involved in the coup. They gave it favorable coverage and loads of free airtime to the opposition group though. And to my knowledge they didn't cover the counter-protests.

Yes, they did because they showed the shooters from the opposition. They were not involved in a coup. This was a day of national strikes and protests and counter protests, it was not a planned day of a coup. It was when some senior military decided to disobey orders that they carried out the coup. The TV stations were covering the protests much the same as Fox cover the tea partiers protests at Washington.

Huh?

Do you watch Fox news? How do you feel their coverage is when it covers tea party protests? What about their big man Glenn Beck and his 9/12 lot?

[cornsail]

I take it you are ignorant of the Maisanta database then? Do you defend it?

Isn't that pretty much the same thing?

Do you defend the use of the list/database to persecute people who are in opposition to Chavez?

Didn't I just say I don't defend it? :confused:

Yes, they did because they showed the shooters from the opposition. They were not involved in a coup. This was a day of national strikes and protests and counter protests, it was not a planned day of a coup.

Fair point. But do you think the government should have considered it's security to be at stake?

Do you watch Fox news?

I have on occasion.

How do you feel their coverage is when it covers tea party protests?

Awful.

What about their big man Glenn Beck and his 9/12 lot?

Awful. Why do you ask?

[JihadJane]

Didn't I just say I don't defend it? :confused:





Don't confuse him!

[JihadJane]

If you would like a thread discussing Society of the Spectacle, we can split these comments off.

Thanks. Maybe some other time!

[dudalb]

The Democratically elected excuse is what gets to me about the Chavez supporters.. There is a long ,sad, history of people who are elected to office and then become tyrants..and are often quite popular. Just being elected does not mean you cannot be a oppresive, brutal,leader.

[dudalb]

During the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s, the bien pensants first claimed it didn't happen, or that it is the fault of a bad harvest or some other external cause that has nothing to do with Stalin's dictatorship, or that those who are say the famine occurred are spreading anti-Communist hysteria and scare stories, or all three.

I am not claiming the food shortages in Venezuela are comparable to the great famine in the Ukraine, but the list of threadbare excuses apparently doesn't change, as the Chavez threads in this forum show.

Chavez is a tin-pot dictator who arrests or silences or kills anybody who dares challenge him and is driving Venezuela to pauper's status through idiotic collectivist economic policies. A blind man can see that.

No one is saying Chavez is as bad as Stalin. What we are saying is we are seeing a similiar attempt by some...not all...on the political left to whitewash him similiar to what happened with Stalin in the 1930's.

[Childlike Empress]

Just being elected? It's nearly twelve years now. Show me any country with such a positive development between 1998 and now.

Just being elected..., Stalin obsession..., how old are you, dudalb?

[Ziggurat]

Show me any country with such a positive development between 1998 and now.

Let's see... crime rates have soared, Caracas is now more dangerous than Baghdad, oil production is falling, inflation remains high, and price controls have led to food shortages.

Oh, but the poverty level has decreased. But how is poverty defined? In terms of household income relative to the cost of certain goods, including food. If price controls artificially suppress the price of food, then that will magically lift people out of poverty. After all, they can afford more food with these lower prices. That is, if they can find it on the shelves.

[Childlike Empress]

We've been over this, haven't we Ziggurat?

Some basic indicators (venezuelan statistics):

|ca 1998|ca 2007
Percentage of Persons in Extreme Poverty|20,6|9,4
Population with access to sewage services (%)|64|82
Population with access to drinking water (%)|80|92
Infant Mortality Rate (per thousand live births)|21,4|13,9
Beneficiary population of the school food program (million)|0,2|1,8
Gross school enrollment rate in basic education (%)|90|99
Gross school enrollment rate in secondary and professional education (%)|27|41
Gross enrollment rate in higher education (%)|21|30
Number of Pension Recipients (million)|0,4|1,1
Number of free medical operations conducted (thousand)|-|40
National Human Development Index|0,69|0,88

[Ziggurat]

We've been over this, haven't we Ziggurat?

Yes, we have. You still haven't come to terms with the breakdown of social order and the spiraling crime rate.

I had a relative who visited Venezuela last year as part of a medical team to perform surgeries to correct cleft lips and cleft palettes in poor children. They were put up at a hotel for military personnel, basically part of an R&R compound. They were told never to leave the compound unescorted. Even walking a few blocks to the local church was not permitted. The reason? They were told they would be kidnapped if they did. Not might be, would be. That is f***ed up. I mean, seriously f***ed up. This relative has been on such medical trips to a number of poor countries, including others in Latin America, and Venezuela was the only place where they weren't safe walking the streets alone. You can brag all you want to about your metrics, but Venezuelan society is crumbling.

[Childlike Empress]

This is really heartbreaking, Ziggurat, but even if it is true, it's very circumstantial evidence and tells nothing about social order in Venezuela. At the time i posted that chart, the kitten (and you, IIRC) predicted doom in Venezuela because of the temporary down-manipulation of the oil price.

[Ziggurat]

This is really heartbreaking, Ziggurat, but even if it is true, it's very circumstantial evidence and tells nothing about social order in Venezuela.

It's not circumstantial, it's anecdotal. Yes, it doesn't prove general conditions. That's why I made mention of crime statistics. That story just puts some context on what that spiraling crime rate means in more human terms.

At the time i posted that chart, the kitten (and you, IIRC) predicted doom in Venezuela because of the temporary down-manipulation of the oil price.

Doom? No, I didn't predict doom. IIRC, I predicted continuing stagnation/deterioration. And the recent food shortages suggest to me that I was right. Shortages are a classic result of economic controls. They will not be solved by more government controls. Do you think Chavez will start to limit government interference into the economy? Because if he doesn't, the problems are likely to get worse. That may not be "doom", but prospects don't look very good.

[Praktik]

aren't kidnappings big business in Colombia as well?

Perhaps there are regional factors at play here too that need to be considered.

[dudalb]

The Apologists just keep on a coming.....

[Ziggurat]

aren't kidnappings big business in Colombia as well?

This relative was not warned of any danger while in Colombia on such a trip.

[cornsail]

The Democratically elected excuse is what gets to me about the Chavez supporters.. There is a long ,sad, history of people who are elected to office and then become tyrants..and are often quite popular. Just being elected does not mean you cannot be a oppresive, brutal,leader.

I'm not a Chavez supporter, nor am I anti-Chavez. I like some things about him and dislike other things. But the fact is calling him a 'dictator' is simply ridiculous. If everyone was in here calling him a messiah I'd disagree just as strongly.

What brutality are you talking about, btw?

[cornsail]

Yes, we have. You still haven't come to terms with the breakdown of social order and the spiraling crime rate.

I had a relative who visited Venezuela last year as part of a medical team to perform surgeries to correct cleft lips and cleft palettes in poor children. They were put up at a hotel for military personnel, basically part of an R&R compound. They were told never to leave the compound unescorted. Even walking a few blocks to the local church was not permitted. The reason? They were told they would be kidnapped if they did. Not might be, would be. That is f***ed up. I mean, seriously f***ed up. This relative has been on such medical trips to a number of poor countries, including others in Latin America, and Venezuela was the only place where they weren't safe walking the streets alone. You can brag all you want to about your metrics, but Venezuelan society is crumbling.

It is really f**cked up, but it's not unique to Venezuela in the region. My dad went to Colombia to give a talk and the hotel and restaurants he went to were protected by guards with assault rifles, metal detectors, etc. Anyway, is there any specific reason this is Chavez's fault?

[Ziggurat]

Anyway, is there any specific reason this is Chavez's fault?

I think so, yes. I think that the rise in crime and the deterioration in the rule of law since Chavez took power is not a coincidence, but is a direct result of his domestic policies (cronyism, the empowerment of Chavista gangs, etc).

[DC]

I think so, yes. I think that the rise in crime and the deterioration in the rule of law since Chavez took power is not a coincidence, but is a direct result of his domestic policies (cronyism, the empowerment of Chavista gangs, etc).

evidence?

[DC]

the Chavez topics are so funny.

there are so many points one can critize about Chavez and his politics.
But the majority of anti chavez posters here mix in a huge numbers of lies and misinformation, it makes em look laughable.

they also dont want to think about how Venezuela was before Chavez and the new Constitution. Private media worldwide are demonizing him and theyr usefull idiots take all theyr words as total trueth.

wile European and US and south american election observer did not see any manipulation or cheating during elections a huge number of Conspiracy teorists claim the Elections are stolen. the funny thing is, they dont want to hear about US elections beeing stolen, and those were alot lot more controversial than Chavez elections.

they point out a few points the Chavez government was not able to fix yet. Every problem is seen as a total failure.

But strangely enough the Venezuelan people, the majority of them is poor, are pretty happy with Chavez and his government. they see alot of progress.
Those people have Elect him, they voted for the new constitution (a more democratic one, more direct democracy), they elected Chavez again, they confirmed him in his office in a recall referendum, a democratic tool most countrys miss. Venezuelans can kick out their president when they dont want him anymore in the middle of his term.

Would the antichavista conspiracy theorists here on JREF concentrate more on true critique against Chavez, it would be alot less easy to defend him and his Government.
and would they actually bring up some evidence for their claims, they would seem less laughable.

[cornsail]

the Chavez topics are so funny.

there are so many points one can critize about Chavez and his politics.
But the majority of anti chavez posters here mix in a huge numbers of lies and misinformation, it makes em look laughable.


Don't forget all the correct but meaningless criticisms like "He bought weapons form Russia!!!!!!" :rolleyes:

[DC]

Don't forget all the correct but meaningless criticisms like "He bought weapons form Russia!!!!!!" :rolleyes:

exactly :)

but i do think it is actually a legit critque point. Not that they buy Russian tech, but that they spend alot money on weappons. to much for my taste.
Hungry people dont need jetfighters. But thats the decision of the Venezuelans.

[cornsail]

Maybe, but that would look something more like "He spent x % of his budget on weapons! He should be spending more on domestic programs!" rather than "OMG he's up to something dastardly with those weapons!"

Virtually every country buys weapons and Venezuela's military budget is not very high either for the region or worldwide.

[DC]

Maybe, but that would look something more like "He spent x % of his budget on weapons! He should be spending more on domestic programs!" rather than "OMG he's up to something dastardly with those weapons!"

Virtually every country buys weapons and Venezuela's military budget is not very high either for the region or worldwide.

yes indeed. Venezuelas Military spending ranks very very low. But still i belive they dont need jetfighters. the AK47 factory in Venezuela is alot better idea, this atleast creates jobs.

[funk de fino]

Isn't that pretty much the same thing?

No, it's worse. It has more data and classes people as opposition or pro govt.

Didn't I just say I don't defend it? :confused:

So you agree that there is no real democracy in Venezuela as long as this database is used?

Fair point. But do you think the government should have considered it's security to be at stake?

Everytime there is a protest a govt would feel it is threatened? Should the tea partiers have been locked up or shot?

I have on occasion.Awful.Awful. Why do you ask?

They are the equivalent of the Globo or RCTV. The Chavistas dont like it so try and get them taken off air or prosecuted on trumped up charges. Do you see this happening to Fox news? You said there were the same laws in the US. Where are they? Where is Fox news supportive of Obama? are they made to run Obama popoganda to get a license? Is Glenn Beck in jail?

[funk de fino]

Would the antichavista conspiracy theorists here on JREF concentrate more on true critique against Chavez, it would be alot less easy to defend him and his Government.
and would they actually bring up some evidence for their claims, they would seem less laughable.

I do and you tend to run away.

[funk de fino]

I'm not a Chavez supporter, nor am I anti-Chavez. I like some things about him and dislike other things. But the fact is calling him a 'dictator' is simply ridiculous. If everyone was in here calling him a messiah I'd disagree just as strongly.

What brutality are you talking about, btw?

Most people say he is a tin pot dictator on the way to becoming a serious threat. This is based on his performance in the last 5 years. No one is serioulsy saying he is Stalin yet.

Do we allow him to become like Stalin or do we warn people now?

[DC]

I do and you tend to run away.

you bringin up evidence? for the stolen elections?

[DC]

Most people say he is a tin pot dictator on the way to becoming a serious threat. This is based on his performance in the last 5 years. No one is serioulsy saying he is Stalin yet.

Do we allow him to become like Stalin or do we warn people now?

evidence?

[Praktik]

Do we allow him to become like Stalin or do we warn people now?

ISnt there a fallacy for constructing arguments like that? I mean, couldn't we pick a regional example for our scary "he could become like"? When you say "Stalin" people think: THE MOST EVIL PERSON OF THE 20TH CENTURY WHO MURDERED MILLIONS AND STARVED MILLIONS MORE. Is it even possible for Chavez to become like Stalin? Hes got quite a lot of work to do and he's behind schedule!

I think so, yes. I think that the rise in crime and the deterioration in the rule of law since Chavez took power is not a coincidence, but is a direct result of his domestic policies (cronyism, the empowerment of Chavista gangs, etc).

I'd be interested to see some research on crime rates. Anyway what I was getting at with "regional factors" was Drug War related - is there any research out there as to the entities responsible for the kidnappings in Venezuela and the region?

Anyway, I'd be surprised if Chavez could be singled out as the lone factor in this purported increase in crime and/or kidnappings...

[funk de fino]

you bringin up evidence? for the stolen elections?

Strawmn, I never mentioned any stolen elections. You just get worse at this.

[funk de fino]

ISnt there a fallacy for constructing arguments like that?

No. There is a rule against changing someones post though.

[Praktik]

No. There is a rule against changing someones post though.

Oh well sorry, but its true, Stalin is kind of an emotional lever you're pulling and what I substituted in there is exactly what people think when they hear "Stalin" (though maybe some would oput him at "2nd most evil")..

anyway was just trying to illustrate how silly putting Stalin's name in the same sentence as Chavez was

EDIT: post above edited to get across exact same point.

[DC]

Strawmn, I never mentioned any stolen elections. You just get worse at this.

you answered to my post and claimed you bring up evidence........
and in my post it was about stolen elections.......

so you agree that the Elections are not stolen? then we agree :)

[funk de fino]

Oh well sorry, but its true, Stalin is kind of an emotional lever you're pulling and what I substituted in there is exactly what people think when they hear "Stalin" (though maybe some would oput him at "2nd most evil")..

anyway was just trying to illustrate how silly putting Stalin's name in the same sentence as Chavez was

EDIT: post above edited to get across exact same point.


If you look back at post it was only because some other posters have used the name. I have not used it at all prior to this. Don't let that ruin your fun though. It was to make a point, not compare him to Stalin.

Pretty ironic that one of the Chavistas used to have dictator in his username.

[Praktik]

Well let me humbly propose to the JREF that if individuals are looking to construct a scary hypothetical in which Chavez is to descend into evil, that regional (that is to say Central and South American) bogeymen are selected instead.

May I suggest Castro or Duvalier?

[funk de fino]

evidence?

here is one

Chavez is a tin-pot dictator who arrests or silences or kills anybody who dares challenge him and is driving Venezuela to pauper's status through idiotic collectivist economic policies. A blind man can see that.

Now, I know that your english has let you down again by the looks of it. When I say most, I mean most Chavez critics on here. I am not saying most people in the world or in Venezuela. The guys who really believe he is another Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot are in the minority. For now;)

[DC]

If you look back at post it was only because some other posters have used the name. I have not used it at all prior to this. Don't let that ruin your fun though. It was to make a point, not compare him to Stalin.

Pretty ironic that one of the Chavistas used to have dictator in his username.

pointing out that Simon Bolivar was a Dictator would have helped your case alot lot more.....

[funk de fino]

Well let me humbly propose to the JREF that if individuals are looking to construct a scary hypothetical in which Chavez is to descend into evil, that regional (that is to say Central and South American) bogeymen are selected instead.

May I suggest Castro or Duvalier?

Why should it be? It should not depend on where he is from, it should be decided on his actions.

[funk de fino]

you answered to my post and claimed you bring up evidence........
and in my post it was about stolen elections.......

Your post was more about attacking anti Chavez posters. The evidence part was not specific to the stolen elections. "Claims" was plural and at the end of your rant. Try again.

so you agree that the Elections are not stolen? then we agree :)

Why would you think I would disagree considering I never said they were stolen. Making up crap again?

I have seen no evidence that they were stolen. I have seen and heard evidence that the govt use voting history to persecute opposition voters and this can never be a fair or free election.

[DC]

it should be decided on his actions.

fights for the poor

[McHrozni]

I'd be interested to see some research on crime rates.

I'll start by posting this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901803.html

The article is from 2006, and things got a lot uglier since then.

Venezuela, a country of 26 million, has recorded an average of nearly 10,000 homicides a year since Chavez took office. The homicide rate, 37 deaths per 100,000 people, is more than double what it was in the 1990s.

"A lot of people voted for Chavez hoping that he would bring to order the problem of violent crime, and this didn't happen," said Marcos Tarre, a public security analyst in Caracas. "The government doesn't have a clear public security policy. Instead, there has been a very simplistic and erroneous manner of thinking that the problem is the responsibility of the military."

"It's a major change, because when I became a psychiatrist, the goal was to help people sort through their problems and have a happier lifestyle," Carvallo said. "I think that maybe in the last five years that has changed, and the goal is to try to teach the people how to survive."

Venezuelan murder rate is greater than that of Colombia - even after FARC is factored in.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/3184293/Venezuelas-murder-rates-surpass-Colombias-under-Hugo-Chavez.html

When all things are considered it is probably true that misrule of Chavez is not the only thing responsible for this catastrophe. To say his misrule wasn't a major component in it, however, is absurd. In all likelihood, all other factors are minor compared to it.

McHrozni

[DC]

Your post was more about attacking anti Chavez posters. The evidence part was not specific to the stolen elections. "Claims" was plural and at the end of your rant. Try again.



Why would you think I would disagree considering I never said they were stolen. Making up crap again?

I have seen no evidence that they were stolen. I have seen and heard evidence that the govt use voting history to persecute opposition voters and this can never be a fair or free election.

evidence for your claim, that the gov. used em to prosecute?

[funk de fino]

pointing out that Simon Bolivar was a Dictator would have helped your case alot lot more.....

Not if other posters hadn't mentioned Simon. It would have made no point to my argument.

[funk de fino]

evidence for your claim, that the gov. used em to prosecute?

I said persecute and I have given you that evidence previously. Keep up.

[funk de fino]

fights for the poor

Steal private companies at the end of a barrel of a gun.

[cornsail]

No, it's worse. It has more data and classes people as opposition or pro govt.

But is the data taken from elections or from the petition signatures (or somewhere else)?

So you agree that there is no real democracy in Venezuela as long as this database is used?

No. But I agree that the database is a bad thing.

Everytime there is a protest a govt would feel it is threatened? Should the tea partiers have been locked up or shot?

No... and action against the protesters is not even what we're talking about. Also in this case the government actually was under threat, as evidenced by the coup..

They are the equivalent of the Globo or RCTV.

I disagree.

You said there were the same laws in the US. Where are they? Where is Fox news supportive of Obama?

I didn't say "the same laws" I said similar laws. The laws in both cases aren't about being "supportive", they're about providing air time.

The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. This means, for example that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate on the prime time, it must do the same for another candidate.

However, there are four exceptions: if the air-time was in a documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast or an on-the-spot news event the equal-time rule is not valid. Since 1983, political debates not hosted by the media station are considered news events, thus may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

[DC]

Steal private companies at the end of a barrel of a gun.

aka Nationalisation. :)
a good thing mostly.

[DC]

I said persecute and I have given you that evidence previously. Keep up.

not for exactly what i asked for. but its ok. the list is a very bad idea. even the chavistas said so.

[Praktik]

Why should it be? It should not depend on where he is from, it should be decided on his actions.

So then, you actually think Stalin is a more apt comparison rather than figures who operated within similar socio-political contexts?

Interesting.

So how am I to grok that and this:

If you look back at post it was only because some other posters have used the name. I have not used it at all prior to this. Don't let that ruin your fun though. It was to make a point, not compare him to Stalin.

Cause here it looks like you're retreating somewhat from invoking the most evil person of the 20th century.

In any event, I'd really like to see what kind of evidence and proof of argument one could provide that would make me think Stalin is a more likely analogue for Chavez' Evil Potential than say, someone from the same hemisphere with a few million less in the body count and perhaps say, a military upbringing.

[DC]

Steal private companies at the end of a barrel of a gun.

ah new lies :)

i dunno how it is in the UK. but when your car is stolen, does the thief compensate you for your loss?

[funk de fino]

But is the data taken from elections or from the petition signatures (or somewhere else)?

I guess you could try and research it.

No. But I agree that the database is a bad thing.

Do you know why polls in Venezuela have a very high number of "dont knows" or "wouldnt answer"?

No... and action against the protesters is not even what we're talking about.

Strange then, because that is what RCTV and Globo reported on. Then they refused to switch to the govt propoganda of old Chavez speeches when told.

Also in this case the government actually was under threat, as evidenced by the coup..

From the military, by the military.

I disagree.

Then you have no idea what you are talking about.

I didn't say "the same laws" I said similar laws. The laws in both cases aren't about being "supportive", they're about providing air time.

Do you know why RCTV was taken off cble and satellite in January of this year? The very thing you say the Venezuela government does not enforce.

The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. This means, for example that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate on the prime time, it must do the same for another candidate.

However, there are four exceptions: if the air-time was in a documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast or an on-the-spot news event the equal-time rule is not valid. Since 1983, political debates not hosted by the media station are considered news events, thus may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

This is during elections and is irrelevant. Hence the use of "candidates" You knew that however. Nice try.

[funk de fino]

aka Nationalisation.
a good thing mostly

Even when the military is used to enforce it? It did not work out too well for the oil company did it? More that $13 billion owed to service companies last year.

not for exactly what i asked for. but its ok. the list is a very bad idea. even the chavistas said so.

Its a database now. Try and keep up, its still being used.

ah new lies

i dunno how it is in the UK. but when your car is stolen, does the thief compensate you for your loss?

In the UK if someone brings a gun and points it at me when they are buying my car, then they offer me half of what I want and I have to take it or leave it then that is theft. They would go to jail.

Try again DC.

[DC]

Even when the military is used to enforce it? It did not work out too well for the oil company did it? More that $13 billion owed to service companies last year.



Its a database now. Try and keep up, its still being used.



In the UK if someone brings a gun and points it at me when they are buying my car, then they offer me half of what I want and I have to take it or leave it then that is theft. They would go to jail.

Try again DC.

a good thing you are in the UK then, and Nationalisations cannot happen there. Still no stealing. Nationalisation with Compensation.

[funk de fino]

So then, you actually think Stalin is a more apt comparison rather than figures who operated within similar socio-political contexts?

No, I do not. Other people did. I continued the theme to make a point. Make another one up please? I really want to see just how far that imagination of your can go.

Interesting.

Yes, indeed.


So how am I to grok that and this:

Cause here it looks like you're retreating somewhat from invoking the most evil person of the 20th century.
In any event, I'd really like to see what kind of evidence and proof of argument one could provide that would make me think Stalin is a more likely analogue for Chavez' Evil Potential than say, someone from the same hemisphere with a few million less in the body count and perhaps say, a military upbringing.

Fail. The bolded part is correct in a way. I explained why he was invoked. You cannot get your bias around my explanation and think that I must think Chavez is Stalin. The rest of your post shows you have failed at comprehension.

A dictator is not judged on geography, he is judged by his actions. Others want to compare him to Stalin then they can do so. They would be wrong IMO. I was not saying he was and it's not my fault if you cannot think clearly enough to see that.

[funk de fino]

a good thing you are in the UK then, and Nationalisations cannot happen there. Still no stealing. Nationalisation with Compensation.

Epic fail again. It's even better when you think you are being smart and fail again. Nationalisations can and have happend in the UK. Nothing prevents them apart from the will of the govt. If my govt carried out forced nationalisations I would be out protesting about it not defending it on internet sites.

Stealing other peoples property.

The Chavistas think it is perectly acceptable to force private companies to take paltry compensation for their land, buildings and equipment while staring down the barrel of a gun.

Please explain again how nationalisations did well for the oil company, you seemed to have missed that part?

More that $13 billion owed to service companies last year.

[DC]

Epic fail again. It's even better when you think you are being smart and fail again. Nationalisations can and have happend in the UK. Nothing prevents them apart from the will of the govt. If my govt carried out forced nationalisations I would be out protesting about it not defending it on internet sites.

Stealing other peoples property.

The Chavistas think it is perectly acceptable to force private companies to take paltry compensation for their land, buildings and equipment while staring down the barrel of a gun.

Please explain again how nationalisations did well for the oil company, you seemed to have missed that part?

ah you missed the sarcasm :) try to keep up.

never claimed it did well to the oil company.

[funk de fino]

ah you missed the sarcasm :) try to keep up.

Poor excuse for your faux pas.

never claimed it did well to the oil company.

Nationalisation is bad then?

[DC]

Poor excuse for your faux pas.



Nationalisation is bad then?

we 2 have already talked about UK Nationalisations :)
so i knew exactly well about UK Nationalisation.


I think Nationalisation of key sectors is mostly a good thing.

[funk de fino]

we 2 have already talked about UK Nationalisations :)
so i knew exactly well about UK Nationalisation.

Except they were not Nationalisations.

I think Nationalisation of key sectors is mostly a good thing.

Even the key sector the entire economy is supported by and it is in crisis?

Thank christ you are not involved in Politics. I take it you would nationalise all the Swiss banks?

[DC]

Except they were not Nationalisations.



Even the key sector the entire economy is supported by and it is in crisis?

Thank christ you are not involved in Politics. I take it you would nationalise all the Swiss banks?

as a swiss i am involved in politics :) not only every 2 or 4 years.

Banks would stay as they are in switzerland. we have alot of cantonal banks.
But a bank in trouble, instead of giving them taxmoney ill Nationalise them.

[funk de fino]

as a swiss i am involved in politics :) not only every 2 or 4 years.

If banning muslim minarets is being involved in politics then I'll leave that to the Swiss

;)

Banks would stay as they are in switzerland. we have alot of cantonal banks.
But a bank in trouble, instead of giving them taxmoney ill Nationalise them.

Really? What happened to your socialism? This flys in the face of your arguments and makes you look slightly hypocritical IMO. Chavez thinks bank Nationalisation is a good thing, do you disagree with him?

[DC]

If banning muslim minarets is being involved in politics then I'll leave that to the Swiss

yeah also Direct Democracy has its downside



Really? What happened to your socialism? This flys in the face of your arguments and makes you look slightly hypocritical IMO. Chavez thinks bank Nationalisation is a good thing, do you disagree with him?

my socialism is fine and well.
we do have alot Cantonal Banks, thats like nationalised Banks. im fine with them, i dont need the big privatly owned ones.

I think Banks should be mixed, Nationalised and Private.

[cornsail]

I guess you could try and research it.

I did briefly and only came up with the petition names, but I couldn't find much which is why I asked. Are you responding that way because you don't know or are you just trying to be snarky?

Strange then, because that is what RCTV and Globo reported on.

Okay, and? I've been discussing the media and the government. You somehow construed this into implying I support shooting protesters, which is ridiculous, as well as being a separate topic (as presented).

From the military, by the military.

Point being...?

Then you have no idea what you are talking about.

Because...?

Eagerly awaiting defense of Fox News and RCTV being equivalent. Much as I hate Fox, they're a teddy bear in comparison. We haven't even gotten into RCTV's behavior post-coup, which was disgustingly irresponsible at best (and yes, way beyond the level of Fox News).

Do you know why RCTV was taken off cble and satellite in January of this year? The very thing you say the Venezuela government does not enforce.

Where did I say that exactly? That's the second time you've claimed I've said something I haven't (the first one being "You said there were the same laws in the US.")....

Oh well, maybe you misunderstood me or I worded something badly in an earlier post. I said, or at least intended to say, that they haven't utilized article 192 very often. Enforcement is another thing.

This is during elections and is irrelevant. Hence the use of "candidates"

"Irrelevant" meaning you don't think it's a similar law, just because it applies in a narrower context?

You knew that however. Nice try.

Now you're accusing me of dishonesty?

If you're going to insult me please restrict it to "stupid", "Chavez nut-hugger", "socialist scum" or anything along those lines. That kind of thing I can tolerate. Dishonesty, on the other hand, I take seriously. FYI I won't be continuing if you don't address this.

[cornsail]

In the UK if someone brings a gun and points it at me when they are buying my car, then they offer me half of what I want and I have to take it or leave it then that is theft. They would go to jail.


This is the argument anarcho-capitalists use against taxes. Kind of a slippery slope reasoning-wise.

[Praktik]

No, I do not. Other people did. I continued the theme to make a point.
...
Fail. The bolded part is correct in a way. I explained why he was invoked. ...A dictator is not judged on geography, he is judged by his actions. Others want to compare him to Stalin then they can do so. They would be wrong IMO. I was not saying he was and it's not my fault if you cannot think clearly enough to see that.

Ok I get it, you jumped on the bandwagon in error and are now agreeing that Stalin comparisons are a bad fit for Chavez. Peer pressure works in mysterious ways..;)

[funk de fino]

I did briefly and only came up with the petition names, but I couldn't find much which is why I asked. Are you responding that way because you don't know or are you just trying to be snarky?

A mixture of snarkiness and the fact there are noddy guides out there in googleland that show you how to download it and use it for all sorts. It has data about salaries, social security numbers and classifies you as a pro or anti govt amongst other things. Throws up some interesting facts about govt employees salaries.

Okay, and? I've been discussing the media and the government. You somehow construed this into implying I support shooting protesters, which is ridiculous, as well as being a separate topic (as presented).

No, I do not think you support the shooting of protestors. I asked you a question.

Point being...?

You imply that by supporting the protests the media supported a coup. Chavez has even accused them of organising the coup. Do you think supporting protests aginst the govt are reasons to be chucked off air? Thats what they did and thats why Chavez is hounding them.

Because...?

Eagerly awaiting defense of Fox News and RCTV being equivalent. Much as I hate Fox, they're a teddy bear in comparison. We haven't even gotten into RCTV's behavior post-coup, which was disgustingly irresponsible at best (and yes, way beyond the level of Fox News).

Their bias is comparable. While you are at it why dont you bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong. What did they get taken off the air for again according to officials? A media station does not have to show counter protests if it does not want to. Why should the govt have that power? Would Fox news give favourable coverage to counter protests to the tea partiers? Would it get taken off the air for only showing tea party protests?

This is not the BBC we are talking about it is not goverened by national rules on impartiality.

Where did I say that exactly? That's the second time you've claimed I've said something I haven't (the first one being "You said there were the same laws in the US.")....

Oh well, maybe you misunderstood me or I worded something badly in an earlier post. I said, or at least intended to say, that they haven't utilized article 192 very often. Enforcement is another thing.

They were forced off the cable and satellite because they would not broadcast Chavez propoganda. You intimated this was not something the govt would do or did do? What do you think Fox would have to say about that?

"Irrelevant" meaning you don't think it's a similar law, just because it applies in a narrower context?

It's nothing alike. It covers specific things that the Chavez law does not. During elections. Not all the time. On a whim.

Now you're accusing me of dishonesty?

What was the reason you brought a quote that did not support your arguments? Maybe you just thought we were too stupid to realise. If it is just that you thought I was too stupid then I apologise if I intimated it was dishonesty. I am not too stupid to realise your quote was irrelevant to this discussion though.

If you're going to insult me please restrict it to "stupid", "Chavez nut-hugger", "socialist scum" or anything along those lines. That kind of thing I can tolerate. Dishonesty, on the other hand, I take seriously. FYI I won't be continuing if you don't address this.

I dont think you are stupid. Why would I call you socialist scum? I do not even know your political affiliations and it seems you have jumped to conculsions about mine.

Is Fox news supportive of Obama or the Dems? Are they forced to broadcast Democratic propoganda whenever Obama wants it to be shown under threat of closure?

[funk de fino]

This is the argument anarcho-capitalists use against taxes. Kind of a slippery slope reasoning-wise.

To be fair, he asked the question and I answered him with exactly what would happen. It's not my fault if he used a piss poor analogy or comparison.

Perhaps you can come up with a better one for him?

[funk de fino]

my socialism is fine and well.
we do have alot Cantonal Banks, thats like nationalised Banks. im fine with them, i dont need the big privatly owned ones.

I think Banks should be mixed, Nationalised and Private.

That is not the Bolivar way. Chavez disagrees with you. Good job you do not own a bank in Venezuela eh?

;)

[DC]

That is not the Bolivar way. Chavez disagrees with you. Good job you do not own a bank in Venezuela eh?

;)

so? you got actually a point?

[funk de fino]

Ok I get it, you jumped on the bandwagon in error and are now agreeing that Stalin comparisons are a bad fit for Chavez. Peer pressure works in mysterious ways..;)

I suggest you substitute Stalin with Kermit the Frog in my post and see if you then get the point of the post. Just about any muppet would do.

If you had deigned to actually read the post I said he was not Stalin yet.

I will repeat this just in case.

No one is serioulsy saying he is Stalin yet.

Spelling mistake inc.

It was to make a point, not compare him to Stalin.

Now if you really really want me to, I can compare them if it will make you feel better? I'd rather not because that was not the point of my post.

[funk de fino]

so? you got actually a point?

Yes, your view on this is against Chavez. I feel it is hypocritical. You either believe in Nationalisation or you dont. Banking is a key sector and you said that it was mostly a good thing to nationalise these key sectors. Why is it different for Switzerland than it is for Venezuela?

What key sectors should Hugo leave alone?

[DC]

Yes, your view on this is against Chavez. I feel it is hypocritical. You either believe in Nationalisation or you dont. Banking is a key sector and you said that it was mostly a good thing to nationalise these key sectors. Why is it different for Switzerland than it is for Venezuela?

What key sectors should Hugo leave alone?

wow, your most stupid post untill now.

So i have to agree with chavez on every single point, or i am not a socialist?

What do you count as Key sectors?

[funk de fino]

wow, your most stupid post untill now.

So i have to agree with chavez on every single point, or i am not a socialist?

Is it not one of his key policies? Nationalisation.

You think he is wrong when he tries to nationalise banks then?

What do you count as Key sectors?

You tell me, you brought it up.

[DC]

Is it not one of his key policies? Nationalisation.

You think he is wrong when he tries to nationalise banks then?



You tell me, you brought it up.

It depends on the Bank.

I personally belive Banking sector should be mixed. Private owned Banks and Public banks. And if Chavez has a diffrent oppinion in this regard, i dont care.

here some sectors i belive should be mainly in Public hands.

Water
Electricity
Telecomunications
Natural resources (Oil etc)
Partially food production
Healthcare (Hospital's)
Schools
News (atleast one public owned media outlet)

[cornsail]

A mixture of snarkiness and the fact there are noddy guides out there in googleland that show you how to download it and use it for all sorts. It has data about salaries, social security numbers and classifies you as a pro or anti govt amongst other things. Throws up some interesting facts about govt employees salaries.

My question was just about where the names on the list came from. My assumption was that they came from the petition signatures rather than the recall election. If people can't vote in elections anonymously then it's obviously a much bigger deal (although I dislike it either way).

No, I do not think you support the shooting of protestors. I asked you a question.

Okay fair enough.

You imply that by supporting the protests the media supported a coup.

I haven't said that. I don't know whether they knew the coup was coming or not. But they helped it happen whether intentionally or not. And once it did happen, they clearly supported it.

Chavez has even accused them of organising the coup. Do you think supporting protests aginst the govt are reasons to be chucked off air? Thats what they did and thats why Chavez is hounding them.

Supporting protests is fine, as long as they're complying with media laws and not engaging in sedition. I think they engaged in non-overt sedition (or something close) from the time period of the coup to Chavez's reinstatement even if not before, which I'd have to research more.

Their bias is comparable. While you are at it why dont you bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong.

Okay, correct me if you think I have any of this wrong. I'm going by memory for the most part and it's possible my memory contains information from bad sources: Chavez said he would resign, at gunpoint essentially, on four conditions (e.g. being able to address the nation on TV etc). This resignation was accepted and announced (covered on RCTV obviously). The conditions were not lived up to and Chavez was imprisoned until further notice, but he managed to get a message out saying that he did not resign. Media such as RCTV suppressed this information. And I don't just mean they didn't decide to cover it, but when a Chavez loyalist general tricked them by pretending he was going to announce his own resignation live and then starting to announce instead that Chavez had not resigned, he was cut from broadcast immediately. After that, the successful counter-takeover by Chavez supporters was not covered at all. Both of these things work to the advantage of the coup and surely made it more difficult for a counter-attack to succeed if some people don't know that A) Chavez is claiming not to have resigned and B) There is a counter attack going on. One coup leader also thanked a media station (not RCTV in this case) for being their "deadly weapon". Another (or possibly the same one) said ""I must thank Venevisión and RCTV."

So if you were a Venezuelan who believed in Democracy, how would you feel about RCTV's behavior throughout that incident?

Fox has never suppressed any hugely important information in the manner described above, AFAIK. Here's how they would be more comparable: Imagine if after they announced "Bush Wins" in the 2000 election, Fox News declined to cover the fact that Florida went on to become contested and immediately cut from any live broadcasts that mentioned it. A silly example in that that would have been incredibly dumb of them, but you get the idea.

It's nothing alike. It covers specific things that the Chavez law does not. During elections. Not all the time. On a whim.

I don't know all the specifics on the law (article 192 I think) in Venezuela, but it does seem similar in my mind. They are both cases in which a media station is forced to provide coverage of a person and their message who they may not want to cover. One is just more limited in applicability.

What was the reason you brought a quote that did not support your arguments? Maybe you just thought we were too stupid to realise. If it is just that you thought I was too stupid then I apologise if I intimated it was dishonesty. I am not too stupid to realise your quote was irrelevant to this discussion though.

Posting a bad argument, because I think you're too stupid to realize it would be dishonesty in my mind. It's important to me that I not do things like this.

Why did I bring the quote? Because it seemed there was some confusion over what the US law actually entailed.. or you thought I was confused about what it entailed. E.g. you were asking "do you think Glenn Beck can be arrested?" etc. So I layed it out specifically.

And I do think it supports that the US law has similarities with the Venezuelan article 192, BTW.

I dont think you are stupid. Why would I call you socialist scum? I do not even know your political affiliations and it seems you have jumped to conculsions about mine.

I wasn't trying to suggest you've called me these things, I'm just saying I'd prefer them to being called dishonest (unless I'd actually been dishonest of course).

[funk de fino]

My question was just about where the names on the list came from. My assumption was that they came from the petition signatures rather than the recall election. If people can't vote in elections anonymously then it's obviously a much bigger deal (although I dislike it either way).

It has everyones name on it who is registered to vote.

I haven't said that. I don't know whether they knew the coup was coming or not. But they helped it happen whether intentionally or not. And once it did happen, they clearly supported it.

Someone on here tried to claim they did know it was coming and failed dismally. You think it is wise for media to always back the govt?

Supporting protests is fine, as long as they're complying with media laws and not engaging in sedition. I think they engaged in non-overt sedition (or something close) from the time period of the coup to Chavez's reinstatement even if not before, which I'd have to research more.

They engaged in bias which is not illegal.

Okay, correct me if you think I have any of this wrong. I'm going by memory for the most part and it's possible my memory contains information from bad sources: Chavez said he would resign, at gunpoint essentially, on four conditions (e.g. being able to address the nation on TV etc). This resignation was accepted and announced (covered on RCTV obviously). The conditions were not lived up to and Chavez was imprisoned until further notice, but he managed to get a message out saying that he did not resign. Media such as RCTV suppressed this information. And I don't just mean they didn't decide to cover it, but when a Chavez loyalist general tricked them by pretending he was going to announce his own resignation live and then starting to announce instead that Chavez had not resigned, he was cut from broadcast immediately. After that, the successful counter-takeover by Chavez supporters was not covered at all. Both of these things work to the advantage of the coup and surely made it more difficult for a counter-attack to succeed if some people don't know that A) Chavez is claiming not to have resigned and B) There is a counter attack going on. One coup leader also thanked a media station (not RCTV in this case) for being their "deadly weapon". Another (or possibly the same one) said ""I must thank Venevisión and RCTV."

You've got some of it right along with the exagerrated govt stuff. If they were involved in the coup then why were they not thrown in jail. Why were they not thrown off the air imediately for thir crimes. Why did they wait until license renewal and get the state media dept to not renew a license? Why have govt officials said it was not because of support for the 2002 coup that they were taken of air.

Why does the govt feel they can force private media to show govt propoganda?

So if you were a Venezuelan who believed in Democracy, how would you feel about RCTV's behavior throughout that incident?

Same way I feel about Fox news. Bias rubbish.

Fox has never suppressed any hugely important information in the manner described above, AFAIK. Here's how they would be more comparable: Imagine if after they announced "Bush Wins" in the 2000 election, Fox News declined to cover the fact that Florida went on to become contested and immediately cut from any live broadcasts that mentioned it. A silly example in that that would have been incredibly dumb of them, but you get the idea.

No, I do not get the idea. "Hugely important"

I don't know all the specifics on the law (article 192 I think) in Venezuela, but it does seem similar in my mind. They are both cases in which a media station is forced to provide coverage of a person and their message who they may not want to cover. One is just more limited in applicability.

One forces media to show equal airtime for all political candidates during elections. one allows the govt to force media to show govt propoganda. It does nothing for opposition parties. It is not just for election broadcasts. ou are wrong on this unless your version of similar is different to mine.

Posting a bad argument, because I think you're too stupid to realize it would be dishonesty in my mind. It's important to me that I not do things like this.

Bad is not false.

Why did I bring the quote? Because it seemed there was some confusion over what the US law actually entailed.. or you thought I was confused about what it entailed. E.g. you were asking "do you think Glenn Beck can be arrested?" etc. So I layed it out specifically.

And I do think it supports that the US law has similarities with the Venezuelan article 192, BTW.

see above.

I wasn't trying to suggest you've called me these things, I'm just saying I'd prefer them to being called dishonest (unless I'd actually been dishonest of course).

Called is not call. Get your tenses straight. Why would you think I would call you them?

[cornsail]

It has everyones name on it who is registered to vote.

Does it say who they voted for? That's what I've been getting at, but I've been wording it poorly.

You think it is wise for media to always back the govt?

No. I do think it's unwise to back insurrection against a democratic government though. I realize you may disagree about the 'democratic' part, but that is my opinion.

You've got some of it right along with the exagerrated govt stuff.

Which parts are the exaggerated govt stuff (and exaggerated in what way)?

If they were involved in the coup then why were they not thrown in jail. Why were they not thrown off the air imediately for thir crimes.

Because they weren't directly involved in the coup or at least there's no evidence indicating such. The account I described strikes me as borderline sedition, but nothing so blatant that a witch burning would be expedient (just speculating).

Why did they wait until license renewal and get the state media dept to not renew a license? Why have govt officials said it was not because of support for the 2002 coup that they were taken of air.

Possibly to avoid controversy and/or, because there's not enough evidence of actual laws being broken by RCTV during the coup. I have no idea, though.

No, I do not get the idea. "Hugely important"

Do you think Fox News has done anything comparable to the account described? I provided the hypothetical of suppressing that the 2000 presidential election was contested in Florida for a significant period of time after having projected Bush as the winner as something that might be comparable.

One forces media to show equal airtime for all political candidates[' propoganda] during elections. one allows the govt to force media to show govt propoganda. It does nothing for opposition parties. It is not just for election broadcasts. ou are wrong on this unless your version of similar is different to mine.

Bolded added by me. It's all "propoganda", isn't it? My "version of similar" is different than yours I guess, but it depends how much time per day it can be utilized, how much it's actually utilized and other specifics.

Bad is not false.

I'm aware of that... Intentionally making an invalid argument with the hopes that the other guy will be suckered in by it falls under my concept of "dishonest". Are you claiming I did that?

Called is not call. Get your tenses straight. Why would you think I would call you them?

I was trying to illustrate that I don't like being called dishonest by contrasting it with stupid, etc. I wasn't saying I expect you to make those other attacks. I also wasn't making assumptions about your political leanings. They were just a few hypothetical insults I thought up off the top of my head. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[funk de fino]

Does it say who they voted for? That's what I've been getting at, but I've been wording it poorly.

It states if they are pro govt or anti govt.

No. I do think it's unwise to back insurrection against a democratic government though. I realize you may disagree about the 'democratic' part, but that is my opinion.

What about Chavez attempted coup?

Which parts are the exaggerated govt stuff (and exaggerated in what way)?

Look, I am not spelling everything out for you. Go read blogs, go speak to people there. Thats what I do.

Because they weren't directly involved in the coup or at least there's no evidence indicating such. The account I described strikes me as borderline sedition, but nothing so blatant that a witch burning would be expedient (just speculating).

It may strike you all you want but you only see one side of it. Bolded for clarity.

Possibly to avoid controversy and/or, because there's not enough evidence of actual laws being broken by RCTV during the coup. I have no idea, though.

No evidence.

Do you think Fox News has done anything comparable to the account described? I provided the hypothetical of suppressing that the 2000 presidential election was contested in Florida for a significant period of time after having projected Bush as the winner as something that might be comparable.

Watch Glen Beck and his 912 junk. Hypothetical is irrelevant. Fox can do what they want and could have done what they wanted. You have yet to prove anything was suppressed by RCTV. You just wrote some words.

Bolded added by me. It's all "propoganda", isn't it? My "version of similar" is different than yours I guess, but it depends how much time per day it can be utilized, how much it's actually utilized and other specifics.

Do you watch the Hello President show? What else is being forced to show OLD speeches supposed to do?

I'm aware of that... Intentionally making an invalid argument with the hopes that the other guy will be suckered in by it falls under my concept of "dishonest". Are you claiming I did that?

Being a sucker does not mean you are stupid. Being stupid does not mean you are a sucker.

If you made an invalid argument then live with it.

I was trying to illustrate that I don't like being called dishonest by contrasting it with stupid, etc. I wasn't saying I expect you to make those other attacks. I also wasn't making assumptions about your political leanings. They were just a few hypothetical insults I thought up off the top of my head. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

You like hypos eh?

[cornsail]

It states if they are pro govt or anti govt.

Based on their voting record?

Look, I am not spelling everything out for you. Go read blogs, go speak to people there. Thats what I do.

I didn't pull that account out of my ass. If you don't want to tell me which parts you think are inaccurate then that's your choice.

It may strike you all you want but you only see one side of it. Bolded for clarity.

In your opinion.

Watch Glen Beck and his 912 junk. Hypothetical is irrelevant. Fox can do what they want and could have done what they wanted. You have yet to prove anything was suppressed by RCTV. You just wrote some words.

That's a non-answer. And you're right I did just write some words, I have a bad habbit of doing that on discussion forums. **** me I'm still doing it. Better get used to it?

Do you watch the Hello President show? What else is being forced to show OLD speeches supposed to do?

Sorry? I don't see how that's a relevant response. I've seen Hello President clips as shown by the PBS documentary on it.


If you made an invalid argument then live with it.

I don't give a crap if I made an invalid argument. I don't think I did, but that's beside the point. You implied I did so intentionally and it looks like you're not budging from that, despite receiving a completely reasonable elaboration that shouldn't even have been necessary in the first place. Confirm?

[funk de fino]

Based on their voting record?

Google is your friend. It's not based on their shoe size though.

MAISANTA database.

I didn't pull that account out of my ass. If you don't want to tell me which parts you think are inaccurate then that's your choice.

Wait a minute. Your post quite clearly said it was from memory.

Okay, correct me if you think I have any of this wrong. I'm going by memory for the most part and it's possible my memory contains information from bad sources:

Bolded

In your opinion.

My opinions are based on more than the bias crap or hero worship some are. I have friends and work colleagues in Venezuela. I get stuff direct from them. I do not have to blame all media for being biased against Chavez when he rolls in the military to take over private companies. I have seen al jazeera being cast as bias. All the time the usual suspects use the venezuelanalysis.com bias rubbish that is supported by bias organisations and rumoured to have funding from the govt. I am not saying Chavez is a devil (although he is allowed to call Bush a devil and say that Obama has the same stench). I am not saying he is a despot murdering dictator. I am saying that he is not what he protrays himself as and he is on a slippery slope to becoming worse. The no limits to terms was one prime example. He changed the constitution when he came to power and then tried to get it changed to keep him in power. When that failed he changed the wording and and put it to vote again in the same parliamentary session even though this was not permitted by the constitution. It's all very well to believe in what he is saying he is trying to do for the country, and in some cases is doing for the country, but when people make valid criticisms of some of his excesses people should not give him a pass and accuse others of bias for attacking him.

I admit there is some rabid bias against him here but it works both ways. This is the politics section after all. My problem is I believe in a lot of what he says he is trying to do for the poor, but when you look closely and scratch the surface he is not the man to do it.

That's a non-answer. And you're right I did just write some words, I have a bad habbit of doing that on discussion forums. **** me I'm still doing it. Better get used to it?

See the other thread. You avoided Glenn Beck again.

Got anything on RCTV? Do you think it is acceptable for them to have been thrown off cable and satellite for refusing to show Hello President or any other stuff that Chavez wants to see on a whim?

Sorry? I don't see how that's a relevant response. I've seen Hello President clips as shown by the PBS documentary on it.

Are they forced to show them?

I don't give a crap if I made an invalid argument. I don't think I did, but that's beside the point. You implied I did so intentionally and it looks like you're not budging from that, despite receiving a completely reasonable elaboration that shouldn't even have been necessary in the first place. Confirm?

Not budging? I said sorry. That law in the US is for specific times and for specific reasons. The venezuela one is so that Chavez can put out his stuff unfettered. Is the article there to allow everyone equal airtime or not?

[DC]

Got anything on RCTV? Do you think it is acceptable for them to have been thrown off cable and satellite for refusing to show Hello President or any other stuff that Chavez wants to see on a whim?

Is this the official reason?
when not, what evidence do you have that this was the reason?

[cornsail]

Google is your friend. It's not based on their shoe size though.

Okay, I searched one more time and I'm now confident that my original interpretation was correct that the list was constructed based on petition signatures. Not sure why you kept telling me to look it up when I had it right in the first place.

Wait a minute. Your post quite clearly said it was from memory.

Memory = out of my ass? Obviously the memory is based on reading things. I had re-researched it briefly before making the post too, my disclaimer was just that I may be off on some small detail or that some of my sources may have given inaccurate information.

So would you like to share what you think the exaggerated parts are? If not fine, but the condescending "go read blogs" type response isn't necessary.

My opinions are based on more than the bias crap or hero worship some are. I have friends and work colleagues in Venezuela. I get stuff direct from them. I do not have to blame all media for being biased against Chavez when he rolls in the military to take over private companies. I have seen al jazeera being cast as bias. All the time the usual suspects use the venezuelanalysis.com bias rubbish that is supported by bias organisations and rumoured to have funding from the govt.

I can respect that. But you really think Chavez is my hero and that I only see one side of things? I have criticisms of Chavez. I disagree with the recent arrest that took place and I strongly disagree with the Maisanta database, although I don't think it "destroyed democracy" since electoral votes are still anonymous. I also think he has an embarrassing personality for a head of state and is overly enamored with Castro, which could certainly provide the temptation to move in more totalitarian directions.

Not to dismiss the "I have friends there" thing, but I wouldn't put a lot of stock in, for example, someone's opinion of an American politician based on talking with friends who are Americans. I'm certain there are some Venezuelans who would agree with your friends and others who wouldn't.

I am not saying Chavez is a devil (although he is allowed to call Bush a devil and say that Obama has the same stench). I am not saying he is a despot murdering dictator. I am saying that he is not what he protrays himself as and he is on a slippery slope to becoming worse. The no limits to terms was one prime example. He changed the constitution when he came to power and then tried to get it changed to keep him in power. When that failed he changed the wording and and put it to vote again in the same parliamentary session even though this was not permitted by the constitution.

Shady, yes. But there are worse things. The term limits thing only allows him to stay in power as long as he is voted for by a majority of the voting population.

It's all very well to believe in what he is saying he is trying to do for the country, and in some cases is doing for the country, but when people make valid criticisms of some of his excesses people should not give him a pass and accuse others of bias for attacking him.

Agreed. However, I think a lot of the criticisms ITT were not valid. Some were.

I admit there is some rabid bias against him here but it works both ways. This is the politics section after all. My problem is I believe in a lot of what he says he is trying to do for the poor, but when you look closely and scratch the surface he is not the man to do it.

That's cool. I somewhat agree, I'd rather see him replaced by someone who believed in the same ideals, but had a better head on their shoulders and a less bombastic personality. I do think Chavez has done more good than harm though, in contrast to the state of the country before-hand.

See the other thread. You avoided Glenn Beck again.

What do you want to know? I've explained pretty well why I don't think it's comparable. Is 912 something Glenn Beck did that you think is comparable to RCTV's actions from the coup onward?

Got anything on RCTV? Do you think it is acceptable for them to have been thrown off cable and satellite for refusing to show Hello President or any other stuff that Chavez wants to see on a whim?

I posted my account of things RCTV has done that I take serious issue with already. Were they thrown off cable and satellite for refusing to show Hello President? Source? It seems their license was not renewed and the coup is a big part of the reason for that.

Are they forced to show them?

RCTV? I don't know, are they?

Not budging? I said sorry. That law in the US is for specific times and for specific reasons. The venezuela one is so that Chavez can put out his stuff unfettered. Is the article there to allow everyone equal airtime or not?

"If it is just that you thought I was too stupid then I apologise if I intimated it was dishonesty."

I hate to nitpick further, but that was a conditional apology and the condition was not met. You made it sound like either I was dishonest or I intentionally posted something invalid because I thought you were stupid to realize it (and as I've explained a couple times I'd still consider that to fall under "dishonest").

Moving on...

[funk de fino]

Is this the official reason?
when not, what evidence do you have that this was the reason?

Look up google for RCTV thrown off cable and satellite in January 2010. Look at the reasons given in the reports you see. They refused to show Chavez programming.

[funk de fino]

Okay, I searched one more time and I'm now confident that my original interpretation was correct that the list was constructed based on petition signatures. Not sure why you kept telling me to look it up when I had it right in the first place.

Think about it.

Memory = out of my ass? Obviously the memory is based on reading things. I had re-researched it briefly before making the post too, my disclaimer was just that I may be off on some small detail or that some of my sources may have given inaccurate information.

So would you like to share what you think the exaggerated parts are? If not fine, but the condescending "go read blogs" type response isn't necessary.

I've already told you. If you took it from probably biased sources then try and find some that aren't and read about it.

I can respect that. But you really think Chavez is my hero and that I only see one side of things? I have criticisms of Chavez. I disagree with the recent arrest that took place and I strongly disagree with the Maisanta database, although I don't think it "destroyed democracy" since electoral votes are still anonymous. I also think he has an embarrassing personality for a head of state and is overly enamored with Castro, which could certainly provide the temptation to move in more totalitarian directions.

Then we agree on somethings. You will see very little of that from some Chavistas on here.

Not to dismiss the "I have friends there" thing, but I wouldn't put a lot of stock in, for example, someone's opinion of an American politician based on talking with friends who are Americans. I'm certain there are some Venezuelans who would agree with your friends and others who wouldn't.

If they were all saying the same thing? The same thing you could read about in blogs and in news? When I was in Libya most guys there told me Gaddafi was a bad man and they hated him. based on what i have seen in he past i tend to think they were not bullcrapping me. Same with Chavez. I have collegues from Colombia who feel the same about him.

Shady, yes. But there are worse things. The term limits thing only allows him to stay in power as long as he is voted for by a majority of the voting population.

Very shady. A sign of power grabbing and not wanting to let go. This is a slippery slope.

Agreed. However, I think a lot of the criticisms ITT were not valid. Some were.

I agree. Valid ones are poo poo'd also. You must be some kind of rabid right winger with a bias against socialism if you attack him seems to be the crux of it. Like I said, it works both ways.

That's cool. I somewhat agree, I'd rather see him replaced by someone who believed in the same ideals, but had a better head on their shoulders and a less bombastic personality. I do think Chavez has done more good than harm though, in contrast to the state of the country before-hand.

If you look at his falling numbers then some may disagree.

What do you want to know? I've explained pretty well why I don't think it's comparable. Is 912 something Glenn Beck did that you think is comparable to RCTV's actions from the coup onward?

Beck is a pretty nasty piece of work from what I can see and is using his fame to power a movement that is calling for the overthrow of Obama. lets not pretend this is just Fox news but it is an epecially disgusting part ofFox that is no worse than nything I see fom RCTV or Globo. Now I do not agree with everything that RCTV or Globo do but the charges against Globo are trumped up and politically motivated an you do not see that happening to Glenn Beck. The witchhunt against critical media is what it is all about regardless of what the Chavez cronies say.

I posted my account of things RCTV has done that I take serious issue with already. Were they thrown off cable and satellite for refusing to show Hello President? Source? It seems their license was not renewed and the coup is a big part of the reason for that.

They have twice been dealt with. Once after the coup attempt. The official line was not anything to do with the coup support. If it was they could have taken then off straight away and charged them. They waited until license renewal time and refused it on other grounds. Chavez posturing line was it as because of the coup. But he also lied about the involvement as well. officials havbe confrimed it was not because of the coup.

The second time this year was when they were kicked off cable and satellite for refusing to show Chavez programming.


RCTV? I don't know, are they?

See above, thats why they were thrown off cable and satellite this year. Refused to show Chavez programming.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7000341.ece

"If it is just that you thought I was too stupid then I apologise if I intimated it was dishonesty."

I hate to nitpick further, but that was a conditional apology and the condition was not met. You made it sound like either I was dishonest or I intentionally posted something invalid because I thought you were stupid to realize it (and as I've explained a couple times I'd still consider that to fall under "dishonest").

Moving on...

Ok. Sorry. Is that OK?

[cornsail]

I've already told you. If you took it from probably biased sources then try and find some that aren't and read about it.
I said possibly inaccurate, not "probably". You told me to read blogs and those would also be possibly inaccurate as well, obviously. Also, since you haven't told me which parts you think were correct and which were exaggerated you're essentially asking me to research every detail and figure it out for myself, whereas I'd have a much easier job if you were at least somewhat specific.

If they were all saying the same thing? The same thing you could read about in blogs and in news?

Are all Venezuelans saying the same thing? In regard to what? It seems Chavez has both supporters and detractors.

I agree. Valid ones are poo poo'd also. You must be some kind of rabid right winger with a bias against socialism if you attack him seems to be the crux of it. Like I said, it works both ways.

Indeed. Actually my first post in the other thread is an example of that.

Beck is a pretty nasty piece of work from what I can see and is using his fame to power a movement that is calling for the overthrow of Obama. lets not pretend this is just Fox news but it is an epecially disgusting part ofFox that is no worse than nything I see fom RCTV or Globo.

That he is. But he hasn't aided a coup by actively suppressing information. I guess I'll just have to disagree with you that they are equivalent.

That said, I do support tougher media laws in the US.

They have twice been dealt with. Once after the coup attempt. The official line was not anything to do with the coup support. If it was they could have taken then off straight away and charged them. They waited until license renewal time and refused it on other grounds. Chavez posturing line was it as because of the coup. But he also lied about the involvement as well. officials havbe confrimed it was not because of the coup.

The second time this year was when they were kicked off cable and satellite for refusing to show Chavez programming.

See above, thats why they were thrown off cable and satellite this year. Refused to show Chavez programming.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7000341.ece

Okay, but that doesn't say anything about the show Hello President, it mentioned a speech. The coup may not have been an official reason, but considering RCTV's behavior during the coup I don't have much sympathy for them being taken off the air. They broke a law and that was used as the official line, but the larger context is also relevant.

I'm on the fence regarding the law that was broken. I'd like to know more specifics of what it entails and how/how-often it's utilized. I'll look more into that some time, when I get a chance.

Ok. Sorry. Is that OK?

Yes, sir. Thank you.

[funk de fino]

I said possibly inaccurate, not "probably". You told me to read blogs and those would also be possibly inaccurate as well, obviously. Also, since you haven't told me which parts you think were correct and which were exaggerated you're essentially asking me to research every detail and figure it out for myself, whereas I'd have a much easier job if you were at least somewhat specific.

I repeat my previous post on this. I do get fed up going through hoops in the past for information that is out there from both sides of the argument only for it to be handwaved or ignored. Sorry if that seems harsh but I have gone though this stuff before and do not have much time left this week before I head to mexico.

I would say something here. Ignore venezuelaanalysis. If you do want to use it then look to another opposite bias and use thedevilsexcrement. Ignore most of the US reporting on it and look to other media such as the BBC.

I am not opposed to what Chavez wants to do for the country I am opposed to how he is doing it. The OP says it all. Closing down opposition media is not acceptable.

Are all Venezuelans saying the same thing? In regard to what? It seems Chavez has both supporters and detractors.

I am saying that all the one I speak to say it. If we use your example of the US, then that is not what happens there. I get many mixed views in the US from feins and colleagues. Soem love Obama, some hate him. Some loved Bush, some hated him. In Venezuela, 100% of the people I have spoken to about it do not like him. Smaller sample size but telling all the same. Similar to my Libya experience. One similarity was the fact that it was not something that was talked about too openly. They know what can happen to you when you are seen as opposition.

He has supporters right enough but his numbers are falling and only govt ones seem to give him large support recently and even they are falling.

Indeed. Actually my first post in the other thread is an example of that.

It did, however, make unsupported accusations against Globo.

That he is. But he hasn't aided a coup by actively suppressing information. I guess I'll just have to disagree with you that they are equivalent.

You have yet to support this either. Not reporting something is immediately suppressing something? In that case why did the Venezuela State TV ignore the earthquake that hit? The one that Globo got into trouble for reporting.

Were they suppressing it?

That said, I do support tougher media laws in the US.

I do not. I find the two sides very amusing when I am over there.

Okay, but that doesn't say anything about the show Hello President, it mentioned a speech.

When I ask a question it is not neccassarily a specific claim. They have been taken off air for refusing to show govt programming. What is the OP about again?

The coup may not have been an official reason, but considering RCTV's behavior during the coup I don't have much sympathy for them being taken off the air. They broke a law and that was used as the official line, but the larger context is also relevant.

Yes, no freedom of speech. Govt interference in media programming outside emergency situations or election times.

I'm on the fence regarding the law that was broken. I'd like to know more specifics of what it entails and how/how-often it's utilized. I'll look more into that some time, when I get a chance.

I do not like it when a station can be forced to show anything from the govt if the same rights are not given to opposition. Excepting in emergency situations.

Yes, sir. Thank you.

No problem. At least you do not descend into the usual "evidence?" single word posts that get increasingly specific and end up as requiring proof to court standards rather than admitting a wrong. They also love the two wrongs make a right arguments. I prefer the two wrongs make a wrong if you know what I mean.

[WildCat]

I didn't say "the same laws" I said similar laws. The laws in both cases aren't about being "supportive", they're about providing air time.

The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. This means, for example that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate on the prime time, it must do the same for another candidate.

However, there are four exceptions: if the air-time was in a documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast or an on-the-spot news event the equal-time rule is not valid. Since 1983, political debates not hosted by the media station are considered news events, thus may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
You read it, you didn't comprehend it.

The rule you cite applies only if a station gave free air time to a particular candidate, no station is under any obligation to give free air time to any candidate nor does it require them to have equal coverage of any candidate or party. They can be as biased as they like.

[WildCat]

aka Nationalisation. :)
a good thing mostly.
Until you run out of companies to steal. Then what? No company is rushing to do business in Venezuela, this will not help the poor one bit.

[WildCat]

Eagerly awaiting defense of Fox News and RCTV being equivalent. Much as I hate Fox, they're a teddy bear in comparison. We haven't even gotten into RCTV's behavior post-coup, which was disgustingly irresponsible at best (and yes, way beyond the level of Fox News).
You keep claiming this, yet have failed to provide a single bit of evidence.

Do you have any evidence, or is Hugo's say-so good enough for you?

I love the way you continually make excuses for Hugo while denying you are a Hugo apologist...

[WildCat]

No. I do think it's unwise to back insurrection against a democratic government though.
Unless it's Chavez sending hundreds of millions of dollars to FARC to overthrow the democratically elected government in Colombia, right? :rolleyes:

[cornsail]

I repeat my previous post on this. I do get fed up going through hoops in the past for information that is out there from both sides of the argument only for it to be handwaved or ignored. Sorry if that seems harsh but I have gone though this stuff before and do not have much time left this week before I head to mexico.

Like I said, that's your choice, just be aware that you can't convincingly tell me my information is wrong and I should "read blogs" etc. unless you get more specific.

I would say something here. Ignore venezuelaanalysis. If you do want to use it then look to another opposite bias and use thedevilsexcrement. Ignore most of the US reporting on it and look to other media such as the BBC.

I recall scanning venezuelaanalysis briefly and deciding against reading it.


I am saying that all the one I speak to say it. If we use your example of the US, then that is not what happens there. I get many mixed views in the US from feins and colleagues. Soem love Obama, some hate him. Some loved Bush, some hated him. In Venezuela, 100% of the people I have spoken to about it do not like him. Smaller sample size but telling all the same. Similar to my Libya experience. One similarity was the fact that it was not something that was talked about too openly. They know what can happen to you when you are seen as opposition.

It may be because there is a bigger class division of political support in Venezuela compared to the US?

It did, however, make unsupported accusations against Globo.

Huh? I was saying that was an example of a bad/biased post (although not because I made unsupported accusations).

You have yet to support this either. Not reporting something is immediately suppressing something?

I made my case and I think my case supports it. If you disagree with my interpretation that's okay, but you never made much of a response.

No problem. At least you do not descend into the usual "evidence?" single word posts that get increasingly specific and end up as requiring proof to court standards rather than admitting a wrong. They also love the two wrongs make a right arguments. I prefer the two wrongs make a wrong if you know what I mean.

True. I'm trying to be cautious with that, because while I have a problem with RCTV I do worry about slippery slopes and precedent and all that.

[Pardalis]

Are they allowed to be critical of Dear Leader?
afaik yes, aslong they spread no false information.

DC, you never explained what you meant by that.

[Pardalis]

3rd try.

DC, are you afraid to answer the question because you're afraid of what your answer might be?

How does the State regulate and legislate on truth?

[Skeptic]

If it agrees with the dictator's views, it's THE TRUTH. If not, it's a LIE and therefore illegal, and you'll be arrested for spreading lies.

What's the big deal? It's standard operating procedures for socialist countries.

[Pardalis]

I think this is indeed at the core of DC's view of what the State can and cannot do (actually, according to DC, there is very little the State cannot do).

With that simple remark "aslong they spread no false information", implying that the State is allowed to close you down based on its notion of truth (if that was true in the US, Prison Planet, Fox News and Al Jazeera among others would have been closed a long time ago, not to mention satirical news outlets like the Onion, what would the State do about that one?) DC showed that he thinks the State has full dominion and authority on truth, and is all knowlegable, because it has to know the "Truth" to be able to act on it to ensure it is used right and not abused.

Maybe that's why DC won't answer, he can't admit it to himself that this is what he thinks about the role of the State.

Nineteen-eighty-four anyone?

[NWO Sentryman]

DC, might i ask you something?

Isn'ta ministry of "truth" orwellian? because you are making the state arbiter over what is truth and fiction and i certainly do not want to be living in an orwellian world. :eek:

[JihadJane]

You already do.

[NWO Sentryman]

You already do.

Stundied.