Chavez vs the USA

[Alferd_Packer]

When will this happen?

Three. . . Two . . .

[McHrozni]

When will this happen?

Three. . . Two . . .

Googling "Chavez blames USA for" gives a rather nice picture of his policy. It seems rather similar to treatment of Jews which was very popular at one time or another in various parts of the world.

Mchrozni

[NWO Sentryman]

Whenever it comes, it will be the stundie to end all stundies. :eek:

[Dandyone]

Yeah!!! It is hard to see why this Chavez guy has any problem with the US. After all we have done for the Venezuelan people over the years you'd think he would show some respect. Why don't we march right down there and give them some of that good old democracy, that we have been blessing the rest of the world with for the past century. He called the great GW Bush the devil and said he smelled like a fart!! I've about had it with this tyrant. We're gettin' soft!

[sadhatter]

Yeah!!! It is hard to see why this Chavez guy has any problem with the US. After all we have done for the Venezuelan people over the years you'd think he would show some respect. Why don't march right down there and give them the old "Democracy Treatment", that we have been blessing the rest of the world with for the past century. He called the great GW Bush the devil and said he smelled like a fart!! I've about had it with this tyrant. We're gettin' soft!

What is it with these people that think because the government in the us is effed, that it is okay to blame them for anything from the plague, to 9/11 to bloody hangnails.

I am no defender of the us government, it has done some stupid and sometimes horrid things, but by agreeing with anyone who hates them just because they hate they, you cheapen the real complaints people have.

[NWO Sentryman]

Yeah!!! It is hard to see why this Chavez guy has any problem with the US. After all we have done for the Venezuelan people over the years you'd think he would show some respect. Why don't we march right down there and give them some of that good old democracy, that we have been blessing the rest of the world with for the past century. He called the great GW Bush the devil and said he smelled like a fart!! I've about had it with this tyrant. We're gettin' soft!

:tr:

[Dandyone]

What is it with these people that think because the government in the us is effed, that it is okay to blame them for anything from the plague, to 9/11 to bloody hangnails.

I am no defender of the us government, it has done some stupid and sometimes horrid things, but by agreeing with anyone who hates them just because they hate they, you cheapen the real complaints people have.

When you invade dozens of countries, back several murderous military coups and terrorize and kill countless millions of people over a half a century, whenever something goes wrong people will point the finger at you. It doesn't seem fair, but sadly, that's just the way it goes.

[Dandyone]

:tr:

Meaning someone who disagrees with your position?

[McHrozni]

When you invade dozens of countries, back several murderous military coups and terrorize and kill countless millions of people over a half a century, whenever something goes wrong people will point the finger at you. It doesn't seem fair, but sadly, that's just the way it goes.

So why is China not blamed for the whatever?

McHrozni

[sadhatter]

When you invade dozens of countries, back several murderous military coups and terrorize and kill countless millions of people over a half a century, whenever something goes wrong people will point the finger at you. It doesn't seem fair, but sadly, that's just the way it goes.

The way it goes?

Yes i agree people do look for scapegoats, and are quick to place blame at the easiest place, but you have 2 choices. Either you can be a follower, and do this as well because it is easier, or you can use your own brain and make your own decisions.

And if you chose the second option, then you have the benefit of not coming off as an angry young man wanting to blame authority for any problems. But its a free country, no one is forcing you to think.

[NWO Sentryman]

When you invade dozens of countries, back several murderous military coups and terrorize and kill countless millions of people over a half a century, whenever something goes wrong people will point the finger at you. It doesn't seem fair, but sadly, that's just the way it goes.

The US did not kill "countless millions". That was the Soviets and the Chinese as well as the Serbs, the Vietnamese, the Khmer Rouge, the Interahamwe, the Bosnian Serbs among other totalitarian and hatred built movements.

and the us sid not invade "dozens of countries". That has to be as plausible as sealion.

And to be fair, your first post was a really trollish one.

And "Blame america First" mentality was actually started by the KGB with the Active Measures group promoting disinformation (with 1bn USD alone on the vietnam war alone.)

[Dandyone]

The way it goes?

Yes i agree people do look for scapegoats, and are quick to place blame at the easiest place, but you have 2 choices. Either you can be a follower, and do this as well because it is easier, or you can use your own brain and make your own decisions.

And if you chose the second option, then you have the benefit of not coming off as an angry young man wanting to blame authority for any problems. But its a free country, no one is forcing you to think.

I'm not sure I would call what Chavez does "scapegoating". He hates the US policy makers because he feels that they have illegally tried to usurp his power as the duly elected leader of his country. He also believes that there have been attempts to murder him that were CIA induced. Perhaps he has talked to family members of Salvador Allende or one of the several other elected former leaders in his region that have been murdered. What I am saying is that perhaps he is not just some paranoid nut case and that his fears are based on reality. That's another way YOU could look at it.

As far as earthquakes being caused by other than natural means, the jury is out on whether or not this could be carried out. However if it could, and there was any sort of political reason for causing a genocidal, destructive and disruptive earthquake, naturally, for many reasons, THE prime suspect from any intelligent South or Central American leaders perspective would be the US and the CIA.

[NWO Sentryman]

Salvador Allende was not overthrown by the CIA. In Fact, the Chamber of Deputies voted 81-47 that Allende was a tyrant and that he had clearly breached the Chilean constitution many times. As well as that, he was hanging around with paramilitary groups who were illegaly seizing land.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1008/p25s01-cogn.html

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Breakdown_of_Chile%E2%80%99s_De mocracy

[Dandyone]

The US did not kill "countless millions". That was the Soviets and the Chinese as well as the Serbs, the Vietnamese, the Khmer Rouge, the Interahamwe, the Bosnian Serbs among other totalitarian and hatred built movements.

and the us sid not invade "dozens of countries". That has to be as plausible as sealion.

And to be fair, your first post was a really trollish one.

And "Blame america First" mentality was actually started by the KGB with the Active Measures group promoting disinformation (with 1bn USD alone on the vietnam war alone.)

"Blame America First". LOL, who am I engaging, Bill O'reilly or Sean Hannity? What a joke!! Your post is like the scroll on a Fox News broadcast. Talk about trolling.

Dozens of countries have been invaded either by US troops directly or CIA infiltrators who have funded illegal takeovers of elected governments world wide since WWII. And since the demise of Hitler and Stalin our government is #1 in killing people world wide.

Several milliions killed in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, Central America, and now over a million and counting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan....

[NWO Sentryman]

"Blame America First". LOL, who am I engaging, Bill O'reilly or Sean Hannity? What a joke!! Your post is like the scroll on a Fox News broadcast. Talk about trolling.

No, read the Mitrokhin archive, and you will know what i am talking about.

Who am i talking to here? Ward Churchill? Look in the mirror before you associate me with Bill o reilly or hannity.

Did you even read the articles i linked to?


Dozens of countries have been invaded either by US troops directly or CIA infiltrators who have funded illegal takeovers of elected governments world wide since WWII. And since the demise of Hitler and Stalin our government is #1 in killing people world wide.

What about the dozens of countries infiltrated by KGB agents or invaded by Soviet troops who forced illegal takeovers of elected governments worldwide since World War II? It was the Cold War and in Fact, Allende was linked to the Eastern Bloc.

So Interahamwe Rwanda, Bosnian Serb genocide of muslims, Cambodian Year zero, the Chinese Cultural revolution, Idi Amin's Ugana, Nguema's Equitorial Guinea, Haile Meingitsu's reign in ethiopia, the Sudan Genocide and the North Vietnamese Purges all never took place then?

Several milliions killed in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, Central America, and now over a million and counting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan....

Mostly by the communists in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Central America in their stalinesque purges or their bloodbaths in attempts at taking over.

And the death toll in the current conflict is round ~125k. Nasty, but far less than what you believe. Even then, most of the deaths are due to the Taliban/baathists.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And since the demise of Hitler and Stalin our government is #1 in killing people world wide.

Blatant hate-driven bull@#$%.

You obviously have no connection with the real world at all.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

:tr:

A strangely familiar one.

And by "strange" I mean "sadly predictable".

[Dandyone]

No, read the Mitrokhin archive, and you will know what i am talking about.

Who am i talking to here? Ward Churchill? Look in the mirror before you associate me with Bill o reilly or hannity.

Did you even read the articles i linked to?



What about the dozens of countries infiltrated by KGB agents or invaded by Soviet troops who forced illegal takeovers of elected governments worldwide since World War II? It was the Cold War and in Fact, Allende was linked to the Eastern Bloc.

So Interahamwe Rwanda, Bosnian Serb genocide of muslims, Cambodian Year zero, the Chinese Cultural revolution, Idi Amin's Ugana, Nguema's Equitorial Guinea, Haile Meingitsu's reign in ethiopia, the Sudan Genocide and the North Vietnamese Purges all never took place then?



Mostly by the communists in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Central America in their stalinesque purges or their bloodbaths in attempts at taking over.

And the death toll in the current conflict is round ~125k. Nasty, but far less than what you believe. Even then, most of the deaths are due to the Taliban/baathists.

We are getting off the topic here. As far as the US vs USSR phony cold war, it's the same as the new phony war on terror crap. Same Rothschild-Rockefeller-British Royals supported the USSR for the first part of the 20th century. CIA-KGB worked hand in hand throughout the rest of the 20th century to make sure that NO indigenous people controlled their own rescources or governments. If we would have listened to Patton & MacArthur there would have been no USSR or Red China. If you care to notice, todays "Neo-Cons" are remnants of pro commies of the '50s and '60s and their offspring. Check out the background of that smarmy little scum Bill Kristol, or the once Ward Churchill like Michael Medved, Bernie Goldberg, or Norman Podhoritz. That is for another thread.

As far as Chavez goes, he is just another indiginous Patriot who would like foriegn corporations to stay out of local politics. The same was true of Allende, and is true today of Evo Morales. Anyone who won't let international corporations control the natural rescources of a third world country is painted as a Marxist and then attacked. That has been happening for decades starting with Mosedeq in Iran, and who ever got in the way of United Fruit in Central America. The left right crap is just a con game and always has been. Same forces control both sides of the illusion. I read your links and they are the same tired old neo-crap that can be seen and heard every day on Fox News and talk radio. You are not revealing any new info here.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

We are getting off the topic here.

What Dandy meant to say here is "Wow, I just got WTFPWNED".

[Dandyone]

What Dandy meant to say here is "Wow, I just got WTFPWNED".

If you want to start a thread about US military incursions and their death tolls since the end of WWII, go ahead. This thread is about Hugo Chavez, and the possibility of man caused earthquakes. Your partner was taking it into the old Commie vs Amerika debate, which could go on forever. For the record, I didn't support the USSRs aggression on third world nations any more that I support the USAs aggression toward them and again I believe that they were simply two sides of the same globalist coin. No one got WTFPNED.

[Dandyone]

Blatant hate-driven bull@#$%.

You obviously have no connection with the real world at all.

OK since the end of WWII which countrys military has killed more people than the US. Which country has dropped more bombs on foreign nations? I sure can't think of anyone that is even in the same league. The US dropped more bombs in Viet Nam than all of those involved in WWII combined. And US troops have killed far more than ANY other country since '45. Why is telling the truth "hate driven bs"?

[LightinDarkness]

OK since the end of WWII which countrys military has killed more people than the US. Which country has dropped more bombs on foreign nations? I sure can't think of anyone that is even in the same league. The US dropped more bombs in Viet Nam than all of those involved in WWII combined. And US troops have killed far more than ANY other country since '45. Why is telling the truth "hate driven bs"?

This argument is so tired and old - I really wish the US haters would get a new one. Have you also looked at the amount of LIVES SAVED by all the money spent by Americans and the government on foreign aid? How many millions have been stopped from dying of starvation due to organizations funded in large part by Americans or the government? How many US business men, like Bill Gates, have saved the lives of millions with vaccines through their philanthropy? (Oh wait, your a woo, I'm sure the vaccine is just a plot to kill them all - right?)

If you want to get out a great measuring scale and determine how evil the US is, you'll also need to pile on the other side with all the lives saved...but then that wouldn't further your ideological propaganda, would it?

[Sledge]

OK since the end of WWII which countrys military has killed more people than the US. Which country has dropped more bombs on foreign nations? I sure can't think of anyone that is even in the same league. The US dropped more bombs in Viet Nam than all of those involved in WWII combined. And US troops have killed far more than ANY other country since '45. Why is telling the truth "hate driven bs"?

And you're saying that all this caused an earthquake?

[Dandyone]

This argument is so tired and old - I really wish the US haters would get a new one. Have you also looked at the amount of LIVES SAVED by all the money spent by Americans and the government on foreign aid? How many millions have been stopped from dying of starvation due to organizations funded in large part by Americans or the government? How many US business men, like Bill Gates, have saved the lives of millions with vaccines through their philanthropy? (Oh wait, your a woo, I'm sure the vaccine is just a plot to kill them all - right?)

If you want to get out a great measuring scale and determine how evil the US is, you'll also need to pile on the other side with all the lives saved...but then that wouldn't further your ideological propaganda, would it?

I believe that the world would be a better place for all if the US would bring all their troops home and quit bombing people. Helping feed starving people would be a better way to spend our wealth. If you do a balance sheet regarding how much we spend on equipment and explosives that are specifically designed to KILL people and DESTROY property against how much we spend on humanitarian aid I bet it's about 1000 to 1. And speaking of humanitarian aid using such globalist organizations as the IMF or World Bank, you'll find that most of these "humanitarian" projects cause more harm than good, and are done for nefarious reasons. Read "Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man". Perhaps you could learn something from someone who REALLY knows what is going on out there. But that would probably not be in lock step with the propaganda you deal in.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I believe that the world would be a better place for all if the US would bring all their troops home and quit bombing people.These people don't seem to mind.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Dachau-002edit.jpg

[angrysoba]

The way it goes?

Yes i agree people do look for scapegoats, and are quick to place blame at the easiest place, but you have 2 choices. Either you can be a follower, and do this as well because it is easier, or you can use your own brain and make your own decisions.

And if you chose the second option, then you have the benefit of not coming off as an angry young man wanting to blame authority for any problems. But its a free country, no one is forcing you to think.

:D

[angrysoba]

Then again, maybe we shouldn't be accusing Chavez of saying something he hasn't. That's how rumours get spread, y'know!

However, there is some loony news site called Citizens for Legitimate Government which pretends to be a legitimate news site but, in fact, sees conspiracy in everything.

Here's how they reported the earthquake:

"Massive earthquake strikes Chile 27 Feb 2010 A massive earthquake with an initial magnitude of 8.8 has struck central Chile. The quake struck at 0634 GMT about 91km (56 miles) north-east of the city of Concepcion and 317km south-west of the capital, Santiago. Buildings in Santiago were reported to have shaken for between 10 and 30 seconds, with the loss of electricity and communications. The US issued an initial tsunami warning for Chile, Peru and Ecuador. That was later extended to Colombia, Antarctica, Panama and Costa Rica. [HAARP]"

Later, they gave an update on the earthquake and slipped in references to HAARP from Wikipedia for no apparent reason.

The editor is some crazy person called Lori Price.

[Dandyone]

:D

I would not characterize what Chavez does "scapegoating". He blames US policy makers and CIA because he feels that they have illegally tried to usurp his power as the duly elected leader of his country from the time he was elected. He also believes that there have been attempts to murder him that were CIA induced. Perhaps he has talked to family members of Salvador Allende or one of the several other elected former leaders in his region that have been murdered or victimized by coups. What I am saying is that perhaps he is not just some paranoid nut case and that his fears are based on reality. That's another way YOU could look at it.

As far as earthquakes being caused by other than natural means, the jury is out on whether or not this is possible. However if it is, and there was any sort of political reason for causing a genocidal, destructive and disruptive earthquake, naturally, for many reasons, THE prime suspect from any intelligent South or Central American leaders perspective would be the US and the CIA."

[Sledge]

As far as earthquakes being caused by other than natural means, the jury is out on whether or not this is possible.
No it isn't.

[Rogue1stclass]

It got cold! In Central Florida!

I blame my ex-girlfriend. She treated me like crap for years. She has to be to responsible for it.

[Travis]

I would not characterize what Chavez does "scapegoating". He blames US policy makers and CIA because he feels that they have illegally tried to usurp his power as the duly elected leader of his country from the time he was elected. He also believes that there have been attempts to murder him that were CIA induced. Perhaps he has talked to family members of Salvador Allende or one of the several other elected former leaders in his region that have been murdered or victimized by coups. What I am saying is that perhaps he is not just some paranoid nut case and that his fears are based on reality. That's another way YOU could look at it.

As far as earthquakes being caused by other than natural means, the jury is out on whether or not this is possible. However if it is, and there was any sort of political reason for causing a genocidal, destructive and disruptive earthquake, naturally, for many reasons, THE prime suspect from any intelligent South or Central American leaders perspective would be the US and the CIA."

None of this mindless drivel becomes any truer just because you repeated it.

Chavez may be democratically elected but he is still a nutcase. Case in point: him claiming the US was trying to invade Haiti after the earthquake.

[angrysoba]

As far as earthquakes being caused by other than natural means, the jury is out on whether or not this is possible. However if it is, and there was any sort of political reason for causing a genocidal, destructive and disruptive earthquake, naturally, for many reasons, THE prime suspect from any intelligent South or Central American leaders perspective would be the US and the CIA."

I think G.K Chesterton was right to some extent, "Once people stop believing in God they don't cease believing in something but begin believing in anything."

Well, I could quibble with that but those who once believed earthquakes were the result of God stamping his feet or breaking wind no longer believe in God but instead see the US as some kind of omnipotent being that strikes out in a seemingly arbitrary way causing death and destruction purely for the Hell of it.

[morgasm]

Note to Chavez and friends:

If the CIA wants you out of power, they will bribe your generals/dissident groups/political adversaries into attempting to wrest power from you with financial backing and by providing arms and spreading propaganda against you in your domestic media.

If the CIA wants you out of power, they will NOT create earthquakes in Haiti and Chile.
-they couldn't if they wanted to
-if they could (which they can't),they would create earthquakes IN VENEZUELA
-if they did (which they wouldn't), an earthquake wouldn't guarantee Chavez's death or political collapse

I'm no flag-waver myself. America has done a lot of bad **** in order to get where it is today. But if you think Chavez is somehow correct to suspect the US of causing earthquakes in other countries and not just talking **** about people he is not friends with, then you are just silly.

[Dandyone]

None of this mindless drivel becomes any truer just because you repeated it.

Chavez may be democratically elected but he is still a nutcase. Case in point: him claiming the US was trying to invade Haiti after the earthquake.

Yeah, what a nutcase. Where did Chavez ever get the idea that the US would meddle in the affairs of the Haitians? And you are darn right. NOBODY in the western hemisphere is ever really democratically elected unless Dick Cheney and Henry Kissinger sign off on it. We can't let these savages elect just anyone. I think that Aristide also might be a Marxist or something bad. Thanks for the heads up.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/COH403A.html


"In the early morning hours of February 29, the President and some family members were taken by Moreno and the Marines to an airplane rented by the U.S. State Department. Moreno told the President that he must give Moreno a letter of resignation and agree to ask no questions about where he would be taken, or the President and his wife would be left at the airport and they would be killed.

Under extreme duress, President Aristide signed a letter of resignation and boarded the plane. During the flight, despite their repeated requests, the President and his wife were forbidden from communicating with anyone in the outside world. They were never asked whether their destination, the Central African Republic, was acceptable to them. Because they were prevented from having any communication, the President and his wife were prevented from seeking the agreement of other countries to accept their arrival.

Although both George W. Bush and Colin Powell had said they would not send U.S. troops to Haiti until there was a political solution, U.S. troops were ordered to Haiti within one hour of President Aristide’s departure. Dick Cheney denied that the United States arrested or forcibly ousted President Aristide, saying that President Aristide, who had “worn out his welcome with the Haitian people,” had “left of his own free will.”

[Dandyone]

Note to Chavez and friends:

If the CIA wants you out of power, they will bribe your generals/dissident groups/political adversaries into attempting to wrest power from you with financial backing and by providing arms and spreading propaganda against you in your domestic media.

If the CIA wants you out of power, they will NOT create earthquakes in Haiti and Chile.
-they couldn't if they wanted to
-if they could (which they can't),they would create earthquakes IN VENEZUELA
-if they did (which they wouldn't), an earthquake wouldn't guarantee Chavez's death or political collapse

I'm no flag-waver myself. America has done a lot of bad **** in order to get where it is today. But if you think Chavez is somehow correct to suspect the US of causing earthquakes in other countries and not just talking **** about people he is not friends with, then you are just silly.

Maybe CIA and Corporation USA didn't want to destroy the huge oil infrastructure that they still believe belongs to THEM. And in case you are not aware of this fact, they already tried to oust Chavez several times by the EXACT means you have just described. I think you may be a little under informed regarding Chavez and the CIA. "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" is a great documentary that can be seen on google video for free.

As far as creating earthquakes, I don't know if the technology is available, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if it were. My take on Chavez is that he is for the common people of his country. He's a bit eccentric, but I think he has a good heart and truly loves his country. I would pay $1000 bucks for ringside seats to watch him beat GW Bush to a bloody pulp man to man, which I'm sure he would be able to do. Hugo is a real man.

[JoeyDonuts]

Wow.

Another "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" devotee.

I bet you like Kevin Trudeau, too.

[JoeTheJuggler]

When will this happen?

Three. . . Two . . .


Wait a second. So Chavez didn't blame the U.S. for the latest earthquake, but you started a thread with the title saying he did?

[morgasm]

Maybe CIA and Corporation USA didn't want to destroy the huge oil infrastructure that they still believe belongs to THEM. And in case you are not aware of this fact, they already tried to oust Chavez several times by the EXACT means you have just described. I think you may be a little under informed regarding Chavez and the CIA. "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" is a great documentary that can be seen on google video for free.

As far as creating earthquakes, I don't know if the technology is available, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if it were. My take on Chavez is that he is for the common people of his country. He's a bit eccentric, but I think he has a good heart and truly loves his country. I would pay $1000 bucks for ringside seats to watch him beat GW Bush to a bloody pulp man to man, which I'm sure he would be able to do. Hugo is a real man.

Oh I agree with you that the CIA has probably flirted (probably gotten to second base even) with the idea of removing Chavez. But this earthquake talk is nonsense and just Chavez talking **** about the Great Satan. And don't fall in love with Chavez just because he is anti-American. He is a power-hungry oppurtunist concerned with his own eminence before all else. All politicians are "men of the people".

[JoeyDonuts]

Former President Bush was ineffective stumblebum of a president. But I doubt Chavez could take him mano-a-mano.

I got an old shipmate that used to work at WHCA, and from time to time had to bring messages for the POTUS to sign acknowledgement receipt or some such. George Bush was in fantastic physical shape. Perhaps if he spent more time worrying about the ethical implications of his decisions instead of burning thousands of calories a day on the treadmill, things would have turned out differently.

[AJM8125]

Earthquake?

Please.

Give us credit for being more evil than that. One good drought will do the trick.

Venezuelans, he ordered, were no longer permitted to sing in the shower.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/27/IN6F1C5V0J.DTL

Nobody saw that one coming.:rolleyes:

[Dandyone]

Former President Bush was ineffective stumblebum of a president. But I doubt Chavez could take him mano-a-mano.

I got an old shipmate that used to work at WHCA, and from time to time had to bring messages for the POTUS to sign acknowledgement receipt or some such. George Bush was in fantastic physical shape. Perhaps if he spent more time worrying about the ethical implications of his decisions instead of burning thousands of calories a day on the treadmill, things would have turned out differently.

Bush might be able to beat Chavez in an aerobics contest or a cheerleading competition or shoe ducking, (I must admit the little rat ducked two pretty good fastballs that were right on target) but I'd take Hugo and lay 5-1 in a fistfight.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

These people don't seem to mind.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Dachau-002edit.jpg

"Oh beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife
Whom more than self
Their country loved
And mercy more than life!"

[LightinDarkness]

I believe that the world would be a better place for all if the US would bring all their troops home and quit bombing people. Helping feed starving people would be a better way to spend our wealth. If you do a balance sheet regarding how much we spend on equipment and explosives that are specifically designed to KILL people and DESTROY property against how much we spend on humanitarian aid I bet it's about 1000 to 1. And speaking of humanitarian aid using such globalist organizations as the IMF or World Bank, you'll find that most of these "humanitarian" projects cause more harm than good, and are done for nefarious reasons. Read "Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man". Perhaps you could learn something from someone who REALLY knows what is going on out there. But that would probably not be in lock step with the propaganda you deal in.

BZZT...wrong answer. The United States saves tens of millions through food aid and charity by Americans every YEAR. You can "think" what you like, but do you have any evidence? Nope.

By the way, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" is a hoax, it just tells CTs what they want to believe. Maybe you could learn something by doing real research instead of reading every conspiracy propaganda source that confirms your existing hysterical bias?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

OK since the end of WWII which countrys military has killed more people than the US.

China, the USSR, North Korea, Cambodia, Rawanda, Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda and Somalia.

Which country has dropped more bombs on foreign nations?

USA... but they hardly hit anything. Most of them were dropped while mindlessly plowing up miles and miles of jungle.


I sure can't think of anyone that is even in the same league.

Stop trying to think of something and try reading and actually finding out.

The US dropped more bombs in Viet Nam than all of those involved in WWII combined.

They blew up a lot of trees for little or no gain. If they actually hit something, they might not have dropped so many.

And US troops have killed far more than ANY other country since '45.

Wrong again (see above).

Why is telling the truth "hate driven bs"?

Because it's not the truth.

[morgasm]

I'm taking bets; Chavez Vs. Bush, 10 rounds. Who ya got?

[JoeyDonuts]

Chavez strong out of the gate, but easily winded. I've already posted an account (albeit secondhand and anecdotal) of Bush's cardiovascular fitness, and his duck-and weave technique is well documented. Plus, he looks like he's got a head like a damned mountain goat.

[Dandyone]

"Oh beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife
Whom more than self
Their country loved
And mercy more than life!"

I'm sure the people in Baghdad were singing this tune while thier ancient and beautiful city was being utterly destroyed and ransacked. Spare me. LOL

[Dandyone]

China, the USSR, North Korea, Cambodia, Rawanda, Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda and Somalia.



USA... but they hardly hit anything. Most of them were dropped while mindlessly plowing up miles and miles of jungle.



Stop trying to think of something and try reading and actually finding out.



They blew up a lot of trees for little or no gain. If they actually hit something, they might not have dropped so many.



Wrong again (see above).



Because it's not the truth.

How many people did the USSR Military kill since WWII and where? Who did the Chinese Military Kill, where, how many? Your figures and sense of history are quite askew. 3 million killed in Viet Nam and Cambodia directly related to the fact that we invaded their country. Our corporate soldiers have also been responsible for the continual bloodbath in central America holding down the banana fields for United Fruit since the early '50s.

I am not a fan of the USSR, The Chinese, or any tin horn African dictators, but I am an American and am thoroughly disgusted with how our young men have been abused for decades carrying the water and dying for a bunch of gutless, heartless, greedy chickenhawk corporate weapons manufacturers and banker scum.

General Butler had it right when he wrote, War is A RACKET. That is all it was then and it continues to this day. I have my opinion and you have yours. Yours is obviously fed to you by the Madison Ave propagandists who created and control our media, and sell the flag waving battle glory crap that you apparently eat up with a spoon. Mine comes from looking at the WHOLE picture, BOTH SIDES of these idiotic conflicts and seeing just what the heck is going on out there.

[JoeyDonuts]

I'm sure the people in Baghdad were singing this tune while thier ancient and beautiful city was being utterly destroyed and ransacked. Spare me. LOL

I hate jingoism too, but don't be daft.

You don't actually buy into the idea that Saddam-era Iraq was some sort of secular Middle Eastern paradise, do you?

I'm not justifying the motives for the ongoing operations there, but one shouldn't have Avatar-like delusions about that place.

[Dandyone]

Chavez strong out of the gate, but easily winded. I've already posted an account (albeit secondhand and anecdotal) of Bush's cardiovascular fitness, and his duck-and weave technique is well documented. Plus, he looks like he's got a head like a damned mountain goat.

Sadly this is a fight we'll never get to see. But I stand by my pick. I am pretty sure that GW is a gutless pussy. Maybe I'm wrong, that's just the impression I always got from him. Hugo comes off as the opposite.

[JoeyDonuts]

Hugo comes off as the opposite.

Hugo's a tinpot blowhard, and not much more. I'm sure he thinks of himself as some kind of Simon Bolivar.

[NWO Sentryman]

We are getting off the topic here.

Em, you got us off-topic

As far as the US vs USSR phony cold war, it's the same as the new phony war on terror crap.

I suppose the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Berlin Crisis, KGB Active MEasures etc. disprove all of that. As well as Bin Laden's Fatwas and 9/11

Same Rothschild-Rockefeller-British Royals supported the USSR for the first part of the 20th century.

Evidence? Coz IIRC, Britain tried to overthrow the bolsheviks during the russian Civil War. Afterwards, there were Trade agreements and all that Jazz.

CIA-KGB worked hand in hand throughout the rest of the 20th century to make sure that NO indigenous people controlled their own rescources or governments.

Evidence? Coz the CIA/KGB were trying to get the one up on each other all the time. Read a bit of Ion Mihai Pacepa or Oleg Kalugin.

If we would have listened to Patton & MacArthur there would have been no USSR or Red China.

Advocating Mass Murder Eh? And Killing another hundred million? congratulations, you jsut wanted a war that was bloodier than the Eurasian War :eek:

If you care to notice, todays "Neo-Cons" are remnants of pro commies of the '50s and '60s and their offspring.

Neoconservatives were democrats who became disillusioned over the seeming weakness of the party towards the Soviet Union and other enemies.

Check out the background of that smarmy little scum Bill Kristol, or the once Ward Churchill like Michael Medved, Bernie Goldberg, or Norman Podhoritz.

So What does that prove?

That is for another thread.

As far as Chavez goes, he is just another indiginous Patriot who would like foriegn corporations to stay out of local politics.

Excuse me, he's a crackpot. He defended Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe :eek:, holocaust deniers and Kim Jong Il.

The same was true of Allende, and is true today of Evo Morales. Anyone who won't let international corporations control the natural rescources of a third world country is painted as a Marxist and then attacked.

He was a self described marxist and wanted "total, socialist, scientific marxism" when talking with Regis Debray. He was using the chilean constitution to blow his nose and the Chamber of deputies had their fill of him. He was also linked with the KGB, the East germans and the Cubans.


That has been happening for decades starting with Mosedeq in Iran, and who ever got in the way of United Fruit in Central America.

Mossadeq was removed because of cold war politics and United Fruit underwent Chapter 7 in the 70s IIRC.

The left right crap is just a con game and always has been. Same forces control both sides of the illusion.

No, you are deluded. Look at Healthcare.

I read your links and they are the same tired old neo-crap that can be seen and heard every day on Fox News and talk radio. You are not revealing any new info here.

I don't see how a respected journal such as the Christian Science Monitor, which has won many pulitzer prizes, is as bad as fox news.

What news outlets do you suggest then?

[NWO Sentryman]

How many people did the USSR Military kill since WWII and where? Who did the Chinese Military Kill, where, how many?

Let's see, there was the Cultural Revolution in China, the Afghan war, as well as the Eastern European uprisings and the Korean War.

Your figures and sense of history are quite askew. 3 million killed in Viet Nam and Cambodia directly related to the fact that we invaded their country.

They were mostly killed by the communists and the soldiers were on request from the South Vietnamese government.

Our corporate soldiers have also been responsible for the continual bloodbath in central America holding down the banana fields for United Fruit since the early '50s.

IIRC, the only us soldiers in that area were in either honduras, Costa Rica or Panama. Nothin to do with united fruit.

I am not a fan of the USSR, The Chinese, or any tin horn African dictators, but I am an American and am thoroughly disgusted with how our young men have been abused for decades carrying the water and dying for a bunch of gutless, heartless, greedy chickenhawk corporate weapons manufacturers and banker scum.

No, they died to protect the freedoms of millions around the world from the expansive communist threat. Nowadays, they are at war with another totalitarian ideology like Nazism or Fascism or Communism. Nothing to do with corporations.

General Butler had it right when he wrote, War is A RACKET.

Butler was a crackpot. He thought that any war EVER was at the behest of some secret cabal. Had he been president, he'd have let the Japanese and the Germans butcher Eurasia.

that is all it was then and it continues to this day. I have my opinion and you have yours.

no it doesn'. The US went into Iraq because of UN resolution violations. And Afghanistan/Pakistan because of those countries' links with Al-Qaeda.

Yours is obviously fed to you by the Madison Ave propagandists who created and control our media, and sell the flag waving battle glory crap that you apparently eat up with a spoon.

maybe because it's actually true?

Mine comes from looking at the WHOLE picture, BOTH SIDES of these idiotic conflicts and seeing just what the heck is going on out there

No, yours comes form death to america or conspiracy websites like thirdworldtraveler or globalresearch.ca

[Travis]

How many people did the USSR Military kill since WWII and where?

Hungary Uprising, Afghanistan, Angola.....conservatively many millions directly. Of course pure death tolls are meaningless. What matters is who's being killed and why.


Who did the Chinese Military Kill, where, how many? Your figures and sense of history are quite askew.

Wow, irony.

3 million killed in Viet Nam and Cambodia directly related to the fact that we invaded their country.

Um, no. First off most of those 3 million were killed by the communists. Secondly the US was there to defend an ally from invasion and subversion.

Our corporate soldiers have also been responsible for the continual bloodbath in central America holding down the banana fields for United Fruit since the early '50s.

I'm sure you have actual specific examples to share.

I am not a fan of the USSR, The Chinese, or any tin horn African dictators, but I am an American and am thoroughly disgusted with how our young men have been abused for decades carrying the water and dying for a bunch of gutless, heartless, greedy chickenhawk corporate weapons manufacturers and banker scum.

Oh, I get it, we're dealing with an "alternate history." :rolleyes:

General Butler had it right when he wrote, War is A RACKET. That is all it was then and it continues to this day. I have my opinion and you have yours. Yours is obviously fed to you by the Madison Ave propagandists who created and control our media, and sell the flag waving battle glory crap that you apparently eat up with a spoon.

Ah yes, because we disagree with you we must have been brainwashed. It couldn't possibly be that you are the one that fell for skewed propaganda.

Mine comes from looking at the WHOLE picture, BOTH SIDES of these idiotic conflicts and seeing just what the heck is going on out there.

Actually it would appear you only looked at one side.

[Redtail]

Let's see, there was the Cultural Revolution in China, the Afghan war, as well as the Eastern European uprisings and the Korean War.



They were mostly killed by the communists and the soldiers were on request from the South Vietnamese government.



IIRC, the only us soldiers in that area were in either honduras, Costa Rica or Panama. Nothin to do with united fruit.



No, they died to protect the freedoms of millions around the world from the expansive communist threat. Nowadays, they are at war with another totalitarian ideology like Nazism or Fascism or Communism. Nothing to do with corporations.



Butler was a crackpot. He thought that any war EVER was at the behest of some secret cabal. Had he been president, he'd have let the Japanese and the Germans butcher Eurasia.



no it doesn'. The US went into Iraq because of UN resolution violations. And Afghanistan/Pakistan because of those countries' links with Al-Qaeda.



maybe because it's actually true?



No, yours comes form death to america or conspiracy websites like thirdworldtraveler or globalresearch.ca

Oooooh, I see! The using actual history instead of the US has only done bad things history fallacy. Next you'll be telling us that wasn't responsible for 72 years of the Hundred years war!

[Hans]

As everyone knows everything that happens in the world is the fault of the CIA and America. As a matter of fact absolutely nothing happened before the creation of these two organizations...........;)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This thread is about Hugo Chavez, and the possibility of man caused earthquakes.

This is where your hatred and complete and utter disconnect from reality shines through. From a purely scientific viewpoint, believing in man-caused earthquakes is no different from believing in dragons and faerie dust. One might as well claim that a secret team of CIA black wizards caused the Haitian and Chilean earthquakes by impaling virgins upon their altar of darkness.

An earthquake as powerful as the one in Haiti involves the sudden movement of trillions of tons of rock. Their epicenters are typically miles underground and their effects are felt for hundreds of miles. The energy required to shake such a massive amount of rock is equivalent to the simultaneous detonation of millions of nuclear weapons. You could bury every nuclear device ever created in human history 8 miles down under Haiti and set them off all at once and that would only be a fraction of a percent of the energy that was released in the actual quake. And you would succeed in nothing more than knocking a few coffee cups off shelves in Port Au Prince.

~IF~ we were to assume that some secret weapon of the US government could do this and ~IF~ we were to assume that this was the most energy efficient device ever created, one that lost only one percent of its energy in the form of waste heat (by comparison, all coal, oil, gas and nuclear power plants lose 66% of their energy as waste heat) then the waste heat generated by firing this earthquake gun at the epicentre of the Haiti quake would be the equivalent of detonating the entire US nuclear arsenal at the secret facility where this uber-weapon is housed. The devastation from the earthquake guns waste heat alone would cause major climate change, a decades worth of global crop failures millions dead from it's immediate effects and millions more from resultant famines and no one would ever remember little old Haiti. About the only positive effect from this device for the conspirators behind it is the earthquake gun would effectively erase all evidence of its existence and whoever survived pulling the trigger would be free to concoct whatever cover story they wanted.

[angrysoba]

This is where your hatred and complete and utter disconnect from reality shines through. From a purely scientific viewpoint, believing in man-caused earthquakes is no different from believing in dragons and faerie dust. One might as well claim that a secret team of CIA black wizards caused the Haitian and Chilean earthquakes by impaling virgins upon their altar of darkness.

Yes, but he's saying that IF dragons and faerie dust exist then the US is the prime suspect to let the dragons loose on the idyllic utopia that Chavez constructed with his bare hands in Venezuala and the US would probably use the faerie dust to knock down the Twin Towers and Building Number Seven at freefall speed into their footprints so as to not to violate the laws of Fizziks and then they'd go and impale virgins upon their altar of darkness.

That's all he's saying and let's just ask questions about it, for Heaven's sake!!!1!

[NWO Sentryman]

Sword of Truth, i nommed you for TLA with that excellent post.

[Dandyone]

This is where your hatred and complete and utter disconnect from reality shines through. From a purely scientific viewpoint, believing in man-caused earthquakes is no different from believing in dragons and faerie dust. One might as well claim that a secret team of CIA black wizards caused the Haitian and Chilean earthquakes by impaling virgins upon their altar of darkness.

An earthquake as powerful as the one in Haiti involves the sudden movement of trillions of tons of rock. Their epicenters are typically miles underground and their effects are felt for hundreds of miles. The energy required to shake such a massive amount of rock is equivalent to the simultaneous detonation of millions of nuclear weapons. You could bury every nuclear device ever created in human history 8 miles down under Haiti and set them off all at once and that would only be a fraction of a percent of the energy that was released in the actual quake. And you would succeed in nothing more than knocking a few coffee cups off shelves in Port Au Prince.

~IF~ we were to assume that some secret weapon of the US government could do this and ~IF~ we were to assume that this was the most energy efficient device ever created, one that lost only one percent of its energy in the form of waste heat (by comparison, all coal, oil, gas and nuclear power plants lose 66% of their energy as waste heat) then the waste heat generated by firing this earthquake gun at the epicentre of the Haiti quake would be the equivalent of detonating the entire US nuclear arsenal at the secret facility where this uber-weapon is housed. The devastation from the earthquake guns waste heat alone would cause major climate change, a decades worth of global crop failures millions dead from it's immediate effects and millions more from resultant famines and no one would ever remember little old Haiti. About the only positive effect from this device for the conspirators behind it is the earthquake gun would effectively erase all evidence of its existence and whoever survived pulling the trigger would be free to concoct whatever cover story they wanted.

I never said that the US caused the Chile earthquake or any other earthquakes. I simply stated that Hugo Chavez has ample reason to distrust the US military and the CIA. As far as all your calculations regarding what it would take to cause an earthquake, the jury is definitely out.

There is a large body of data regarding so called 'scalar' technology that is not generally known to the public or admitted to by the US government. Several prominant Scientists are of the opinion that causing an earthquake using this technology is very plauseable, and they suspect that it has been done in the past. Here is a breif summary regarding the existence of such technology.

http://labvirus.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/a-brief-primer-on-scalar-weapon-technology/

There are links to a large body of research therein. It has NOTHING to do with "hatred or disconnect from reality". I simply don't let mainstream thought and propaganda define my reality as you obviously do. I suspect that "reality" is much different than what we were taught in our history classes or what is churned out by the major news/propaganda sources. You on the other hand seem to be in lock step with this so called reality that has been socially engineered into your psyche by the boys on Madison Ave and their masters at CIA which is nothing more than the US wing of disinfo for the international banking cabal. I wish you well in your future endeavors, and I'm sure you fit comfortably into your social and political habitat. As a wise man once said, "ignorance is bliss". Sleep tight.

http://labvirus.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/a-brief-primer-on-scalar-weapon-technology/

[angrysoba]

I simply don't let mainstream thought and propaganda define my reality as you obviously do. I suspect that "reality" is much different than what we were taught in our history classes or what is churned out by the major news/propaganda sources.

You on the other hand seem to be in lock step with this so called reality that has been socially engineered into your psyche by the boys on Madison Ave and their masters at CIA which is nothing more than the US wing of disinfo for the international banking cabal.

:jaw-dropp

[Dandyone]

Sword of Truth, i nommed you for TLA with that excellent post.

See that Sword_Of_Truth, you are a true hero to one of your comrades, NWO Sentryman, and have been nominated for a "major award"! Glory, glory, halleluja, your truth keeps marching on.

Here's to you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJSmmbmJCLw

[kookbreaker]

I never said that the US caused the Chile earthquake or any other earthquakes. I simply stated that Hugo Chavez has ample reason to distrust the US military and the CIA.


There was even far more reason to distrust the enemies of the US military and the CIA.


As far as all your calculations regarding what it would take to cause an earthquake, the jury is definitely out.


No. No it is not.


There is a large body of data regarding so called 'scalar' technology that is not generally known to the public or admitted to by the US government.


No, there is not. There are a bunch of cranks trying to claim there is, but it is simple untrue.


Several prominant Scientists are of the opinion that causing an earthquake using this technology is very plauseable, and they suspect that it has been done in the past. Here is a breif summary regarding the existence of such technology.

http://labvirus.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/a-brief-primer-on-scalar-weapon-technology/

There are links to a large body of research therein.


And it is junk. The people who wrote it have no sense of scale or energy. The pages are laughable and mostly written by cranks of the Cold War era.

[kookbreaker]

See that Sword_Of_Truth, you are a true hero to one of your comrades, NWO Sentryman, and have been nominated for a "major award"! Glory, glory, halleluja, your truth keeps marching on.

Here's to you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJSmmbmJCLw

It must suck to be wrong all the time. This kind of bitterness is all you have to cling to, isn't it?

[I Ratant]

See that Sword_Of_Truth, you are a true hero to one of your comrades, NWO Sentryman, and have been nominated for a "major award"! Glory, glory, halleluja, your truth keeps marching on.

Here's to you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJSmmbmJCLw
.
I love that!
Darren was never better in any role! :)

[Pardalis]

So did Chavez say this or not?

I hate Chavez as much as the next guy (unless the next guy is Childlike Empress of DC), but we should refrain from attributing him things he didn't say.

[kookbreaker]

So did Chavez say this or not?

I hate Chavez as much as the next guy (unless the next guy is Childlike Empress of DC), but we should refrain from attributing him things he didn't say.

There were rumors that he had said such things about the Haitian Earthquake, but i recall there were some problems with initial reports and translations. It would not surprise me as he tends to shoot his mouth off about non-threats to keep his populace cowed. Read his recent babbling about the Netherland's military.

[Dandyone]

There was even far more reason to distrust the enemies of the US military and the CIA.



No. No it is not.



No, there is not. There are a bunch of cranks trying to claim there is, but it is simple untrue.



And it is junk. The people who wrote it have no sense of scale or energy. The pages are laughable and mostly written by cranks of the Cold War era.

Correct!

Nikolai Tesla-Crank

Colonel Thomas Beardon-Crank

Wilhelm Reich-Crank

Believe me, if there were any truth to this silly woo, it would have been reported on the O'reilly Factor or Hardball. All else is woo.

How can I nominate you for a major award? Can you get me the major award nomination link. You are doing a swell job debunking all this woo.

[Dandyone]

So did Chavez say this or not?

I hate Chavez as much as the next guy (unless the next guy is Childlike Empress of DC), but we should refrain from attributing him things he didn't say.

I don't think he said it yet but I would not be surprised if he does at some point.

[Sledge]

Tesla hasn't claimed anything for a very long time, nor has Reich. I'm assuming you mean Col. Thomas BeardEn. Seems to be a pretty obvious crank.

[MontagK505]

I'm not sure I would call what Chavez does "scapegoating". He hates the US policy makers because he feels that they have illegally tried to usurp his power as the duly elected leader of his country. He also believes that there have been attempts to murder him that were CIA induced. Perhaps he has talked to family members of Salvador Allende or one of the several other elected former leaders in his region that have been murdered. What I am saying is that perhaps he is not just some paranoid nut case and that his fears are based on reality. That's another way YOU could look at it.

As far as earthquakes being caused by other than natural means, the jury is out on whether or not this could be carried out. However if it could, and there was any sort of political reason for causing a genocidal, destructive and disruptive earthquake, naturally, for many reasons, THE prime suspect from any intelligent South or Central American leaders perspective would be the US and the CIA.

What jury is that?

The enegry requirements to trigger even a modest earthquake is beyond the ability of any country. Plus how would you place the trigger device?

CT'ers are as stupid about geology as they are about politics.

[technoextreme]

Correct!

Nikolai Tesla-Crank

Colonel Thomas Beardon-Crank

Wilhelm Reich-Crank

Believe me, if there were any truth to this silly woo, it would have been reported on the O'reilly Factor or Hardball. All else is woo.

Tesla exhibited signs of mental illness. Beardon aparently believes that the government is withholding perpetual motion machines. And Einstein called Wilhelm Reich out on his antics. So yeah its pretty much all woo.

[kookbreaker]

Correct!

Nikolai Tesla-Crank


Tesla was a bit of nutter, but he did have some good inventions. Sadly, he also pursued some ideas that just were nonsense.


Colonel Thomas Beardon-Crank


Complete crank


Wilhelm Reich-Crank


Yup. Mr 'Orgone Energy' was a outright nutter.


Believe me, if there were any truth to this silly woo, it would have been reported on the O'reilly Factor or Hardball. All else is woo.


ooooh, did you get off beating up that strawman?


How can I nominate you for a major award? Can you get me the major award nomination link. You are doing a swell job debunking all this woo.

Such bitterness!

[Sledge]

Such bitterness!
I'd suggest adding some aspartame, but I don't think he'd go for it.

[I Ratant]

What jury is that?

The enegry requirements to trigger even a modest earthquake is beyond the ability of any country. Plus how would you place the trigger device?

CT'ers are as stupid about geology as they are about politics.
.
Especially in the times before we had access to anything of massive destructive power. (and still nothing in the quake category.)
ISTR Darwin went on a bit about quakes in Chile in "Voyage...."

[fess]

Several prominant Scientists are of the opinion that causing an earthquake using this technology is very plauseable, and they suspect that it has been done in the past. Here is a breif summary regarding the existence of such technology.

labvirus.wordpress.com/2010/0...on-technology/

There are links to a large body of research therein.

Oh my God, if we can come up with this technology, why is it that we can't come up with something that would clear the mind of a CTer who believes in this crap.

[Ron_Tomkins]

For crying out loud. Chavez is nuts. The US did not cause the Haiti earthquake.

Everyone knows it was God who punished them for not praying to him.

Geez! When are people gonna get their facts straight before talking?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I never said that the US caused the Chile earthquake or any other earthquakes.

You said that it was a possibility. Which is a staggeringly ignorant statement to make.

There is a large body of data regarding so called 'scalar' technology that is not generally known to the public or admitted to by the US government.

There is no such thing as scalar technology. If you're going to draw from science fiction for your theories, try using recent examples like "Babylon 5" rather than stuff that was written in the 1920s.

Several prominant Scientists are of the opinion that causing an earthquake using this technology is very plauseable,

Zero |= "several". You fail at 1st grade arithmetic.

http://labvirus.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/a-brief-primer-on-scalar-weapon-technology/

From the link you provided:

“Indeed, Soviet energetics weapons are now capable of destroying both our triad shield, our homeland, our armed forces in the field, and our population, quickly and efficiently. We have a new “gap” of monumental proportions: not a missile gap, not a submarine or bomber gap, and not even a particle beam or laser gap. We have a scalar electromagnetics or electrogravitation gap.”

“History does repeat itself. But this time it’s not we Americans who got the great new superweapon first.”

Have you bothered to watch the news in the last 20 years? The commies gave up in 1990. They had no superweapon with which to pwn us and they couldn't compete or keep up economically. So they threw in the towel.

Mind you... if you believe the crap on that page, you probably also believe Hitler and the nazis escaped into the hollow earth in 1945 and have spent the last 65 years building the master race on the moon.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm sure the people in Baghdad were singing this tune while thier ancient and beautiful city [...]


Baghdad, being founded in AD 762, doesn't exactly qualify as ancient. That label is generally given to anything prior to the fall of the Roman Empire (AD 476).

[Dandyone]

Tesla exhibited signs of mental illness. Beardon aparently believes that the government is withholding perpetual motion machines. And Einstein called Wilhelm Reich out on his antics. So yeah its pretty much all woo.

Tesla was a genius who was far ahead of his time, and is responsible for pioneering our electrical power grid. If Edison's idiotic ideas were implemented, there would be a huge power plant on every corner. If Tesla were allowed to continue his research unharrased we would have no ugly power lines and energy would have been clean and cheap a long time ago. What Berdon was talking about has nothing to do with "perputual motion machines", he is not a crank by any means. Reich was a genius on many levels, far surpassing both Freud and Einstein in their respective fields. He was systematically destroyed by the FDA and US courts and his books and laboratory works were confiscated and actually BURNED in the USA. What was done to Reich is one of the most despicable chapters in US history. Surpression of energy technology is a well documented FACT.

The good news is that soon all three of these men will be proven to be right and the existing laws of conservation of energy and thermodynamics will be exposed for the flat earth hoaxes that they are. I wonder why every highschool student knows about Edison, Freud, and Einstein but not Tesla, and Reich? Maybe even YOU could figure that out after you have read some of their works.

"Mans Right To Know" google video

29 minutes


But in your defense you spouted the party line chapter and verse. You assimilate well! Eddie Bernays would be proud.

[The Platypus]

Chavez is an idiot, and so is anyone that thinks that earthquakes are caused by the gov't.

Plate Tectonics is not hard to understand.

[Dandyone]

You said that it was a possibility. Which is a staggeringly ignorant statement to make.

There is no such thing as scalar technology. If you're going to draw from science fiction for your theories, try using recent examples like "Babylon 5" rather than stuff that was written in the 1920s.

Zero |= "several". You fail at 1st grade arithmetic.

From the link you provided:

“Indeed, Soviet energetics weapons are now capable of destroying both our triad shield, our homeland, our armed forces in the field, and our population, quickly and efficiently. We have a new “gap” of monumental proportions: not a missile gap, not a submarine or bomber gap, and not even a particle beam or laser gap. We have a scalar electromagnetics or electrogravitation gap.”

“History does repeat itself. But this time it’s not we Americans who got the great new superweapon first.”

Have you bothered to watch the news in the last 20 years? The commies gave up in 1990. They had no superweapon with which to pwn us and they couldn't compete or keep up economically. So they threw in the towel.

Mind you... if you believe the crap on that page, you probably also believe Hitler and the nazis escaped into the hollow earth in 1945 and have spent the last 65 years building the master race on the moon.

The "commies" didn't give up, neither did the Nazis, they just moved over here. Read about "Operation Paperclip". What do you think the neo-CON movement is? Podhoretz, Kristol, Medved, Perle, et al are all neo-Trotskyite-commies. Check out their backgrounds. The Nazis and the Bolcheviks were funded and controlled by the same entity.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Check this out...

:tr:
Meaning someone who disagrees with your position?


We're such horrible people that, when someone disagrees with us, we call them a troll. Dandyone, being such a perfect specimen of human rationality, is above such nastiness. When some disagrees with him, he shows respect and compassio--

I have my opinion and you have yours. Yours is obviously fed to you by the Madison Ave propagandists who created and control our media, and sell the flag waving battle glory crap that you apparently eat up with a spoon.


Oh, right. We're brainwashed. That's sooo much classier than suggesting someone might be a troll. :rolleyes:

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nevermind.

[kookbreaker]

Tesla was a genius who was far ahead of his time, and is responsible for pioneering our electrical power grid. If Edison's idiotic ideas were implemented, there would be a huge power plant on every corner.


That much is true, but it does not make the claims about his later works any less cranky.


If Tesla were allowed to continue his research unharrased we would have no ugly power lines and energy would have been clean and cheap a long time ago.


No. If his work continued we'd have an extremely wasteful transmission method, and the woowoo hypochondriacs would be crying about how the electricity transmissions in the air were killing them. Electricity generation and pollution were not Tesla's concern so it would not have been 'clean' nor 'cheap'.


What Berdon was talking about has nothing to do with "perputual motion machines", he is not a crank by any means.


Yes he is. He makes unsupported claims about fantasy weapons that never existed and if they had would have turned the balance of world power on its side. He's nuts, pure and simple.


Reich was a genius on many levels, far surpassing both Freud and Einstein in their respective fields.


No, he was a crank. He invented a magic energy for which there is zero evidence and started practicing medicine with it. That is a crank by any means.


He was systematically destroyed by the FDA and US courts and his books and laboratory works were confiscated and actually BURNED in the USA.


You forgot to mention that the reason the books were BURNED was because he wouldn't stop selling them as medical texts even after ordered to cease doing so!


What was done to Reich is one of the most despicable chapters in US history.


Not really. Reich was a crank who thought he could be above the law.


Surpression of energy technology is a well documented FACT.


For lesser definitions of 'documented FACT' only.


The good news is that soon all three of these men will be proven to be right and the existing laws of conservation of energy and thermodynamics will be exposed for the flat earth hoaxes that they are.


Any day now.....any day now....any day now....any day now.


I wonder why every highschool student knows about Edison, Freud, and Einstein but not Tesla, and Reich?


I learned about Tesla because he actually had some accomplishments. They glossed over much of his eccentricities, however.

I didn't learn about Reich because he was a fraud and a kook. We had a limited time in high school and didn't want to waste it on scammers and fakes like Reich.


Maybe even YOU could figure that out after you have read some of their works.

I already have. Beardon and Reich were utter nutcases.

[Stout]

So did Chavez say this or not?

I hate Chavez as much as the next guy (unless the next guy is Childlike Empress of DC), but we should refrain from attributing him things he didn't say.

I don't know...

I tried to figure this out yesterday and failed. Apparently.....the quote(s) came from some Venezuelan state owned TV station and were under some sort of opinion column. I'm unable to determine the reliability of the original source.

Then a major Spanish newspaper ran with the story and from there it got picked up by the English speaking MSM , like FOX.

I found a bunch of Socialist sites denying the quote, but that's about it

FWIW

[technoextreme]

Tesla was a genius who was far ahead of his time, and is responsible for pioneering our electrical power grid. If Edison's idiotic ideas were implemented, there would be a huge power plant on every corner.
Hahah.... You do realize that parts of power grid are DC current right????? The fact is that Edison's ideas weren't implement because it was a technological impossibility. You need these big huge switches that are very hard to build. Nowadays its still pretty dam annoying but you do run into scenarios where DC current is vastly superior in terms of power transmission despite its inconveniences. If you are going to bash a technology make sure you bash it correctly.
The good news is that soon all three of these men will be proven to be right and the existing laws of conservation of energy and thermodynamics will be exposed for the flat earth hoaxes that they are. I wonder why every highschool student knows about Edison, Freud, and Einstein but not Tesla, and Reich? Maybe even YOU could figure that out after you have read some of their works.
Wait a second wait a second wait a second. I find it really stupid that you are whinnying about Tesla being unknown when anyone with a modicum of physics background knows that he's one of the few people with a unit named after him.

[Childlike Empress]

I don't know...

I tried to figure this out yesterday and failed. Apparently.....the quote(s) came from some Venezuelan state owned TV station and were under some sort of opinion column. I'm unable to determine the reliability of the original source.

Then a major Spanish newspaper ran with the story and from there it got picked up by the English speaking MSM , like FOX.

I found a bunch of Socialist sites denying the quote, but that's about it

FWIW

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=165367

Officially debunked.

This thread we're in is about the prejudices of Alferd Packer.

[technoextreme]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=165367

Officially debunked.

This thread we're in is about the prejudices of Alferd Packer.
Nah... Its still a thread about how stupid people can be. Just not Chavez.

[Childlike Empress]

There's ample evidence of this in it, indeed.

[technoextreme]

There's ample evidence of this in it, indeed.
Or Alfred Parker mind you.

[scissorhands]

Correct!

Nikolai Tesla-Crank

Colonel Thomas Beardon-Crank

Wilhelm Reich-Crank

Believe me, if there were any truth to this silly woo, it would have been reported on the O'reilly Factor or Hardball. All else is woo.

How can I nominate you for a major award? Can you get me the major award nomination link. You are doing a swell job debunking all this woo.


Wilhelm Reich and his orgone accumulator inspired this classic track.

Not sure he accomplished anything with the actual device though.

dTO4yU_OIjQ

You know you are on solid scientific ground when psychedelic rock bands latch on to your ideas.

[I Ratant]

Baghdad, being founded in AD 762, doesn't exactly qualify as ancient. That label is generally given to anything prior to the fall of the Roman Empire (AD 476).
.
And the trashing was done by the Baghdadites... Some of us watched them do it on live tv.
The idiot stealing the door frame.. Great find, that.
Finding a place to put it his hovel... wonder how that worked out?
The trashings of the museums.. The curators there -expected- it once the government failed, and took some pains to hide some of the goodies.

[Stout]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=165367

Officially debunked.



Cheers Childlike Empress

Poster "Lucky" follows the same path I did in post #50 in that thread.

This thread we're in is about the prejudices of Alferd Packer

I must have missed those, I'm here for the conspiracy lunacy.

Now back to orgone energy...that's the stuff they're using to keep us safe from chemtrails isn't it?

[scissorhands]

Now back to orgone energy...that's the stuff they're using to keep us safe from chemtrails isn't it?

Lookee here.
Its an orgone energy chemtrail buster in action.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_99794b8b02015b185.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=19283)

[Travis]

The "commies" didn't give up, neither did the Nazis, they just moved over here. Read about "Operation Paperclip". What do you think the neo-CON movement is? Podhoretz, Kristol, Medved, Perle, et al are all neo-Trotskyite-commies. Check out their backgrounds. The Nazis and the Bolcheviks were funded and controlled by the same entity.

So, in addition to believing that aspartame kills, that free energy is suppressed and that there is something called "scalar technology earthquake weapons" you think that the neo-con movement is just communism in disguise?


I disagree with just about everything you say but this is turning out to be mighty entertaining.

[dtugg]

The good news is that soon all three of these men will be proven to be right and the existing laws of conservation of energy and thermodynamics will be exposed for the flat earth hoaxes that they are.

:dl: x infinity

[JoeyDonuts]

Note for OP:

Assassin's Creed 2 is not a historical documentary.

[aggle-rithm]

Although both George W. Bush and Colin Powell had said they would not send U.S. troops to Haiti until there was a political solution, U.S. troops were ordered to Haiti within one hour of President Aristide’s departure. Dick Cheney denied that the United States arrested or forcibly ousted President Aristide, saying that President Aristide, who had “worn out his welcome with the Haitian people,” had “left of his own free will.”

It would have been pretty difficult to forcibly oust President Aristide by sending troops in an hour after he was gone.

[aggle-rithm]

Tesla was a genius who was far ahead of his time, and is responsible for pioneering our electrical power grid. If Edison's idiotic ideas were implemented, there would be a huge power plant on every corner. If Tesla were allowed to continue his research unharrased we would have no ugly power lines and energy would have been clean and cheap a long time ago.

Tesla was free to continue his research all along. He simply had to use his own money, since his investors didn't want to pay for a system where everyone got electricity for free.

[aggle-rithm]

Wait a second wait a second wait a second. I find it really stupid that you are whinnying about Tesla being unknown when anyone with a modicum of physics background knows that he's one of the few people with a unit named after him.

Plus anyone who has played Command and Conquer knows about Tesla coils.

[Childlike Empress]

Tesla was free to continue his research all along. He simply had to use his own money, since his investors didn't want to pay for a system where everyone got electricity for free.


Are you saying that his technology worked but was denied support because of economical considerations?

[JoeyDonuts]

Are you saying that his technology worked but was denied support because of economical considerations?

I believe some of it worked.

Edison was brilliant, if also an unmitigated douchebag.

It's possible that Tesla's ideas regarding power distribution were actively opposed by the industrialists...and in order to get your technology adopted en masse, you have to be willing to play this game. Edison had no problem doing it, and was far more well-connected.

It's interesting to note that Tesla's DC is used as much, if not more than AC. Electronic circuitry needs the precision and stability of DC power, but AC is much better suited at certain other tasks.

Makes one wonder what would have happened had these two collaborated.

I bet I'd have my goddamned jetpack by now.

[jaydeehess]

IIRC Tesla's biggest contribution was the ac electric motor..
As far as Dc power transmission goes...
............DC transmission has a number of advantages and is being more widely used. For example, a DC line, requiring only 2 conductors instead of the 3 needed for an AC line, costs about two-thirds as much. Further, in DC transmission the effective voltage is equal to the peak voltage, while in AC transmission the peak voltage is 40% higher. Since radio interference increases with the peak voltage and decreases as the conductor size is increased, the DC system can carry a higher effective voltage than an AC line of equivalent size and still maintain an acceptable radio interference level. Thus, in some long lines carrying bulk power from remote generating sites, power is generated as AC, boosted to a high voltage, converted to DC for transmission, then reconverted to AC and transformed to a lower voltage for use. The cost of the converter stations at either end is offset by the lower cost of the line. An example of DC transmission is Manitoba's Nelson River line, which carries power from generating plants on the Nelson River to Winnipeg, almost 1000 km south. DC transmission is also advantageous for transmitting power through submarine cables, such as the line from the British Columbia mainland to Vancouver Island. ........
.............As of 1982, Manitoba Hydro's Nelson River system, which began service in 1972, was the largest high-voltage DC transmission system in the world. In 1965 Hydro-Québec inaugurated its 735 kV Manicouagan line, thus becoming the first utility to go above 500 kV AC for transmission. Since even higher voltages will probably be needed in the future, the utilities are supporting research into transmission at voltages in excess of 1000 kV.

[jaydeehess]

elecronic ccts simply cannot operate using AC. It has to be converted to dc and heavily filtered to get rid of the nasty 60Hz (and harmonics) 'hum'.

If your older TV set has a horizontal bar that rolls through the picture slowly THAT is 60 Hz hum on the DC. In more modern ccts it can render digital ccts utterly useless.

[Travis]

I am unaware of any law that states that someone is an indisputable expert on everything just because they invented some really cool stuff once.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Surpression of energy technology is a well documented FACT.

Aye, 'tis true. But this is less the result of a conspiracy than it is from just a general climate of fear amongst the public. But this is rapidly changing and nuclear energy is on the rise once again.

Unlike those who choose ton spew paranoia and bigotry over the internet, I am actively doing something about the fear and superstition that is holding back our energy future. I am writing this from a hotel room 250 miles from my home where tomorrow I am going to go before a gathering of school teachers on behalf of the Canadian Nuclear Society (http://www.cns-snc.ca/home) to tell them about our free gieger counters for schools program.

Demystifying and removing the superstitions from radiation and nuclear technology for the next generation will bring us closer to a future of clean, cheap and abundant energy.

the existing laws of conservation of energy and thermodynamics will be exposed for the flat earth hoaxes that they are.

This is just stark raving silly.

You sound less and less like a real person and more like a writer for The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512) with each post.

EDIT: Full disclosure, I myself am not a nuclear engineer or physicist... but I am staying at a Holiday Inn express! :D

[Alferd_Packer]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=165367

Officially debunked.

This thread we're in is about the prejudices of Alferd Packer.

Hey, Chavez blamed the Haiti earthquake on the U.S., it's a sure bet that he'll find a way to do the same here.

[Childlike Empress]

*sigh*

[Alferd_Packer]

Hmmmp!

;)

[technoextreme]

Tesla was free to continue his research all along. He simply had to use his own money, since his investors didn't want to pay for a system where everyone got electricity for free.
I doubt that is the case. Remember the Tesla coil was supposed to be the method of wireless transmission. The coil itself was lost loads of power as travel away from it. It doesn't mean wireless transmission won't work. It just means that the Tesla coil itself wasn't not the right way to do this.

[Pardalis]

Hey, Chavez blamed the Haiti earthquake on the U.S., it's a sure bet that he'll find a way to do the same here.

But let's wait until he does (if he does) before we say he did.

Otherwise we get confused. That's how false rumors start.

[BaaBaa]

Wilhelm Reich and his orgone accumulator inspired this classic track.

Not sure he accomplished anything with the actual device though.

dTO4yU_OIjQ

You know you are on solid scientific ground when psychedelic rock bands latch on to your ideas.

That track is the only valuable thing I actually got out of this thread...aside from being schooled on what a bunch of crafty rooskies those neo-cons are...

[jaydeehess]

But let's wait until he does (if he does) before we say he did.

Otherwise we get confused. That's how false rumors start.

I'm sorry, I've only recently looked at this thread.

So let me get this straight, did he or did he not blame the Chilean earthquake on the USA?

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's interesting to note that Tesla's DC is used as much, if not more than AC. Electronic circuitry needs the precision and stability of DC power, but AC is much better suited at certain other tasks.
I have no idea where this thread has gone, but just as a point of fact, didn't Tesla invent AC? Or at least didn't he develop the basis for modern AC technology?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm sorry, I've only recently looked at this thread.

So let me get this straight, did he or did he not blame the Chilean earthquake on the USA?

That's what I asked a long time ago. It seems that the title of this thread is a falsehood.

[aggle-rithm]

I have no idea where this thread has gone, but just as a point of fact, didn't Tesla invent AC? Or at least didn't he develop the basis for modern AC technology?

He thought outside the box and came up with some really revolutionary ideas, AC among them. Unfortunately, for some reason there is a tendency to attribute magic powers to him that were suppressed by the NWO or whatever.

[Pardalis]

I'm sorry, I've only recently looked at this thread.

So let me get this straight, did he or did he not blame the Chilean earthquake on the USA?

No. And there doesn't seem to be evidence that he said that about the Haïtian earthquake either.

[jaydeehess]

So obviously the NWO is planting these false rumours about Chavez in order to discredit him. Therefore Chavez is correct about HAARP causing the earthquakes otherwise the NWO would not be so eager to discredit him by making it appear that he said that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,the USA caused the earthquakes....................


what!!! what!!! what!!!:eek:

[jaydeehess]

I have no idea where this thread has gone, but just as a point of fact, didn't Tesla invent AC? Or at least didn't he develop the basis for modern AC technology?

Yes, he did. DC was not so much 'invented' as it was discovered and harnessed.
Tesla did work with DC as well of course. DC is much more 'useful' than is AC. AC is simply used for long distance high current transmission.

With AC one can compensate for the impedances introduced by a long line. With DC that impedance is strictly resistive and cannot be changed as it is directly a function of the line length and current, and nothing else (well temperature too but that can't really be controlled).

Converting DC to AC is expensive and lossy BUT in 1000KM long transmission lines the fact that DC requires only two wires makes it cost effective over the 3 lines for 3 phase AC transmission.

[WildCat]

I would not characterize what Chavez does "scapegoating".
Why? Do you think the US caused the Haitian earthquake?

As far as earthquakes being caused by other than natural means, the jury is out on whether or not this is possible.
A sure sign their meds need to be adjusted. Because it isn't possible, at least with current technology.

However if it is,
It's not.

and there was any sort of political reason for causing a genocidal, destructive and disruptive earthquake, naturally, for many reasons, THE prime suspect from any intelligent South or Central American leaders perspective would be the US and the CIA."
Because none of their problems are homegrown...

[Ron_Tomkins]

OK guys, help me out here: Why can't I find one single video on youtube of Chavez saying this? All I found was a video of a news report (from some channel I don't even know) where a woman claims Chavez said such thing, then they put a footage of Chavez but you can't hear what he's saying.

[Travis]

To the best of my knowledge Chavez never claimed the USA caused either the Haiti or Chilean earthquakes. He did claim the USA was using the Haiti quake as a pretext to invade that country in order to use it as a springboard to attack Cuba, or him, or something.....

[Alferd_Packer]

To the best of my knowledge Chavez never claimed the USA caused either the Haiti or Chilean earthquakes. He did claim the USA was using the Haiti quake as a pretext to invade that country in order to use it as a springboard to attack Cuba, or him, or something.....

OK, maybe he didn't say it himself, but his state run news agency did.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583588,00.html

[technoextreme]

Yes, he did. DC was not so much 'invented' as it was discovered and harnessed.
Tesla did work with DC as well of course. DC is much more 'useful' than is AC. AC is simply used for long distance high current transmission.

With AC one can compensate for the impedances introduced by a long line. With DC that impedance is strictly resistive and cannot be changed as it is directly a function of the line length and current, and nothing else (well temperature too but that can't really be controlled).

Converting DC to AC is expensive and lossy BUT in 1000KM long transmission lines the fact that DC requires only two wires makes it cost effective over the 3 lines for 3 phase AC transmission.
Nope. DC is generally less lossy than AC. The only reason why you don't see it all over the place is that working with it on a large scale is a pain in the ass.

[Childlike Empress]

OK, maybe he didn't say it himself, but his state run news agency did.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583588,00.html


Why didn't you read the thread i've provided, and you quoted, instead of insulting us with a link to the propaganda mill, Packer?

[Nova Land]

To the best of my knowledge Chavez never claimed the USA caused either the Haiti or Chilean earthquakes. He did claim the USA was using the Haiti quake as a pretext to invade that country in order to use it as a springboard to attack Cuba, or him, or something.....


One right, one wrong.

You're right that Chavez did not claim the US caused the Haiti earthquakes. That was discussed in a thread over in Social Issues, "Obama causes earthquakes..." (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=165367), back in January. A surprising number of people demonstrated their gullibility in that one.

Kuko 4000 posted a link in that thread to a good explanation of what happened (http://www.borev.net/2010/01/venezuela_rocked_by_72_magnitu_1.html):

The news is reporting on something maddeningly crazy that Hugo Chavez has said, only when you conduct your own independent investigation involving sophisticated journalistic techniques (Google) you find out that it is all, in fact, complete ********. Here's how it worked this time, pretty much exactly like it works every other time:

1. Some Venezuelan blogger wrote a weird story about the U.S. causing the Haiti earthquake with some sort of earthquake weapon.

2. A website operated by a Venezuelan state TV channel included a link to the post in their roundup of Haiti coverage from all over the country.

3. Some right-wing newspaper in Spain published a story about the link, referring to it as a Venezuelan state "press release."

4. Fox News reports the Spanish story, saying the earthquake weapon claim comes from "Hugo Chavez' mouthpiece."

5. Randomly, Vladimir Putin's English language teevee channel Russia Today claims that Chavez himself made the statement. This video report is picked up all over the *********** place, Drudge sirens!!

6. Right wing news "analysts" opine about what level of threat this represents to the United States.


You're wrong about Chavez claiming the US invaded Haiti as part of a plan to invade Cuba or Venezuela.

Or, if he did say any such thing, I did not find it when this claim got brought up in that previous earthquake thread. There was a Reuters' item (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60G2DW20100117) about Chavez's invasion remarks which I found and read. It did not give a complete transcript of Chavez's remarks, but did summarize them and quote from them. From that, it did not sound like he said anything like you claim he did. What he said sounded more like a policy criticism of how the US was handling relief efforts: that he thought the US was sending more soldiers than needed for the situation and should instead be sending more humanitarian aid.

"I read that 3,000 soldiers are arriving, Marines armed as if they were going to war. There is not a shortage of guns there, my God. Doctors, medicine, fuel, field hospitals, that's what the United States should send," Chavez said on his weekly television show. "They are occupying Haiti undercover."

"On top of that, you don't see them in the streets. Are they picking up bodies? ... Are they looking for the injured? You don't see them. I haven't seen them. Where are they?"

Chavez promised to send as much gasoline as Haiti needs for electricity generation and transport.

A perennial foe of U.S. "imperialism," Chavez said he did not wish to diminish the humanitarian effort made by the United States and was only questioning the need for so many troops.


If you can find a transcript of Chavez's remarks in which he talks about the US using the Haiti earthquake as a step towards invading either Cuba or Venezuela, I would be interested in seeing it. But until someone does provide text of such remarks, this looks to me like a case of people who are predisposed to dislike Chavez being a bit gullible at believing bad things said about him.

I don't know enough about Chavez to like or dislike him. But I do dislike people on a skeptical site attributing remarks to someone without bothering to look up what the person actually said. How are we going to convince others, such as believers in the paranormal, to look up the facts of a matter before spouting off, if we are not willing to do that ourselves?

[Alferd_Packer]

Why didn't you read the thread i've provided, and you quoted, instead of insulting us with a link to the propaganda mill, Packer?

Whatever.

Sheesh.

who stepped in your potato salad?

[Nova Land]

OK, maybe he didn't say it himself, but his state run news agency did.


Did they? Then perhaps you can provide details about this.

Here's a fairly basic detail you can start with. Who in his state run news agency wrote or said this? From there, we can determine what position that person holds, what it was they said, how and where it appeared, and other relevant details.

If you're right, then providing those details will significantly strengthen your claim.

[Alferd_Packer]

Did they? Then perhaps you can provide details about this.

Here's a fairly basic detail you can start with. Who in his state run news agency wrote or said this? From there, we can determine what position that person holds, what it was they said, how and where it appeared, and other relevant details.

If you're right, then providing those details will significantly strengthen your claim.

forget it already. Sheesh

[Travis]

If you can find a transcript of Chavez's remarks in which he talks about the US using the Haiti earthquake as a step towards invading either Cuba or Venezuela, I would be interested in seeing it. But until someone does provide text of such remarks, this looks to me like a case of people who are predisposed to dislike Chavez being a bit gullible at believing bad things said about him.

I don't know enough about Chavez to like or dislike him. But I do dislike people on a skeptical site attributing remarks to someone without bothering to look up what the person actually said. How are we going to convince others, such as believers in the paranormal, to look up the facts of a matter before spouting off, if we are not willing to do that ourselves?

Why question the use of troops unless you think they are being used for nefarious purposes?

[JoeTheJuggler]

To the best of my knowledge Chavez never claimed the USA caused either the Haiti or Chilean earthquakes. He did claim the USA was using the Haiti quake as a pretext to invade that country in order to use it as a springboard to attack Cuba, or him, or something.....

Thank you.

And shame on you, Alferd Packer, for repeating misinformation.

[angrysoba]

I'm sorry, I've only recently looked at this thread.

So let me get this straight, did he or did he not blame the Chilean earthquake on the USA?

No, he didn't say it.

[beachnut]

Tesla was a genius who was far ahead of his time, and is responsible for pioneering our electrical power grid. If Edison's idiotic ideas were implemented, there would be a huge power plant on every corner. If Tesla were allowed to continue his research unharrased we would have no ugly power lines and energy would have been clean and cheap a long time ago. What Berdon was talking about has nothing to do with "perputual motion machines", he is not a crank by any means. Reich was a genius on many levels, far surpassing both Freud and Einstein in their respective fields. He was systematically destroyed by the FDA and US courts and his books and laboratory works were confiscated and actually BURNED in the USA. What was done to Reich is one of the most despicable chapters in US history. Surpression of energy technology is a well documented FACT.

The good news is that soon all three of these men will be proven to be right and the existing laws of conservation of energy and thermodynamics will be exposed for the flat earth hoaxes that they are. I wonder why every highschool student knows about Edison, Freud, and Einstein but not Tesla, and Reich? Maybe even YOU could figure that out after you have read some of their works.

"Mans Right To Know" google video

29 minutes


But in your defense you spouted the party line chapter and verse. You assimilate well! Eddie Bernays would be proud.

wow, Chevez was right! When will he say it?

[Travis]

I'm still wondering how the laws of conservation of energy and thermodynamics support the idea of a flat earth.

[Alferd_Packer]

Thank you.

And shame on you, Alferd Packer, for repeating misinformation.

I can only plead information overload.

Mea culpa.

[Nova Land]

Why question the use of troops unless you think they are being used for nefarious purposes?


For one reason: because you think humanitarian aid can more effectively be accomplished by sending fewer troops and more relief workers.

You asserted that Chavez had said the US sent troops to Haiti as a prelude to an invasion of Cuba or Venezuela. When challenged on that, and asked to provide any examples of him saying that, you seem to be falling back on saying, well, no, he didn't say it in so many words, but what else could he have meant? That is the same type of argument made by many conspiracy theorists to justify their theories when they can't produce any actual evidence.

Again: if you think Chavez said that the US invaded Haiti as a prelude to invading Cuba or Venezuela, please provide the quote.

(Helpful hint: the word Cuba or Venezuela should appear somewhere in the quote.)

[WildCat]

I don't know enough about Chavez to like or dislike him.
Really? It's not like he just burst into the news yesterday.

[WildCat]

If you can find a transcript of Chavez's remarks in which he talks about the US using the Haiti earthquake as a step towards invading either Cuba or Venezuela, I would be interested in seeing it. But until someone does provide text of such remarks, this looks to me like a case of people who are predisposed to dislike Chavez being a bit gullible at believing bad things said about him.
So you admit that Chavez has accused the US of invading and occupying Haiti?

[Pardalis]

I can only plead information overload.

Mea culpa.


There's enough real genuine kooky quotes from Chavez going around, we don't need to invent more. ;)

[Nova Land]

So you admit that Chavez has accused the US of invading and occupying Haiti?


The US sent military forces into Haiti, without a formal request for the US to do so from the Haiti government. That is technically invading. While the troops remained there, they were technically occupying. It's not what we usually mean when we talk about invading or occupying a country, but it is technically correct. The words invasion and occupation were used in this way by a number of right-wing critics of Obama, as well as by Chavez.

I think this kind of political rhetoric is unhelpful. I wish more people would try to avoid overblown rhetoric. But this kind of rhetoric has become a staple of modern political discourse. It is employed on a daily basis by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, numerous elected officials -- and, sadly, too many posters on forums such as this one.

Using overblown and emotionally-charged words, however, is not the same as making wild claims. There is nothing I can see in the quoted portions of Chavez's text which says that the US was invading Haiti in order to take it over -- let alone that he was invading Haiti in order to take over either Cuba or Venezuela.

If you are able to see that in a statement by Chavez, please quote the actual text so that the rest of us can see if you are correct.

[Nova Land]

Really? It's not like he just burst into the news yesterday.


Yes, really.

1. I do not subscribe to a daily newspaper.

2. The only tv station I'm able to receive since tv went digital is PBS, and I find the news there barely worth watching. During warm weather I do occasionally tune in the News Hour, especially if there is a story I'm interested in the news that day and I think they might do a segment on it. But I'm usually disappointed when I do, by the low content-to-time ratio. During cold weather I don't bother, since the tv is in an unheated room and I don't think it's worth starting a fire in the wood stove there just to watch 5 or 10 minutes of poor television.

3. The nearest library to me -- a 12 mile bike ride away -- is a 1-room library with a limited collection of books. Once every month or two I am able to get into Cookeville or Knoxville, which have good libraries, and look up things of interest to me. I have limited library time on these trips, and an almost unlimited list of things I am curious about. Hugo Chavez has not been high on that list.

4. Therefore the main source of my information-to-date on Venezuela and Chavez is what I see online, such as in at this forum. And given the very low quality of the information which has been posted about Chavez in the threads here, I really don't feel informed enough to form much of an opinion.

[WildCat]

The US sent military forces into Haiti, without a formal request for the US to do so from the Haiti government. That is technically invading. While the troops remained there, they were technically occupying.
Evidence?

Yes, really.

1. I do not subscribe to a daily newspaper.

2. The only tv station I'm able to receive since tv went digital is PBS, and I find the news there barely worth watching. During warm weather I do occasionally tune in the News Hour, especially if there is a story I'm interested in the news that day and I think they might do a segment on it. But I'm usually disappointed when I do, by the low content-to-time ratio. During cold weather I don't bother, since the tv is in an unheated room and I don't think it's worth starting a fire in the wood stove there just to watch 5 or 10 minutes of poor television.

3. The nearest library to me -- a 12 mile bike ride away -- is a 1-room library with a limited collection of books. Once every month or two I am able to get into Cookeville or Knoxville, which have good libraries, and look up things of interest to me. I have limited library time on these trips, and an almost unlimited list of things I am curious about. Hugo Chavez has not been high on that list.

4. Therefore the main source of my information-to-date on Venezuela and Chavez is what I see online, such as in at this forum. And given the very low quality of the information which has been posted about Chavez in the threads here, I really don't feel informed enough to form much of an opinion.
Cut off from the entire world, except for your internet connection!

So you do have full access to news, you just choose not to.

And have you heard about this thing called "google"?

[Childlike Empress]

Nova Land, i recommend the following thread where DC and myself have put considerable efforts into educating the politics forum about what is going on in Venezuela. The title is also based on a statement of Chavez as reported by US media - this time not made up, but taken out of context and overblown:

Send in the tanks! (Chavez) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128583)

Still a lot of noise, but as informative as it gets here.

[Pardalis]

The US sent military forces into Haiti, without a formal request for the US to do so from the Haiti government. That is technically invading. While the troops remained there, they were technically occupying.

100% false. The president Préval and the Haïtian ambassador Joseph asked the US directly for their help.

Also, it's not just the US who sent military forces to Haïti, also the Canadian forces and the MINUSTAH.

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minustah/

And you're off-topic.

[Nova Land]

100% false. The president Préval and the Haïtian ambassador Joseph asked the US directly for their help.


Did they ask for the US to send help, or did they ask the US to send military forces?

Quite a number of people other than Chavez think Haiti did not request the US to send military troops. Here, for example, is a conversation between Hugh Hewitt and Christopher Hitchens (http://hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=0da2789b-b22b-4b82-8e15-98fe462c5a0d):

Hewitt: We’ve invaded Haiti. We dropped troops on the presidential palace yesterday. The difference between Bush invading Iraq, and Obama invading Haiti, is that Bush had Congressional authorization. I’m glad that President Obama has done this, but don’t you find it odd that the left is all quiet as to this extraordinary exercise in presidential prerogative unguided by, unauthorized by simply unilateral on the part of the President?

Hitchens: Yes, not seeking any international body, and as far as we know, though it’s very hard to be sure, no permission, not that I think their constitution would allow them permission, from a Haitian government, either.


Now, it's quite possible that Hewitt and Hitchens are wrong and that military intervention was requested by the Haitian government. My point is simply that what Chavez actually said was something a number of other people were also saying and was not what people in this thread such as Wildcat and Travis were alleging he said.

And you're off-topic.


The topic I'm I'm trying to address is: Did Chavez actually say the things which several people in this thread -- Wildcat, Travis, and Alferd Packerd, among others -- claim he did? Alferd had agreed that Chavez did not; Wildcat and Travis continue to evade the question.

First it was alleged that Chavez had said the US caused the Haitian earthquake. I think (hope!) people now realize that claim was false. Then Travis introduced a new claim, that Chavez had said the US invaded Haiti as a prelude to invading Cuba or Venezuela. I'm still waiting to see someone quote a passage in which Chavez actually said that.

I agree that questions which Travis and Wildcat have introduced since then (and which I replied to) are digressions. The key question is still whether anyone can produce a quote from Chavez in which he said either that the US caused the Haiti earthquake or in which he said that the US sent troops to Haiti as part of a plan to invade Cuba and/or Venezuela.

[Pardalis]

And again you successfully ignored the military presence of Canada and the MINUSTAH.

There's already multiple threads about Haïti. I suggest you don't derail this one.

[Nova Land]

And again you successfully ignored the military presence of Canada and the MINUSTAH.


Yes, because that is irrelevant to the topic. The original topic had to do with the claim -- now generally admitted to be false -- that Chavez or his government had said the Haiti earthquake was caused by the US. Then Travis, while admitting the falsity of the original claim, added a new claim: that Chavez had said the US invaded Haiti as a prelude to invading Cuba and/or Venezuela.

Chavez did label the US action as an invasion -- as did number of others. None of them appear to be using the word invasion in the sense of going into a country in order to seize power. Whether the way they are using the word invasion is suitable or not is a digression. Likewise, whether other countries joined in the action is a digression. The question is whether Chavez said what Travis claimed he did. So far, from the failure of anyone to provide text in which Chavez said it, it would appear he didn't.

There's already multiple threads about Haïti. I suggest you don't derail this one.


I'm sorry, but I don't understand how my repeatedly asking people who are making claims about what Chavez allegedly said to provide the text of these alleged statements is derailing.

[dudalb]

Evidence?


Cut off from the entire world, except for your internet connection!

So you do have full access to news, you just choose not to.

And have you heard about this thing called "google"?

Serioulsy, almost all daily papers have online editions for free. There ain't no excuse for relying on bad sources because your main connection with the outside world is the Internet.

[dudalb]

Did they ask for the US to send help, or did they ask the US to send military forces?





This wins some kind of "quibbling over meaningless technicalities" award.

[Nova Land]

Seriously, almost all daily papers have online editions for free. There ain't no excuse for relying on bad sources because your main connection with the outside world is the Internet.


You miss the point. Wildcat expressed surprise that I am do not consider myself informed enough about Chavez to hold an opinion on him, since he has been in the news a lot. I explained that I do not follow the news.

As for relying on bad sources, I don't. If I don't have time to look into a subject, I try not to form opinions about it.

In the case of Chavez, I don't have the time to look into him. There are too many other things of more interest and importance to me which I need to be doing. Therefore, while I have vague impressions of Chavez from what I've heard as background noise, I have formed no strong opinion about him or his government. I am neither a defender nor a detractor.

As a skeptic, however, I am a detractor of those who confidently attribute "quotes" to people without bothering to look up for themselves what the person in question actually said.

In this thread, and in one over in Politics (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=165367) a short while back, a number of posters were making snide comments about Chavez based on their belief that Chavez had said the US caused the Haiti earthquake. It now seems clear that belief was unfounded. Similarly, Travis in this thread claimed that Chavez had said the US invaded Haiti as a prelude to invading Cuba and/or Venezuela -- a belief which appears similarly unfounded, although Travis and several others seem to be clinging to it.

These are the people who are relying on bad sources, and the people you should be addressing with your criticism.

It is elementary skepticism that, if you are going to attribute words to Person A, you should first look up what Person A actually said. So far no one has provided a transcript of any statement by Chavez in which he said either (a) that the US caused the Haiti earthquake or (b) that the US presence in Haiti is a step toward invading Cuba and/or Nicaragua. That indicates that we have a fair number of people posting here who still don't understand elementary skepticism.

[Travis]

For one reason: because you think humanitarian aid can more effectively be accomplished by sending fewer troops and more relief workers.

Except troops are relief workers which makes that entire argument worse than stupid.

You asserted that Chavez had said the US sent troops to Haiti as a prelude to an invasion of Cuba or Venezuela.

You conveniently left out the most important part of my post "He did claim the USA was using the Haiti quake as a pretext to invade that country in order to use it as a springboard to attack Cuba, or him, or something." Indicating that not even I can look into the crazy mind of Chavez and discern what ratball of illlogic is being kicked around at that moment. Maybe he thinks it's a jumping off point for an invasion of Cuba or Venezuela or maybe he thinks they're setting up a worldwide plague of clowns. Who knows what that nutbag is thinking about when he dispenses his vile brain droppings?

[DC]

LOL

and the self declared skpetics here will belive it without even doubting one second, and a few hours later they get once again debunked.

skeptics lol

[Rogue1stclass]

But...

Didn't the US already take over Haiti when it backed the criminal rebellion and kidnapped Aristide back in 04?

[LightinDarkness]

I absolutely adore how Chavez propgandists on JREF think its somehow not nuts to simply claim the US is using the Haiti earthquake as a pretext to "invade" a country which holds no material foreign interest for the government. The Chavez cheerleaders were quick to point out that Chavez didn't claim the USA caused the earthquake, he only made a slightly less kooky claim without evidence about the USA trying to invade a foreign country.

Because that is a completely normal and sane thing to say, and there is plenty of evidence..er..what, we don't have any evidence for that one either? Quick, JREF Chavez propagandists, spin it again!

[DC]

I absolutely adore how Chavez propgandists on JREF think its somehow not nuts to simply claim the US is using the Haiti earthquake as a pretext to "invade" a country which holds no material foreign interest for the government.

The Chavez cheerleaders were quick to point out that Chavez didn't claim the USA caused the earthquake, he only made a slightly less kooky claim without evidence about the USA trying to invade a foreign country.

LOL propagandists :)

but if he did indeed claim this, i do disagree with him on that point.

It still is funny to see many people beliving everything that goes against Chavez.

[LightinDarkness]

It is hilarious to watch people flail about and do everything they can to defend Chavez.

Quick! Spin it (again)! Damage control!

[Nova Land]

This wins some kind of "quibbling over meaningless technicalities" award.


Quite possibly. You should take it up with Hewitt and Hitchens; they are the ones who appear to me to be making this distinction in order to criticize Obama's action in sending troops to Haiti. Read the portion of their on-air conversation which I linked to and quoted.

The point I am trying to make is quite simple. I am not saying the US invaded Haiti. I am saying that a number of people who referred to the US action in Haiti as an invasion did were using overblown rhetoric when they did so rather than making conspiratorial claims.

This is the kind of thing Rush Limbaugh, as one example, does on a daily basis. He uses words with loaded emotional connotations. When he said in regards to health care reform, "It's Hiroshima time, folks. It's Nagasaki", he wasn't literally saying there would be atomic bombs dropped on US cities if Obama's health care reform is passed.

I am not in agreement with Hewitt or Hitchens in describing Obama's relief efforts an an invasion. They argue that, because Obama did not get approval from Congress before sending US troops over to Haiti, it was an invasion. If you wish to criticize them for this, be my guest. But the criticism should be that they are using inflated rhetoric in behalf of a stupid point -- not that they are promoting conspiracy theories.

Similarly, Chavez used the word invasion in his criticism of Obama's relief efforts. His criticism of Obama's actions is different. It is not the lack of Congressional approval which bothers him; it is that the US sent more military equipment than the situation called for and fewer relief supplies.

I think that's a more reasonable criticism of the relief effort than the one Hewitt and Hitchens are making. Whether Chavez is justified in making that criticism or not, I don't know; I am not familiar enough with the logistics of relief efforts in general, and this one in particular, to say. But whether it's a sensible or foolish criticism is beside the point.

Chavez used overblown rhetoric to make his point. That's something which it is quite fair to criticize him for. But the criticism should be that he used Rush Limbaugh-like overblown rhetoric -- not that he made Orly Taitz-like or Alex Jones-like conspiracy claims.

Travis and others have tried to seize upon the word invasion in Chavez's remarks and distort it into a claim that Chavez believed the US had invaded Haiti as part of a plan to invade Cuba and/or Venezuela. But, as Travis' continued refusal to produce such a quote demonstrates, that was a dishonest misrepresentation of what Chavez said. That is the point I am trying to make -- and the point which you, Wildcat and Pardalis seem to be missing.

[Nova Land]

Except troops are relief workers which makes that entire argument worse than stupid.


It may or may not be a stupid argument. I'll leave that up to people who are familiar with relief efforts.

But you said Chavez's criticism of US relief efforts could only be because he thought these efforts had a nefarious purpose. Whether his belief that US efforts were less effective than they could have been is wise or stupid, it is the reason he gave -- and it is quite different from the one you misrepresented him as giving.

It is one thing for you to mistakenly misrepresent what Chavez said. Alferd Packerd also misrepresented what Chavez said -- but when this was demonstrated to him, he accepted he had been mistaken and apologized. That is how a skeptic should behave. To continue to defend a dishonest point in the fashion you are doing is not.

If you honestly believe Chavez said what you have attributed to him, please find a transcript of the remark and share it with the rest of us. If he did not say what you attributed to him, please be honest enough to state that.

You conveniently left out the most important part of my post "He did claim the USA was using the Haiti quake as a pretext to invade that country in order to use it as a springboard to attack Cuba, or him, or something."


No. That won't do. The words or something tacked onto a purported quote are not an all-purpose excuse card for distorting or lying about what someone else has said. What the words or something mean in that context is or something similar to that.

You claimed that Chavez said that "the USA was using the Haiti quake as a pretext to invade that country in order to use it as a springboard to attack Cuba, or him, or something....." The or something indicates you don't remember this exactly but it is something like what you have represented. For instance, he may not have used the exact word pretext. He may not have used the exact word invasion. He may have referred to a country other than Cuba or Venezuela. But for your representation of his remarks to be a fair representation of his remarks, he needs to have said the US was planning something like an invasion of some country such as Cuba or Venezuela. Chavez's actual statement says nothing of the kind.

Here. Let me demonstrate for you the limits of an or something clause. Suppose someone started a thread saying that you have said you enjoy molesting goats. And suppose I were to defend you by saying that this is not true, you have not said that, but that you have said that you rarely saw girls in your college library because you preferred spending time raping your sister or something.

I mean, that's true, isn't it? You did say in a post that you rarely saw girls in your college library. And if I didn't get the part about you liking to rape your sister exactly right, well, I qualified that with the or something, so no problem, right?

No. The or something would not excuse my posting scurrilous misrepresentations of what you have said. And it doesn't excuse you posting scurrilous misrepresentations of what Chavez has said.


Indicating that not even I can look into the crazy mind of Chavez and discern what ratball of illlogic is being kicked around at that moment. Maybe he thinks it's a jumping off point for an invasion of Cuba or Venezuela or maybe he thinks they're setting up a worldwide plague of clowns. Who knows what that nutbag is thinking about when he dispenses his vile brain droppings?


Interesting. You get caught misrepresenting what Chavez has said, and instead of admitting you were wrong and apologizing for spreading misinformation, as Alferd did, you choose instead to blame your mistake on Chavez.

Maybe he does think it's a jumping point for an invasion. Maybe you do think raping your sister is a lot of fun. As you say, who knows? But until or unless he or you say any such things, it is dishonest to claim that he or you have.

[DC]

It is hilarious to watch people flail about and do everything they can to defend Chavez.

Quick! Spin it (again)! Damage control!

spin? thats the thing comming from the anti chavez crowd :)

[LightinDarkness]

spin? thats the thing comming from the anti chavez crowd :)

I love it when trolls come out and identify themselves like this so I can put you on ignore without having to read more than a few posts.

Dismissed! Back under the bridge you go. Don't forget to turn into Chavez State TV for your latest talking points. Quick! Get in that last response to me to make yourself feel like a big boy! :) Its important that you have some small victories, after all!

[DC]

I love it when trolls come out and identify themselves like this so I can put you on ignore without having to read more than a few posts.

Dismissed! Back under the bridge you go. Don't forget to turn into Chavez State TV for your latest talking points.

LOL.
I have no problem with Venezuelan State run TV stations, Here the State run TV stations bring the best and most accurate news, wich often can't be claimed about the Private TV Stations.

your reaction tells alot about you :)

[varwoche]

No. That won't do. The words or something tacked onto a purported quote are not an all-purpose excuse card... How it is that people who (I assume) self-identify as skeptics are unable to grasp such a fundamental concept is beyond my understanding.

This thread is on page 5 and there's still no quote from Chavez (who I have a very low opinion of btw) on record. [Add: Other than your quote that contradicts the Chavez detractors]

Or something? Unimpressive in the extreme Travis.

[Travis]

Well, I'm soooooo sorry that some people are choosing to overlook the insanity of Chavez claiming that the US is invading Haiti by clinging onto your misinterpretation of the speculation about motives surrounding the supposed "invasion."

How about this: I'll apologize for inadvertently giving the impression that Chavez thinks the US is invading Haiti for the specific purpose of invading Cuba/Venezuela if you'll all admit that Chavez is a sniveling, idiotic and poor excuse of a human being for making the completely stupid, insane, unconscionable, inexcusable and vile claim that the US is invading Haiti at all!!!???!!!

[Bill Thompson]

Here is a conspiracy theory for you. The US military has built an earthquake machine and Haiti and Chili were test cases. First of all, the decision was made that in the long run it would help Haiti by bringing international attention to their ongoing poverty and strife. After Haiti, they wanted to try a second test in the southern hemisphere and it was thought that Chili would be well prepared for an earthquake and besides, they had a tsunami alert system that would warn people one hour ahead of time.

Now that they have had two successful tests, the next earthquake will happen in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the USA will be there to give aid to win hearts and minds and make the Taliban's campaign fruitless and null and void.

Humm...
Looks like Chavez beat me to it.
But while I am joking, he is serious, I guess. If there is such a thing as him being serious.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=168466 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=168466)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/21/chavez_us_weapon_test_caused_haiti_earthquake.html

The latest Hex The Dex show (http://www.gelsana.com/hexthedex.html) discusses that if you accuse someone of playing God, you should not piss them off by accusing them of playing God. This might be another reason why south america was targeted. it was a warning shot over the bow of Chavez' country.

[aggle-rithm]

Here is a conspiracy theory for you. The US military has built an earthquake machine and Haiti and Chili were test cases. First of all, the decision was made that in the long run it would help Haiti by bringing international attention to their ongoing poverty and strife. After Haiti, they wanted to try a second test in the southern hemisphere and it was thought that Chili would be well prepared for an earthquake and besides, they had a tsunami alert system that would warn people one hour ahead of time.

Now that they have had two successful tests, the next earthquake will happen in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the USA will be there to give aid to win hearts and minds and make the Taliban's campaign fruitless and null and void.

Humm...
Looks like Chavez beat me to it.
But while I am joking, he is serious, I guess. If there is such a thing as him being serious.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=168466 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=168466)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/21/chavez_us_weapon_test_caused_haiti_earthquake.html

The latest Hex The Dex show (http://www.gelsana.com/hexthedex.html) discusses that if you accuse someone of playing God, you should not piss them off by accusing them of playing God. This might be another reason why south america was targeted. it was a warning shot over the bow of Chavez' country.

When you say "Chili" do you mean Chile, the country, or Chili's, the restaurant chain?

[Nova Land]

... the insanity of Chavez claiming that the US is invading Haiti ...


Do you believe that Hugh Hewitt is insane for saying that the US invaded Haiti? Do you believe that Christopher Hitchens is insane for agreeing with Hewitt that the US invaded Haiti?

How about the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/10/world/at-the-dmz-another-invasion-tourists.html?pagewanted=1), which claimed in a news story that there was an invasion of North Korea in April 1996?

How about the Guardian (http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/10/world/at-the-dmz-another-invasion-tourists.html?pagewanted=1), which claimed that Botswana was invaded in November 2009?

The word invasion has numerous meanings. One of these -- a military invasion to take over a country -- is the one which you keep trying incorrectly to ascribe to Chavez's statement. A reading of Chavez's actual words, which I quoted and linked to, makes it reasonably clear that is not the meaning he was using.

If you can find a quote from Chavez in which he says he believes the US sent troops to Haiti following the earthquake for the purpose of overthrowing the government there, I will be glad to join in you denouncing that as a foolish statement. So far you have steadfastly avoided providing such text.

How about this: I'll apologize for inadvertently giving the impression that Chavez thinks the US is invading Haiti for the specific purpose of invading Cuba/Venezuela if you'll all admit that Chavez is a sniveling, idiotic and poor excuse of a human being for making the completely stupid, insane, unconscionable, inexcusable and vile claim that the US is invading Haiti at all!!!???!!!


That's silly. If you misrepresented what Chavez said then you should retract that misrepresentation regardless of what other people do; if you did not misrepresent Chavez's statement, then you should stand by what you said (and produce the text in which he says what you claim he said, so that others can see you were correct).

You seem now to be beginning to admit that you did misrepresent Chavez. If so, it would be good to say it clearly. There are still people such as Bill Thompson who appear to be clinging to the notion that Chavez said the US caused the earthquake, even though that has been shown several times to be false. Unless you and others who pass on false statements make a positive effort to retract the misinformation you have spread, there are going to continue to be Bill Thompsons who pick these falsehoods up and keep on recycling them.

So please: quit weaseling. Quit trying to blame Chavez for your error. Quit trying to shift the blame to those of us who have pointed your error. Instead, just state simply and clearly that Chavez did not say the US invaded Haiti as a pretext for invading Cuba or Venezuela, that you have never read any statement to that effect by Chavez, and that your previous claim that he did make such a statement was simply an error on your part.

As for condemning Chavez, if you will produce a statement by Chavez in which he claims that the US sent military troops to Haiti following the earthquake as part of a plot to take over that country, I will be glad to denounce that statement as foolish and wrong and I will be glad to criticize Chavez as someone who makes foolish wrong-headed statements. I have seen no such statement from Chavez. Certainly you have not provided one, at least not in this thread.

As it stands, all that Chavez seems guilty of in this case is using overblown rhetoric. In declaring that Chavez is a "sniveling, idiotic and poor excuse of a human being" because Chavez said that the US should have sent fewer armed marines and more doctors, medicine, fuel, and field hospitals , you are committing the same offense.

I'm quite willing to criticize you both for the offense of using overblown rhetoric, but I think that calling you a sniveling, idiotic, poor excuse for a human being is excessive.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Here is a conspiracy theory for you. The US military has built an earthquake machine and Haiti and Chili were test cases. First of all, the decision was made that in the long run it would help Haiti by bringing international attention to their ongoing poverty and strife. After Haiti, they wanted to try a second test in the southern hemisphere and it was thought that Chili would be well prepared for an earthquake and besides, they had a tsunami alert system that would warn people one hour ahead of time.

Now that they have had two successful tests, the next earthquake will happen in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the USA will be there to give aid to win hearts and minds and make the Taliban's campaign fruitless and null and void.

Humm...
Looks like Chavez beat me to it.
But while I am joking, he is serious, I guess. If there is such a thing as him being serious.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=168466 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=168466)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/21/chavez_us_weapon_test_caused_haiti_earthquake.html

The latest Hex The Dex show (http://www.gelsana.com/hexthedex.html) discusses that if you accuse someone of playing God, you should not piss them off by accusing them of playing God. This might be another reason why south america was targeted. it was a warning shot over the bow of Chavez' country.


You forgot about Indonesia back in 2004. ;)

[JoeTheJuggler]

I can only plead information overload.

Mea culpa.

Ego te absolvo. :)

[Childlike Empress]

:)


Seconded.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Putting all of this in context, Hugo Chavez has outed himself in the past as a 9/11 truther.

“The hypothesis is not absurd ... that those towers could have been dynamited,” Chavez said in a speech to supporters. “A building never collapses like that, unless it’s with an implosion.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13401534/)

Chavez nay not have accused the US causing the Hatian earthquake, but it wouldn't be unusual if he did.

[Nova Land]

Here is a conspiracy theory for you. The US military has built an earthquake machine and Haiti and Chili were test cases...

Humm...
Looks like Chavez beat me to it.
But while I am joking, he is serious, I guess. If there is such a thing as him being serious.


You say you are joking. Unfortunately it is not clear what you are joking about.

If you are poking fun at the people who foolishly believed third-hand reports that Chavez had claimed the US used an earthquake weapon, then you need to work on writing more clearly. If, on the other hand, you are poking fun at Chavez in the mistaken belief that he said something about an earthquake weapon, then it would appear the joke is on you.

In your post, you link to the OP of this very thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=168466 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=168466)


Yes, an allusion is made in the OP of this thread to Chavez having said that. But as the thread progressed it became clear that Chavez had not. Then defenders of the false quote shifted ground and said it wasn't said by Chavez but was said by his government. That was shown to be false as well. (Or, to be more precise, no one to date in this or elsewhere has been able to find any record of Chavez or his government saying such a thing.)

Alferd Packerd, the person who started this thread, did the honorable thing: he agreed the claim was incorrect, and accepted responsibility for having posted it based on poor information. Perhaps you have not had time to read that far in the thread yet.

I can only plead information overload.

Mea culpa.


As for the Russia Today video at the RealClearPolitics link you posted --

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/21/chavez_us_weapon_test_caused_haiti_earthquake.html


-- this has been discredited as well. If you look at it, you will see that at no point is Chavez shown actually saying any such thing. Russia Today was apparently simply repeating a claim they had heard but not bothered to verify. (Much like many of the people posting in this thread.)

If you believe that Chavez actually did say that the US caused the Haiti earthquake, please tell us when he said it, where he said it, and provide a transcript of his remarks. If you are correct that he made such a statement, that should be easy to do. But so far, no one making this claim has been able to do so.

[Nova Land]

Putting all of this in context, Hugo Chavez has outed himself in the past as a 9/11 truther.

“The hypothesis is not absurd ... that those towers could have been dynamited,” Chavez said in a speech to supporters. “A building never collapses like that, unless it’s with an implosion.” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13401534/)


Thank you for providing an actual quote from Chavez. The Chavez statement quoted at the site you link to is foolish, offensive, and highly worthy of criticism.

I see that Chavez appears to employ a rather familiar political weasel tactic in this statement. He doesn't outright say that the US government was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Instead, he says that the 9/11 conspiracy claims are worth investigating and can't be dismissed out of hand. That allows him to try to have it both ways. When he talks to people who believe the US government was involved, he can emphasize the parts where he says he finds it plausible the US government was involved; when he talks to people who don't, he can emphasize that he was just talking about possibilities: I didn't say the US government was involved, I just said we can't dismiss that possibility...

On a scale of offensiveness, that puts this statement by Chavez on a par with similarly offensive conspiracy-related statements by Lou Dobbs (http://mediamatters.org/research/200907170039), Glenn Beck (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/12701/), Alan Keyes (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-birth-cer.html), Sarah Palin (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2009/12/03/palin_birther/index.html), Michelle Bachman (http://minnesotaindependent.com/39995/bachmann-birther-birth-certificate-obama), and J. D. Hayworth (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/jd-hayworth-president-should-come-forward). While there are people who have made crazier and more offensive statements -- Orly Taitz, Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, to name a few -- the company that statement puts Chavez in is crazy and offensive enough.

Thank you for putting a legitimate Chavez quotation on the table. After 5 pages spent primarily by people putting forward fake quotes, it's good to be able to focus on something real.

Chavez may not have accused the US causing the Haitian earthquake, but it wouldn't be unusual if he did.


In that case, it would not have been unreasonable for people to post something such as: I have heard people claiming Chavez said the US caused the Haiti earthquake. I have not been able to verify this myself yet, but based on things he has said in the past it sounds to me like something he could have said. That would have been an honest statement of their knowledge and belief.

But that's not what people here did. Some went right ahead claiming he had said it, even though they hadn't checked it out. Others joined in on making snide comments as if this were a known fact, even though they hadn't checked it out either. That's irresponsible, dishonest, and as offensive in its own way as Chavez's statement about 9/11.

The logic you are using to justify believing Chavez could have said the US caused the earthquake is the same logic Chavez is using to justify believing the US government could have been involved in 9/11. He says past bad behavior by the US government means we can't rule out US government involvement in 9/11. You say past bad behavior by Chavez means we can't rule out his bad behavior in this instance. It is wrong when Chavez uses that logic to justify false claims, and it's wrong when you use it to do the same.

The question Chavez should have addressed is whether there is any significant evidence that the US government was involved in 9/11. There isn't. Therefore it was irresponsible and offensive for him to make inflammatory statements implying there is.

The question anti-Chavez people should have addressed is whether there is any significant evidence that Chavez said the US caused the Haiti earthquake. There isn't. Therefore it was irresponsible and offensive for people to dishonestly pass it off as if he had said it.

[Grizzly Bear]

The question anti-Chavez people should have addressed is whether there is any significant evidence that Chavez said the US caused the Haiti earthquake. There isn't. Therefore it was irresponsible and offensive for people to dishonestly pass it off as if he had said it.

I don't know about causing earthquakes in Haiti but he had quite a mouth full for it (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/01/18/2010-01-18_hugo_chavez.html):

“I read that 3,000 soldiers are arriving, Marines armed as if they were going to war,” Chavez said. “They are occupying Haiti undercover.”

And there's plenty on it (http://www.google.com/search?q=They+are+occupying+Haiti+undercover&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) showing he's joined the ranks of the Pat Robertson kook.

Paranoid heads of state don't make me any more comfortable than I am with someone who egregiously infringes on freedom of speech through financial, legal and, extra legal means. In this case he happens to be both. Blaming the earthquake on HAARP just raises his kook factor another notch.

[Nova Land]

I don't know about causing earthquakes in Haiti but he had quite a mouth full for it (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/01/18/2010-01-18_hugo_chavez.html):

“I read that 3,000 soldiers are arriving, Marines armed as if they were going to war,” Chavez said. “They are occupying Haiti undercover.”


You're a bit late. Go back to page 4; I already quoted that -- and at greater length than you did:

"I read that 3,000 soldiers are arriving, Marines armed as if they were going to war. There is not a shortage of guns there, my God. Doctors, medicine, fuel, field hospitals, that's what the United States should send," Chavez said on his weekly television show. "They are occupying Haiti undercover."

"On top of that, you don't see them in the streets. Are they picking up bodies? ... Are they looking for the injured? You don't see them. I haven't seen them. Where are they?"

Chavez promised to send as much gasoline as Haiti needs for electricity generation and transport.

A perennial foe of U.S. "imperialism," Chavez said he did not wish to diminish the humanitarian effort made by the United States and was only questioning the need for so many troops.


Read in context, the point Chavez is making is a criticism of the way the US relief effort was done -- that the US, according to Chavez, sent in more military equipment and armed marines than were needed and fewer doctors, medical supplies, and relief equipment than was needed.

In order to make this point, he used overblown rhetoric of the kind which pundits like Rush Limbaugh uses daily (such as when he said FDR wanted to castrate people) and which many US politicians use regularly (such as the use of the phrase "the nuclear option", to describe a plan to get around the senate rules).

Limbaugh didn't literally mean that there was a plot during FDR's administration to castrate people. The Republicans in 2005 didn't literally mean they intended to explode a nuclear device in Washington DC if they didn't get their way. They simply wanted to make sure their remarks got attention, by using attention-grabbing language.

Same with Chavez here. You can excise out a portion of his remarks to make it sound as if he's claiming the US is invading Haiti in order to seize power, just as you can excise out portions of Limbaugh's daily monologues to make it sound as if he's making all sorts of nutty claims. But while many of Limbaugh's claims and opinions are arguable, and may be wrong, they are not Orly Taitz-level or Alex Jones-level wacky. Similarly, while Chavez's criticism of the way Obama carried out the relief effort is arguable, and may be wrong, it too is not Orly Taitz-level wacky.

Too many people in this country (and, as Chavez illustrates, in other countries as well) have become accustomed to using colorful, hyperbolic language to make their points. Sadly, you'll find it being done by a lot of posters at this forum.

It is, I believe, generally a bad practice, one which makes rational discussion more difficult. It is something which we, as skeptics, should be aware of, should try to avoid in our own speech, and should try to encourage others not to engage in. If you wish to criticize Chavez for engaging in this practice, I'll be happy to join you. But criticize him (and Limbaugh, and others) for the offense they are actually committing: using overblown language. Don't take their words out of context to attempt to criticize them for a completely different offense.

And there's plenty on it (http://www.google.com/search?q=They+are+occupying+Haiti+undercover&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) showing he's joined the ranks of the Pat Robertson kook.


No. The 9/11 quote which Sword_of_Truth provided is on a par with some of the conspiracy-related things Pat Robertson has said in his book The New World Order; this quote, criticizing the way Obama carried out the Haiti relief effort, is not.

(Nor is Chavez's 9/11 quote in the same category of wackiness or outrageousness as Pat Robertson's more extreme statements, such as Robertson's claim that 9/11 was god's vengeance on the US for the actions of feminists and gays, or his claim the Haiti earthquake was god's vengeance on Haiti for making a pact with the devil.)

Paranoid heads of state don't make me any more comfortable than I am with someone who egregiously infringes on freedom of speech through financial, legal and, extra legal means. In this case he happens to be both. Blaming the earthquake on HAARP just raises his kook factor another notch.


Except that Chavez never blamed the earthquake on HAARP. Your claim that he did puts you into the same kook category in which you are trying to place Chavez.

People have said numerous times that there are enough legitimate quotes to criticize Chavez on that there's no need to keep trying to criticize him on made-up things. You would do better to spend time finding and verifying legitimate quotes to share rather than passing on spurious ones.

[McHrozni]

[quote]"I read that 3,000 soldiers are arriving, Marines armed as if they were going to war. There is not a shortage of guns there, my God. Doctors, medicine, fuel, field hospitals, that's what the United States should send," Chavez said on his weekly television show. "They are occupying Haiti undercover."

"On top of that, you don't see them in the streets. Are they picking up bodies? ... Are they looking for the injured? You don't see them. I haven't seen them. Where are they?"

How do you explain the bolded sentence, then? Yes, he is criticizing the US relief effort as having too much firepower and not enough humanitarian assistance, but you can't say this is the only - or even the main point of his criticism.

Secondly, you're making it sound as if Hugo has never demonized the US before.
This (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/09/20/chavez.un/index.html) is (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/12/venezuela.usa) patently (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35193-2005Mar14.html) false (http://en.rian.ru/world/20091221/157311389.html).

McHrozni

[DC]

Chavez is demonizing the USA, and the USA is demonizing Chavez.

[McHrozni]

Chavez is demonizing the USA, and the USA is demonizing Chavez.

He's doing it himself, and way better too: crime (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1065253/Caracas-Venezuela-tops-list-murder-capitals-world.html), economy (http://www.eluniversal.com/2010/03/03/en_eco_art_venezuela-recession_03A3521851.shtml),refusal to accept responsibility or fix mistakes (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/world/43930-chavez-blames-venezuela-recession-on-opec-cut), media freedom (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/26/venezuela.protests/index.html), are just some examples.

McHrozni

[DC]

He's doing it himself, and way better too: crime (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1065253/Caracas-Venezuela-tops-list-murder-capitals-world.html), economy (http://www.eluniversal.com/2010/03/03/en_eco_art_venezuela-recession_03A3521851.shtml),refusal to accept responsibility or fix mistakes (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/world/43930-chavez-blames-venezuela-recession-on-opec-cut), media freedom (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/26/venezuela.protests/index.html), are just some examples.

McHrozni

Now you are demonizing him. you provide a very onsided picture.
you show the poblems but you bring up none of the Bolivarian revolutions achievments, like the Bolivarian Missions.

the West doesnt want to hear about the good things they did, we only want to hear what he did wrong.

you have already fallen for the demonization of chavez.

[Grizzly Bear]

Now you are demonizing him. you provide a very onsided picture.<snip>
I'm already aware that some of the anti-chavez media gave free air time to his opponents, blacked out coverage of the countercoup, among other things. If Chavez had any legitimate case to penalize the networks, then that would have been it, and he failed to act on it, instead favoring more unconstitutional justifications for not renewing the network licenses.

Freedom of speech doesn't discriminate between biased news coverage and legitimate airing. This is why here in the US fools like Alex Jones can ram out schizophrenic stories on chem trails and 9/11 conspiracies. They should feel fortunate to be here, because god forbid if they had to bash Chavez. He'll take any fervent critic of his off the air.


you have already fallen for the demonization of chavez.

His failures in reducing crime rates, homicide rates, and his train wreck of a public service job, along side his infringment of free speech there are indisputable. What you call demonizing is supported by the very decisions he makes when he does politics.


No. The 9/11 quote which Sword_of_Truth provided is on a par with some of the conspiracy-related things Pat Robertson has said in his book The New World Order; this quote, criticizing the way Obama carried out the Haiti relief effort, is not.
He makes it pretty clear he believes the aid efforts are being carried out not only wrong, but that the use of more military personnel equates to something of a military occupation to take over the country.

Nothing new coming from him there:
Link (http://www.homelandsecurityus.net/countries/venezuela/venezuelas%20warnings%20to%20the%20united%20states .htm#Venezuela%20Warns%20Against%20US%20Invasion)
He obviously hasn't seen the figures from Stalin, nor can he get the paranoid idea out of his head that he's facing an invasion.

Link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZuAU4StKAQY)
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez told the military and civil militias today to prepare for war as a deterrent to a U.S.-led attack after American troops gained access to military bases in neighboring Colombia.

Chavez said a recently signed agreement that gives American troops access to seven Colombian bases is a direct threat to his oil-exporting country. Colombia has handed over its sovereignty to the U.S. with the deal, he said.

“Generals of the armed forces, the best way to avoid a war is to prepare for one,” Chavez said in comments on state television during his weekly “Alo Presidente” program. “Colombia handed over their country and is now another state of the union. Don’t make the mistake of attacking: Venezuela is willing to do anything.”

This is pretty much like North Korea's sentiment that the US want to invade their country when there's absolutely nothing provoking one, not even self-interest n the part of the US.

Except that Chavez never blamed the earthquake on HAARP. Your claim that he did puts you into the same kook category in which you are trying to place Chavez.

I've long considered Chavez paranoid; the HAARP claim whether true or not makes no difference to what I see in his personality as a power hungry politician. He's said and done plenty of other things that show it and having him blame the Haiti earthquake on tectonic weaponry isn't needed for it.

But makes for some entertaining conspiracy drabble whenever he says this crazy stuff.

[DC]

I'm already aware that some of the anti-chavez media gave free air time to his opponents, blacked out coverage of the countercoup, among other things. If Chavez had any legitimate case to penalize the networks, then that would have been it, and he failed to act on it, instead favoring more unconstitutional justifications for not renewing the network licenses.

Freedom of speech doesn't discriminate between biased news coverage and legitimate airing. This is why here in the US fools like Alex Jones can ram out schizophrenic stories on chem trails and 9/11 conspiracies. They should feel fortunate to be here, because god forbid if they had to bash Chavez. He'll take any fervent critic of his off the air.




His failures in reducing crime rates, homicide rates, and his train wreck of a public service job, along side his infringment of free speech there are indisputable. What you call demonizing is supported by the very decisions he makes when he does politics.



He makes it pretty clear he believes the aid efforts are being carried out not only wrong, but that the use of more military personnel equates to something of a military occupation to take over the country.

Nothing new coming from him there:
Link (http://www.homelandsecurityus.net/countries/venezuela/venezuelas%20warnings%20to%20the%20united%20states .htm#Venezuela%20Warns%20Against%20US%20Invasion)
He obviously hasn't seen the figures from Stalin, nor can he get the paranoid idea out of his head that he's facing an invasion.

Link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZuAU4StKAQY)


This is pretty much like North Korea's sentiment that the US want to invade their country when there's absolutely nothing provoking one, not even self-interest n the part of the US.



I've long considered Chavez paranoid; the HAARP claim whether true or not makes no difference to what I see in his personality as a power hungry politician. He's said and done plenty of other things that show it and having him blame the Haiti earthquake on tectonic weaponry isn't needed for it.

But makes for some entertaining conspiracy drabble whenever he says this crazy stuff.

Most of Venezuelas Media is Privately owned and do critisize Chavez / the Bolivarian revolution.
Btw what was unconstitutional about not renewing RCTV licence?
what law is forciing the government to renew licences?

afterr the RCTV case Chavez was demonized and people in the west start to belive there is no freedom of speech, and only state controlled media, which is not the case.

while they do have troubles with crime, they are working on it.
but strange we hear nothing about the Bolivarian Missions, that provide food, education, healthcare etc to the Barios, the poorest of the poor people in Venezuela. Why are you ignoring the achievements?

One has to wonder why the Venezuelan people elected him, reelected him and confirmed him in his office.

strange the people outside Venezuela seem to be the ones that know best what president the Venezuelans dont need. While the Stupid Venezuelans keep voting for this demon that failed in everything.
I wonder why, sure now we will hear some conspiracy theorys of stolen elections :)

[varwoche]

Well, I'm soooooo sorry that some people are choosing to overlook the insanity of Chavez claiming that the US is invading Haiti by clinging onto your misinterpretation of the speculation about motives surrounding the supposed "invasion." Actual skeptics who are following this thread should recognize this for what it is ... evasive gibberish that is. The way you cling to your debunked statement is worthy of a stundy nomination.

It's easy to recognize when it's other people who are full of it. Not so easy to see in oneself.

How about this: I'll apologize for inadvertently giving the impression that Chavez thinks the US is invading Haiti for the specific purpose of invading Cuba/Venezuela if you'll... Since when is being truthful something that requires a negotiation?

Here is a conspiracy theory for you... Redefining the outer reaches of cluelessness.

the HAARP claim whether true or not You would know the claim was false if you were paying even the slightest attention to the thread. It's only the topic of the thread after all.

But no. That's because, similar to the birthers and truthers and creationists most of us think so poorly of, true belief trumps the facts.

In this case, it's a belief I'm more or less in alignment with. However just because I think that Chavez is a tyrant and a thug, this doesn't give me license to glibly echo things I know (or should know) to be false.

[Grizzly Bear]

In this case, it's a belief I'm more or less in alignment with. However just because I think that Chavez is a tyrant and a thug, this doesn't give me license to glibly echo things I know (or should know) to be false.
For one I never stated I believed in the quote, I said it made no difference to me what I think of him whether he said it or not. The idea that criticism should be directed at things people say, rather than what they aren't is perfectly valid, But next time read my posts. :)

ETA: I did look up the claim earlier, but I haven't seen anything showing he made that claim directly. It seems to be some media output in that country.


What was unconstitutional about not renewing RCTV licence?
afterr the RCTV case Chavez was demonized and people in the west start to belive there is no freedom of speech, and only state controlled media, which is not the case.

Expiration results from the refusal to renew the licenses. Chavez and his administration isn't shy about resorting to financial, legal, and extralegal means to weaken any media
outlet it sees as a threat. The criticism he received for doing this to the RCTV station is actually pretty well founded because by definition his justification for refusing to renew their licenses is their criticism of his policies and refusal to air his speeches. From a legal perspective he can do it, but the constitutionality of it is highly debatable.

while they do have troubles with crime, they are working on it.
but strange we hear nothing about the Bolivarian Missions, that provide food, education, healthcare etc to the Barios, the poorest of the poor people in Venezuela. Why are you ignoring the achievements?
It's true that this is going on, but on the other hand other areas of public service are horribly neglected; police corruption, high crime rates, and bureaucratic failure to address them and other similar problems ongoing.

I wonder why, sure now we will hear some conspiracy theorys of stolen elections :)
Once you've had a little exposure to politics you come find out that some people really do support the darnedest things. The people voice an opinion, opinions aren't always right.

[McHrozni]

Now you are demonizing him. you provide a very onsided picture.
you show the poblems but you bring up none of the Bolivarian revolutions achievments, like the Bolivarian Missions.

the West doesnt want to hear about the good things they did, we only want to hear what he did wrong.

you have already fallen for the demonization of chavez.

I wasn't trying to paint a fair and balanced picture of Chavez. I only pointed out that he is indeed scapegoating the West in general and USA in particular for his own political gain, and ignoring major problems at home.

I really don't see why pointing out he isn't an equivalent of an offspring between Cruella de Ville and Sauron would be absolutely necessary in doing so. Some of his policies are bound to produce some positive results.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

One has to wonder why the Venezuelan people elected him, reelected him and confirmed him in his office.

Geez. That's (http://blog.taragana.com/business/2010/02/24/venezuelan-court-annuls-opposition-mayors-election-appoints-chavez-backer-to-fill-in-35069/) why (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9y3_CYTeR67AXf1TqkcwdFXLMWA) silly (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&refer=news&sid=aIJoRYicD_k4). Demagogy (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-02-21-chavez-power-grid-claims_N.htm), propaganda (http://www.newsweek.com/id/219360), cheating (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6798).

McHrozni

[dudalb]

The spectacle of the Elected Dictator is a very common one.

[Bill Thompson]

When you say "Chili" do you mean Chile, the country, or Chili's, the restaurant chain?

I mean the canned stuff you consume or the stuff you put on hot dogs at 7/11. As a strange coincidence, there is a guy named Hugo Chavez who runs both the food as well as the country Chile. Sorry for the confusion.

[Travis]

Actual skeptics who are following this thread should recognize this for what it is ... evasive gibberish that is. The way you cling to your debunked statement is worthy of a stundy nomination.

It's easy to recognize when it's other people who are full of it. Not so easy to see in oneself.

Since when is being truthful something that requires a negotiation?


That you choose to read what I wrote wrongly is not something I will apologize for. I suppose we are done here.

[McHrozni]

while they do have troubles with crime, they are working on it.

That must be why crime has been rising steadily since 2000, with major growth since 2007. Oh wait, you probably meant they're trying to decrease the crime rate?
Never mind, then.

I find it very curious how your only excuse can be "they're working on it", while you ignore the very serious criticisms Hugo is facing.

McHrozni

[Bill Thompson]

When you say "Chili" do you mean Chile, the country, or Chili's, the restaurant chain?

When it is not to be taken seriously, proof-reading might be bypassed.

I said I was not serious in the post.

[Bill Thompson]

You forgot about Indonesia back in 2004. ;)

I am reminded of people who claim these things are acts of God. I knew of some islamic fanatics on a forum that is nwt shut down who said Katrina and other natural disasters were Allah's act. This was before some earthquake in Han, Iran. When I told him that Allah was displeased with simple muslim folk, he did not respond.

[DC]

For one I never stated I believed in the quote, I said it made no difference to me what I think of him whether he said it or not. The idea that criticism should be directed at things people say, rather than what they aren't is perfectly valid, But next time read my posts. :)

ETA: I did look up the claim earlier, but I haven't seen anything showing he made that claim directly. It seems to be some media output in that country.



Expiration results from the refusal to renew the licenses. Chavez and his administration isn't shy about resorting to financial, legal, and extralegal means to weaken any media
outlet it sees as a threat. The criticism he received for doing this to the RCTV station is actually pretty well founded because by definition his justification for refusing to renew their licenses is their criticism of his policies and refusal to air his speeches. From a legal perspective he can do it, but the constitutionality of it is highly debatable.


It's true that this is going on, but on the other hand other areas of public service are horribly neglected; police corruption, high crime rates, and bureaucratic failure to address them and other similar problems ongoing.


Once you've had a little exposure to politics you come find out that some people really do support the darnedest things. The people voice an opinion, opinions aren't always right.


oh what part of the constitution was violated according to you?

[DC]

Geez. That's (http://blog.taragana.com/business/2010/02/24/venezuelan-court-annuls-opposition-mayors-election-appoints-chavez-backer-to-fill-in-35069/) why (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9y3_CYTeR67AXf1TqkcwdFXLMWA) silly (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&refer=news&sid=aIJoRYicD_k4). Demagogy (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-02-21-chavez-power-grid-claims_N.htm), propaganda (http://www.newsweek.com/id/219360), cheating (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6798).

McHrozni

atleast its the right sction of the forum for your conspiracy theories

[DC]

That must be why crime has been rising steadily since 2000, with major growth since 2007. Oh wait, you probably meant they're trying to decrease the crime rate?
Never mind, then.

I find it very curious how your only excuse can be "they're working on it", while you ignore the very serious criticisms Hugo is facing.

McHrozni

what should he do about it?
increasing police forces and listening to you blaming him for building a policestate?

[DC]

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

[Grizzly Bear]

oh what part of the constitution was violated according to you?

Gee, that's really hard...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
Hmmmm....
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

[DC]

Gee, that's really hard...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press

RCTV is still free to air whatever they want. they just have not a licence anymore to use public terrestrial waves. they have to go via cable.

and a last time , what part of the VENEZUELAN constitution was violated by not renewing the licence?

[DC]

Hmmmm....
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

and now go true all the newsreport about president Álvaro Uribe Vélez and compare it to Chavez reports.

when a Capitalist like Uribe has problems in his country the western press doenst mind, but when its a Socialist like Chavez, oh then its all his fault and he should be removed from office because he cannot solve the problem.....

[McHrozni]

atleast its the right sction of the forum for your conspiracy theories

Care to explain to me why this would be a conspiracy theory?

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

what should he do about it?
increasing police forces and listening to you blaming him for building a policestate?

Venezuela has plentiful policemen. The problem is the corruption is pervasive, and Chavez is completely unable or unwilling to deal with that. He should care a lot less for loyalty of his police force, and a lot more about them doing their job.

It would undoubtedly cost him his office within a few years, but if he is concerned about the well-being of Venezuela, it's the only thing to do.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

RCTV is still free to air whatever they want. they just have not a licence anymore to use public terrestrial waves. they have to go via cable.

With which they can only capture a fraction of the former audience. Chavez didn't silence them, that is true, but he did gag them. Tell me, do you think gagging a TV station benefits the freedom of speech and media freedom in a country, or does it limit it?

From Wikipedia:
In the wake of the loss of its terrestrial licence, RCTV announced plans to continue broadcasting its main news program 'El Observador' on popular internet video host YouTube during 2007.[90] YouTube viewership of 'El Observador' was initially significant but within a week of the end of RCTV's television transmission had fallen to less than 5,000 viewers a day.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

and now go true all the newsreport about president Álvaro Uribe Vélez and compare it to Chavez reports.

when a Capitalist like Uribe has problems in his country the western press doenst mind, but when its a Socialist like Chavez, oh then its all his fault and he should be removed from office because he cannot solve the problem.....

There is this little thing called FARC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FARC) in Colombia, which is among the most brutal commie groups. Guess who's their suggar daddy (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i0U2voViHBZEVZrBidG7JSmcyg3Q).

Venezuela has none of that. Did you know that a civil war tends to increase the number of violent deaths in a nation?

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

Hmmmm....
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

That list appears several years out of date. Venezuela's murder rate is currently between 130-160 deaths per 100,000 people, or 1.3-1.6 per 1000 people. Over twice Colombias', despite their civil war, to put things in perspective.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1059.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/3184293/Venezuelas-murder-rates-surpass-Colombias-under-Hugo-Chavez.html

McHrozni

[DC]

Care to explain to me why this would be a conspiracy theory?

McHrozni

you got evidence?

[DC]

Venezuela has plentiful policemen. The problem is the corruption is pervasive, and Chavez is completely unable or unwilling to deal with that. He should care a lot less for loyalty of his police force, and a lot more about them doing their job.

It would undoubtedly cost him his office within a few years, but if he is concerned about the well-being of Venezuela, it's the only thing to do.

McHrozni

why do you think it would cost him his job?

[DC]

With which they can only capture a fraction of the former audience. Chavez didn't silence them, that is true, but he did gag them. Tell me, do you think gagging a TV station benefits the freedom of speech and media freedom in a country, or does it limit it?

From Wikipedia:
In the wake of the loss of its terrestrial licence, RCTV announced plans to continue broadcasting its main news program 'El Observador' on popular internet video host YouTube during 2007.[90] YouTube viewership of 'El Observador' was initially significant but within a week of the end of RCTV's television transmission had fallen to less than 5,000 viewers a day.

McHrozni

they should have thought about that before the cooperated with the coup plotters that toppled a democratic elected government.

i wonder if CNN would still be on air if they cooperated with a group of people that capture Obama and take over the government.

[DC]

There is this little thing called FARC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FARC) in Colombia, which is among the most brutal commie groups. Guess who's their suggar daddy (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i0U2voViHBZEVZrBidG7JSmcyg3Q).

Venezuela has none of that. Did you know that a civil war tends to increase the number of violent deaths in a nation?

McHrozni

ah i understand, also Columbias crime problems are Chavez his fault. its getting better and better.

does chavez support their violance or did he call up FARC to stop the violence?

[McHrozni]

you got evidence?

The post you were quoting contained several links for a reason you know.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

why do you think it would cost him his job?

I imagine he is smart enough to know why is he pulling hostile TV stations off the public airways and putting them into relative obscurity, and forcing all broadcasters to spew out his propaganda.
Why do you think the Venezuelan media laws force national media to broadcast all that **** anyway?

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

they should have thought about that before the cooperated with the coup plotters that toppled a democratic elected government.

Was that in violation of any law?

i wonder if CNN would still be on air if they cooperated with a group of people that capture Obama and take over the government.

Considering the C in CNN stands for Cable (News Network), I quite fail to see the point of your question.

McHrozni

[DC]

The post you were quoting contained several links for a reason you know.

McHrozni

links that contained alot rumors and claims without evidene, the same can be done about US voting machines.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6798

like i said, conspiracy theories.

[McHrozni]

ah i understand, also Columbias crime problems are Chavez his fault. its getting better and better.

Notice how I didn't say that, straw man.

does chavez support their violance or did he call up FARC to stop the violence?

Reports say that his military and police force at least turn a blind eye to FARC guerrillas operating in the border areas. He may also be benefiting from their drug trade and supplying them with weapons, though there is no publicly available evidence for that.
I'd give you links, but you ignored them the last five times, so I don't see the point in doing so.

I tried to find him calling on them to stop the violence, but I couldn't find anything.

To sum up, he supports them in their violence and has not called on them to stop the violence. Did you have a point?

Mchrozni

[McHrozni]

links that contained alot rumors and claims without evidene, the same can be done about US voting machines.

Wait, are you saying Venezuela has no problems with their elections because there were unprovable rumors about USA having problems with their elections? :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

McHrozni

[DC]

I imagine he is smart enough to know why is he pulling hostile TV stations off the public airways and putting them into relative obscurity, and forcing all broadcasters to spew out his propaganda.
Why do you think the Venezuelan media laws force national media to broadcast all that **** anyway?

McHrozni

what has that to do with fighting the crime rates?

but you think by not renewing RCTV's licence he was able to win reelection and the recall referendum?

like there are no other media in venezuela?

i also dislike that private TV stations are forced to bring those official clips. But thats how it is in Venezuela. If the people dislike it, they can change it.
but it looks like the majority of people in Venezuela are pretty happy with Chavez his work.

[DC]

Notice how I didn't say that, straw man.



Reports say that his military and police force at least turn a blind eye to FARC guerrillas operating in the border areas. He may also be benefiting from their drug trade and supplying them with weapons, though there is no publicly available evidence for that.
I'd give you links, but you ignored them the last five times, so I don't see the point in doing so.

I tried to find him calling on them to stop the violence, but I couldn't find anything.

To sum up, he supports them in their violence and has not called on them to stop the violence. Did you have a point?

Mchrozni

ah more Conspiracy theories.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/newsenglish/witn/2008/06/080609_chavez_farc.shtml

[McHrozni]

what has that to do with fighting the crime rates?

Did I ever say crime rate is the only problem in Venezuela?

but you think by not renewing RCTV's licence he was able to win reelection and the recall referendum?

Considering both happened before that, no, I don't think so.

like there are no other media in venezuela?

If you follow one of the wikipedia links I gave you, you'll come to a conclusion that no, there is no independent media in Venezuela any more.

i also dislike that private TV stations are forced to bring those official clips. But thats how it is in Venezuela. If the people dislike it, they can change it.

Like when they voted against the constitutional changes that happened anyway? Oh wait, bad example, right?

but it looks like the majority of people in Venezuela are pretty happy with Chavez his work.

Or maybe they just don't see the other guy as any better. I do wonder if constantly listening to how bad he is and how good their president is on public airways could sway public opinion any. Do you think it could?

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

ah more Conspiracy theories.

Another dodge, I see. Before you ask, the post you quoted earlier had links for a reason. Ignoring evidence does not make it go away, you know.

McHrozni

[DC]

Did I ever say crime rate is the only problem in Venezuela?



Considering both happened before that, no, I don't think so.





If you follow one of the wikipedia links I gave you, you'll come to a conclusion that no, there is no independent media in Venezuela any more.



Like when they voted against the constitutional changes that happened anyway? Oh wait, bad example, right?



Or maybe they just don't see the other guy as any better. I do wonder if constantly listening to how bad he is and how good their president is on public airways could sway public opinion any. Do you think it could?

McHrozni

no independent media LOL

Televen, Venevisión, Globovisión. TV stations
El Nacional, Últimas Noticias and El Universal, News papers

just a few of the imdependent, some of the newspaper have even an english online section, and there you can read critical articels about Chavez and his politics.


like i said, you have already fallen for the demonisation.

[DC]

Another dodge, I see. Before you ask, the post you quoted earlier had links for a reason. Ignoring evidence does not make it go away, you know.

McHrozni

provide real evidence of cheated elections.

you do know the same claims have been made in the US by CT's.
maybe they can help you finding "evidence" :)

[DC]

http://english.eluniversal.com/

one of the non existing venezuelan independent newspapers.....

[DC]

I do wonder if constantly listening to how bad he is and how good their president is on public airways could sway public opinion any. Do you think it could?

yeas it could, but it didnt work out for the opposition, most provate TV stations denounced Chavez on a daily basis. and the people still prefered Chavez.

why should it work for Chavez when it didnt for the Opposition?

[McHrozni]

no independent media LOL

Experts disagree with you. Do you have anything better than an appeal to ignorance to counter them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Venezuela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Venezuela)

Blaming President Chavez or the Venezuelan government for the current bitter divisions in Venezuelan society, the bad economy, a sudden poverty growth and deaths in opposition demonstrations could result in an infraction of the law and therefore in strong penalizations (if the offense is "interpreted" or considered disrespectful towards legitimate institutions and authorities).

In other words, I could be penalized in Venezuela for saying what I am here. Do you consider that freedom? Justify, please.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

provide real evidence of cheated elections.

If you point out where I claimed Hugo was already cheating at elections, sure.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

yeas it could

Good, I'm glad we agree. Now please explain why do you think that can't have an effect in Venezuela, seeing as you still claim this:

but it didnt work out for the opposition, most provate TV stations denounced Chavez on a daily basis. and the people still prefered Chavez.

why should it work for Chavez when it didnt for the Opposition?

I pointed this out to you before. He has a much larger share of media coverage, through his use of public airways, highly controversial media laws and state media. Obviously this has some effect, you even admitted that above. Since Chavez and his proposal typically win around 50-55% in the elections I'm quite comfortable in claiming that if the opposition was given equal chances, they would sweep him from power. Which effectively ruins your argument that the people still love him, I believe?

A challenge for you. If the people are so happy with his rule, why does he need such restrictive media laws to win the measly 55% or so of the electorate?

McHrozni

[Nova Land]

Read in context, the point Chavez is making is a criticism of the way the US relief effort was done -- that the US, according to Chavez, sent in more military equipment and armed marines than were needed and fewer doctors, medical supplies, and relief equipment than was needed.



"I read that 3,000 soldiers are arriving, Marines armed as if they were going to war. There is not a shortage of guns there, my God. Doctors, medicine, fuel, field hospitals, that's what the United States should send," Chavez said on his weekly television show. "They are occupying Haiti undercover."

"On top of that, you don't see them in the streets. Are they picking up bodies? ... Are they looking for the injured? You don't see them. I haven't seen them. Where are they?"


How do you explain the bolded sentence, then? Yes, he is criticizing the US relief effort as having too much firepower and not enough humanitarian assistance, but you can't say this is the only - or even the main point of his criticism.


Yes, it is the main point of his criticism in this passage. That should be reasonably clear to anyone who actually reads the passage with an eye to understanding what it says.

A number of you seem to be stuck on the idea that Chavez was accusing the US of staging a military invasion and occupation of Haiti. I suspect the problem is that you began with that as a preconceived notion, and in attempting to read the passage you are to an extent ignoring what it actually says and mentally fitting the words to fit that notion.

Yes, the word occupation appears in this quoted excerpt; and the word invasion has been attributed to the passage as well, although it does not appear in the quoted excerpt. But these words have many meanings. One of these meanings is for one country to send military forces into another country with the intent of seizing power. The German invasion Poland in 1939 is an example of the word invasion used in that way; the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 is another. Another meaning of the word is an influx of visitors who overrun a place, such as an invasion of tourists or an invasion of ants. Reading Chavez's remarks, which one of these meanings seems to be closer to the one he intends?

Let me run through the Reuters' piece, sentence by sentence -- looking at it as a connected whole, and trying to understand it as a whole, rather looking only at a single word or sentence.


"I read that 3,000 soldiers are arriving, Marines armed as if they were going to war. There is not a shortage of guns there, my God. Doctors, medicine, fuel, field hospitals, that's what the United States should send," Chavez said on his weekly television show.
[1. Chavez begins by stating the theme of his remarks: the US sent more armed marines than were needed, and fewer doctors, medicine, fuel and field hospitals.]

"They are occupying Haiti undercover."
[2. I assume Chavez spoke in Spanish, not in English. I wish a complete transcript of what he said were available, and I wish someone fluent in Spanish could translate this particular sentence. But I think what he is saying in this sentence is a metaphorical allusion to the marines overrunning the country like tourists or ants. That fits thematically with the rest of what Chavez is saying -- whereas an interpretation of this as meaning that the US has staged a secret invasion and takeover of the country does not.

That, however, leaves undercover unexplained.

In segment 3, below, Chavez refers to the US troops as being out of sight, invisible. The word undercover may simply be a poor translation of invisible. I have a different theory, though -- one which, if true, considerably lowers my opinion of Chavez. So as not to derail this run-through, I'll save that and devote my next post to it.]

"On top of that, you don't see them in the streets. Are they picking up bodies? ... Are they looking for the injured? You don't see them. I haven't seen them. Where are they?"
[3. Having said the US sent too many marines, he illustrates this point by pointing out that the marines are nowhere to be seen. If armed marines were what was needed, he is saying, one would see them carrying out the relief efforts. But instead they are invisible.

Chavez promised to send as much gasoline as Haiti needs for electricity generation and transport.
[4. In segment 1, Chavez said the real need was for relief supplies, not marines. Here, he is saying that he will help out by sending such supplies. If the US won't supply the help which is needed, I will.]

A perennial foe of U.S. "imperialism,"
[5. This appears to be something the Reuters writer has interpolated into Chavez's remarks, in order to remind readers of what Chavez has said on other occasions, rather than part of what Chavez said on this occasion. This is the kind of thing which is routinely called "liberal media bias" when it is done to a conservative speaker. Unless someone can provide us with a transcript of Chavez's remarks which shows him referring to imperialism in this statement, this should be set aside.]

Chavez said he did not wish to diminish the humanitarian effort made by the United States and was only questioning the need for so many troops.
[6. This is already a paraphrase. It would be nice to see a transcript of what Chavez actually said, but I am willing to accept the Reuters' summary of the sentence as accurate. According to them, Chavez approves of the US attempting to provide relief to Haiti, but thinks it could have been done better if the US had sent fewer troops. Note that this is a restatement of the theme of the passage, as expressed in # 1 above.]

I believe that the interpretation I have given above is a reasonable fit for the transcript provided. Some of you, on the other hand, are interpreting the above differently as saying that Chavez thinks the US has invaded Haiti, overthrown the government, and is now occupying the conquered country.

I would love to see how you do it, since it seems to me you need to do an awful lot of stretching to make point 6 fit into such a view. But let's suppose you are able to go through the transcript and provide a paraphrase which makes it read as if Chavez were talking about a literal military invasion rather than a figurative ant or tourist type of invasion. How can we tell which of these two interpretations -- Chavez is saying the US could have carried out the relief effort better (my interpretation) of Chavez is saying the US has staged a military takeover of Haiti (your interpretation) -- is correct?

Here are 4 questions which I think are useful in determining the answer to that.
(1) What does Chavez say he is going to do in regards to this situation?
(2) What does Chavez call on the US to do?
(3) What does Chavez call on the citizens of Haiti to do?
(4) What does Chavez call on people of other nations to do?

(1) What does Chavez say he is going to do in regards to this situation?
(a) If Chavez believes the US has staged a military takeover, we might expect him to express his support for the resistance forces, offering to send them supplies to help with their resistance efforts, and saying he will call for the UN to intervene.
(b) If Chavez believes the US botched the relief effort, we might expect him to say what they did wrong and offer to do it better.
What Chavez actually said: that he would send gasoline to meet Haiti's electrical and transport needs.

(2) What does Chavez call on the US to do?
(a) If Chavez believes the US has staged a military takeover, we might expect him to call for the US to withdraw.
(b) If Chavez believes the US botched the relief effort, we might expect him to suggest ways the US could do better.

What Chavez actually said: that the US should send more doctors, fuel, medicine and field hospitals.

(3) What does Chavez call on the citizens of Haiti to do?
(a) If Chavez believes the US has staged a military takeover, we might expect him to encourage them to resist the oppressors and not to give up hope.
(b) If Chavez believes the US botched the relief effort, we might expect him to tell the Haitian people he is on concerned for their well-being and will be sending relief supplies.
What Chavez actually said: said he would send them gasoline so that they can have electricity will be able to drive around.

(4) What does Chavez call on people of other nations to do?
(a) If Chavez believes the US has staged a military takeover, we might expect him to call on people in other nations to join him in denouncing the US invasion and to join him in calling for a US withdrawal.
(b) If Chavez believes the US botched the relief effort, we might expect him to call on other countries to join him in sending relief supplies.

What Chavez actually said: nothing, at least not in this portion of the transcript. Almost as if he cared more about embarrassing the US than about helping the Haitians, but that may simply be because we don't have the full transcript.

On looking at what Chavez actually said, my conclusion is that it's a pretty good fit for the believes US bungled the relief effort interpretation and a pretty lousy fit for the US staged a military takeover interpretation.

[Nova Land]

In post # 173 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5684207#post5684207) I compared Chavez's statement in which he refused to dismiss the conspiracy theories about 9/11 with statements by Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and others, in which they refused to dismiss conspiracy theories about Obama's birth certificate. I think that comparison is worth a longer look, because it relates to Chavez's statement on the Haiti relief effort.

Here's an example of Sarah Palin (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1209/Palin_Obama_birth_certificate_a_fair_question.html ):

Speaking to the conservative talker Rusty Humphries today, Sarah Palin left the door open to speculation about President Obama's birth certificate.

"Would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?" she was asked.

"I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue. I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers," she replied.

"Do you think it's a fair question to be looking at?" Humphries persisted.

"I think it's a fair question, just like I think past association and past voting records -- all of that is fair game," Palin said. "The McCain-Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area."


Do I think Sarah Palin is stupid enough to actually believe that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii? No. But I think she is shrewd enough to realize many people who might be willing to vote for her are stupid enough to believe it. By giving this kind of it's worth investigating answer, she makes it sound to them as if she is agreeing with them and helps bolsters her support among them.

But those aren't the only people I think she (and Bachmann and the others) are playing for suckers with that kind statement. I think she's also shrewd enough to realize that a lot of her opponents are going to take that statement and say, "See! She just endorsed that crazy Orly Taitz stuff! She's a wacko!" And her supporters -- the ones who don't believe in Birthergate or whatever it's called -- are going to look at her actual, carefully-worded statement, realize she did no such thing, and instead of having a lower opinion of Palin they will have a lower opinion of Palin's critics. The incident will serve to confirm their belief that Palin's opponents are lying about her and that the media is trying to smear her -- making them less likely to believe future criticisms of Palin.

Chavez appears to be doing the same thing in his 9/11 statement that SoT quoted. The "They are occupying Haiti undercover" sentence makes me suspect he may be doing that with the Haiti invasion statement as well.

As I hope I demonstrated in my previous post, the sentence about occupying Haiti undercover makes no sense as a statement that the US is actually engaging in a military occupation. It does make sense as a statement comparing the US to unwelcome visitors -- but it's a very peculiar way to express that sentiment.

This may simply be a poor translation. I've read translations of French graphic novels into English with similarly clunky bits of dialogue. It would be nice to be able to see a transcript of the original statement, in Spanish (assuming, as I am, that Chavez delivered this in Spanish), and to have a good translator familiar with idiomatic Spanish translate it for us.

But my (uninformed) suspicion is that Chavez may have deliberately used the invasion/occupation rhetoric for its provocativeness. While Chavez knows the US did not literally invade and occupy Haiti, he knows some of his followers hate the US enough to believe they did. By using the words invasion and occupation metaphorically, he wins their support -- the same way Palin and others wins support of birthers without actually endorsing birther views, the same way various figures win support of truthers without actually endorsing truther views.

And he may know that it's not just people who hate the US who would be stupid enough to think he meant that the US had seized control of Haiti -- that many Chavez-haters would be stupid enough to make the same mistake. The more the Chavez-haters denounce him for having said that, the more the US-haters will think Chavez is great -- and, as a bonus, Venezuelans in the middle who neither blindly hate Chavez nor blindly hate the US will realize, from having heard Chavez's words for themselves, that the Chavez-haters are a bit loony. The more often the Chavez-haters cry wolf -- falsely claiming that Chavez said the US caused the earthquake, false claiming Chavez said it was part of a plot to invade Cuba and/or Venezuela, etc. -- the more it inoculates Chavez against future attacks. Cry wolf once too often and people will ignore you when you have a legitimate concern.

If that's what Chavez was doing -- deliberately using the words invasion and occupation in his statement, knowing there are Chavez-haters who can be distracted by red-flag words into charging blindly -- then my opinion of Chavez goes down another notch. That kind of rhetorical manipulation, used to stir hate and divisiveness, is extremely low and deserves to be strongly condemned. It is wrong when Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity engage in it; it is equally wrong if Hugo Chavez is engaging in it.

Please note: This is just my uninformed suspicion. I do not know that this is what Chavez was actually doing in the Haiti statement. A copy of the complete transcript, in Spanish, would be helpful in determining that, but I am not going to spend time trying to track it down. (I am already spending way more time on this than I can afford). So I reserve judgment on Chavez, and my opinion of him remains inchoate. But I am certainly open to being persuaded that Chavez is as low or lower than Sean Hannity and deserves to be criticized at least as harshly, even by those of us who do not live in his country.

[Nova Land]

... Secondly, you're making it sound as if Hugo has never demonized the US before.


No, I'm not. If you're reading that into my comments, please read them again.

There are 3 separate things: criticizing, demonizing, and spouting conspiracy theories. This thread is about the claim that Chavez has been spouting conspiracy theories, and that's the topic I've been trying to address. If you're not familiar with the difference between these three things, let me attempt to clarify them.

1. To criticize is to express dislike for what others have said or done. I take it Chavez is a critic of US policies. If criticisms are reasonably expressed I have no problem with that, even if it turns out they are criticisms I disagree with. Barack Obama, for example, routinely criticizes opinions and actions he disagrees with, but does not generally demonize his opponents in doing so.

2. To demonize is to characterize those one dislikes or disagrees with in excessively hateful ways. Rush Limbaugh is a mild example of someone who does this routinely (saying, for example, that Obama is deliberately trying to destroy the US economy); Ann Coulter is an extreme example (saying that those who disagree with her are traitors, saying 9/11 widows who criticized Bush were enjoying their husbands' deaths, etc.)

I have a low opinion of people who demonize their opponents; but this is such a common practice in US politics that I don't have time or energy to jump into every thread condemning someone for demonizing opponents. If I'm in a thread, the topic comes up, I have time to post, and I don't have something else I feel it is more important to post, I'll be glad to join in condemning an act of demonization. But please keep in mind that not every criticism is a demonization.

3. To spout conspiracy theories is to put forward wild claims about what others have done. These theories may (and often do) involve demonizing, but it's the wild and irrational nature of the claims being put forward which is generally the prime focus in when one talks about people spouting conspiracy theories.

This thread began with Alferd Packer mistakenly claiming that Chavez said the US caused the Haiti earthquake; he has since realized he was mistaken, and retracted that claim.

Then Travis claimed that Chavez said the US took over Haiti as a prelude to something like invading Cuba or Venezuela. That's been shown to be false, too, but Travis is still weaseling as far as retracting the claim.

My interest in this thread is simply that I dislike seeing people claiming to be quoting people and instead presenting fabricated or distorted quotes. It especially bothers me to see that happening on a skeptical forum. It is dishonest to claim to be quoting unless one has actually read the words of the person one claims to be quoting for oneself -- not simply read or heard some third party claiming that this is what the person said.

I have no interest in defending Chavez or his policies. I do have an interest in criticizing people who post false information as if it were authoritative. I believe if you go back and re-read my posts you will see that has been the consistent thrust of my posts in this thread.

[Nova Land]

No. The 9/11 quote which Sword_of_Truth provided is on a par with some of the conspiracy-related things Pat Robertson has said in his book The New World Order; this quote, criticizing the way Obama carried out the Haiti relief effort, is not.


... [Chavez] He makes it pretty clear he believes the aid efforts are being carried out not only wrong, but that the use of more military personnel equates to something of a military occupation to take over the country.


No, he does not. Nothing in his remarks indicates he thinks the US is trying to take over the country. His use of the words invasion and occupation are rhetorical. It seems clear, on actually reading the passage quoted by Reuters rather than focusing on words in isolation, that he is comparing the presence of US troops to something like an invasion of tourists or an invasion of ants rather than to an invasion of Poland or Czechoslovakia.

[Nova Land]

... [Chavez] obviously hasn't seen the figures from Stalin, nor can he get the paranoid idea out of his head that he's facing an invasion.

Link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZuAU4StKAQY)

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez told the military and civil militias today to prepare for war as a deterrent to a U.S.-led attack after American troops gained access to military bases in neighboring Colombia.

Chavez said a recently signed agreement that gives American troops access to seven Colombian bases is a direct threat to his oil-exporting country. Colombia has handed over its sovereignty to the U.S. with the deal, he said.

“Generals of the armed forces, the best way to avoid a war is to prepare for one,” Chavez said in comments on state television during his weekly “Alo Presidente” program. “Colombia handed over their country and is now another state of the union. Don’t make the mistake of attacking: Venezuela is willing to do anything.”


This is pretty much like North Korea's sentiment that the US want to invade their country when there's absolutely nothing provoking one, not even self-interest on the part of the US.


Yes. The idea of countries in no imminent danger of invasion of maintaining large defensive armies to prevent invasion does seem somewhat paranoid, and a poor use of resources -- especially if they have genuine problems they need to address or massive budget deficits.

Take the US. There is no one currently threatening to invade our country and no country with the financial resources to manage an occupation of the US if they were able to successfully invade and conquer. Yet we have the largest military budget in the world. As I understand it, the logic is that if we are prepared to go to war, then we will not need to.

The US has invaded two countries in the last decade, and under Bush established a policy that we could and would pre-emptively invade another country if we thought it might some time in the future present a threat. I agree that the US is unlikely to invade Venezuela. But given the Bush Doctrine, which I believe the US still has not formally renounced, it is at least as reasonable for Venezuela to fear a foreign invasion, especially if a hostile power establishes military bases on its border, as it is for the US to fear one.

So is it safe to conclude that you feel the US politicians who wish to maintain a large military and a large capability for repelling a foreign invasion are as crazy or crazier than Chavez? And are you advocating we cut from the military budget all expenditures related to maintaining a military capable of repelling a foreign invasion. That would seem to logically follow from your post.

"The best way to avoid a war is to prepare for one." That's what Chavez said. But I agree with you, that is foolish. I am happy to join you in your implied call for the US to stop spending so much on doing this.

[Childlike Empress]

Here's an interesting study that skeptics should read. DC mentioned it.

U.S. news coverage of parallel political events in Colombia and Venezuela offers an opportunity to test the usefulness of Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s “propaganda model,” developed in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (Pantheon, reissued 2002). The model predicts that the news media will look favorably upon the Colombian government of Álvaro Uribe, a close U.S. ally, while consistently vilifying the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chávez, whom the U.S. government frequently identifies as an antagonist. If the model holds, U.S. media outlets will be found to portray the Uribe government as relatively democratic, progressive, and peaceful, while casting the Chávez government as authoritarian, regressive, and militaristic.

Restricting the comparison to the two leading liberal U.S. newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, this prediction is testable using two sets of similar events revolving around issues of political freedom and democracy:

1. Freedom of speech and the press. In October 2004 the Uribe government closed down Inravisión, a public broadcaster analogous to PBS, calling it “inefficient.” The station, which often broadcasted reportage critical of the Colombian government, was home to a strong labor union. Three years later, the Chávez government declined to renew the public broadcasting license of RCTV, a privately owned Venezuelan network critical of Chávez policies that had supported a brief military coup against Chávez in 2002. RCTV returned to the airwaves seven weeks later via cable and satellite.

2. Presidential term limits. Between 2004 and 2007, both Chávez and Uribe attempted to extend or abolish presidential term limits in their respective countries; Uribe was successful, Chávez was not. Their proposals differed in three respects: first, Chávez included his request within a larger package of social, economic, and political reforms, whereas Uribe did not; second, the Chávez proposal and reforms were defeated by a popular referendum, whereas Uribe’s request was granted by the Colombian Congress and upheld by a Supreme Court ruling; and third, Chávez proposed to eliminate term limits entirely, whereas Uribe proposed to extend them. Nonetheless, both were proposals to expand executive power.

If the propaganda model holds, U.S. newspaper reports and editorials will express outrage over Chávez’s actions while ignoring, justifying, or endorsing Uribe’s.


Colombia and Venezuela: Testing the Propaganda Model (https://nacla.org/node/5175)

[Nova Land]

I wasn't trying to paint a fair and balanced picture of Chavez. I only pointed out that he is indeed scapegoating the West in general and USA in particular for his own political gain, and ignoring major problems at home.


I haven't read enough of Chavez's statements to know if you are correct, but from the little I have read it seems likely you are. If so, I agree with you that this is worthy of criticism. Politicians should spend less time blaming others for their problems and more time working on solving those problems.

But this thread is not about Chavez criticizing the US. It is about Chavez making bizarre conspiracy-theory statements (which is why it's in CT instead of Politics).

There is nothing particularly unusual about politicians scapegoating others for their country's problems rather than trying to fix the problems. (For instance, that could be said about virtually the entire Republican party at the moment in regards to health care and most other issues.) Political leaders who spout bizarre conspiracy theories, on the other hand, are much less common.

Initially the claim in this thread was that Chavez had said the US caused the Haiti earthquake. That claim turned out to be false, and Alferd Packer (the person who started this thread) quite honorably withdrew it. Then the claim was made that Chavez had said the US was engaging in a military invasion and occupation of Haiti as a prelude to doing something like invading Cuba or Venezuela. That claim has also turned out to be false, although Travis (the person making that claim) has not yet made a straightforward retraction of it. Sword_of_Truth then claimed that Chavez said the theory that the US government was involved in the 9/11 is plausible and should be investigated; that claim turned out to be true.

If you want to start a thread over in Politics criticizing Chavez for the approach he is taking of scapegoating the US for his country's problems, that would be fine. I likely won't post in such a thread, but if I do it would be to agree with you on that point.

As a US citizen, I am more interested in being knowledgeable about (and praising or criticizing, as appropriate) the actions of people in my own country than in praising or criticizing the actions of politicians in other countries. If a foreign figure and a US figure commit the same offense, I feel more of a responsibility to criticize the US official than to criticize the foreign one (although, time permitting, I would be happy to do both). But when a foreign figure does something grossly more offensive than a domestic figure, then it is reasonable to give a higher priority to criticizing the foreign figure than a domestic one.

Spouting outlandish conspiracy charges falls into the latter category. If Chavez really had said the US caused the Haiti earthquake, or that the US had invaded Haiti as a prelude to invading other countries, that would be significantly crazier than the statements that Republicans are making on health care. Those claims turned out to be false -- which makes it inappropriate to criticize Chavez on those two claims but highly appropriate to criticize those who spread the false claims.

[Nova Land]

... That you choose to read what I wrote wrongly is not something I will apologize for. I suppose we are done here.


In post # 123 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5670989#post5670989) you claimed Chavez said something significantly different than what he actually said. Since then, instead of retracting the misinformation you posted the way an honest skeptic would, you have steadfastly tried to shift the blame for this onto others. I see you are still doing that.

The problem is not that others are misreading what you wrote. The problem is that you posted misinformation.

You claimed that chavez said that
the USA was using the Haiti quake as a pretext to invade that country in order to use it as a springboard to attack Cuba, or him, or something.....
Do you still believe that is true? If so, please provide the text of the statement in which Chavez said this. If not, please retract your claim, so that others are not misled by it in the future.

[Nova Land]

When it is not to be taken seriously, proof-reading might be bypassed.

I said I was not serious in the post.


Yes. But you still haven't said whether your post was intended to poke fun at the people who were gullible enough to believe Chavez said the US caused the Haiti earthquake, or whether it was intended to poke fun at Chavez because you were one of the people who was gullible enough to believe that.

[McHrozni]

A number of you seem to be stuck on the idea that Chavez was accusing the US of staging a military invasion and occupation of Haiti. I suspect the problem is that you began with that as a preconceived notion, and in attempting to read the passage you are to an extent ignoring what it actually says and mentally fitting the words to fit that notion.

You left this part out of this quoting:
"They are occupying Haiti undercover."

Would you be so kind as to explain why? You quoted all the rest without a problem.

But these words have many meanings. One of these meanings is for one country to send military forces into another country with the intent of seizing power. The German invasion Poland in 1939 is an example of the word invasion used in that way; the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 is another. Another meaning of the word is an influx of visitors who overrun a place, such as an invasion of tourists or an invasion of ants. Reading Chavez's remarks, which one of these meanings seems to be closer to the one he intends?

Let's see, he spoke about US military, coming in with heavy firepower. A military invasion and military occupation is the only sensible way this can be interpreted. Thanks for making my point :rolleyes:

Let me run through the Reuters' piece, sentence by sentence -- looking at it as a connected whole, and trying to understand it as a whole, rather looking only at a single word or sentence.

Sure.

"I read that 3,000 soldiers are arriving, Marines armed as if they were going to war. There is not a shortage of guns there, my God. Doctors, medicine, fuel, field hospitals, that's what the United States should send," Chavez said on his weekly television show.
[1. Chavez begins by stating the theme of his remarks: the US sent more armed marines than were needed, and fewer doctors, medicine, fuel and field hospitals.]

Clearly, the most obvious understanding is that he hinted at a military occupation.

"They are occupying Haiti undercover."
[2. I assume Chavez spoke in Spanish, not in English. I wish a complete transcript of what he said were available, and I wish someone fluent in Spanish could translate this particular sentence. But I think what he is saying in this sentence is a metaphorical allusion to the marines overrunning the country like tourists or ants. That fits thematically with the rest of what Chavez is saying -- whereas an interpretation of this as meaning that the US has staged a secret invasion and takeover of the country does not.

Sure, go ahead.

That, however, leaves undercover unexplained.

How does: "The US is pretending to be aiding Haiti to justify their occupation of the country". Would that be a good summary of what he said? Could his words be understood in any other way?
If you think so please point out how and why.

"On top of that, you don't see them in the streets. Are they picking up bodies? ... Are they looking for the injured? You don't see them. I haven't seen them. Where are they?"
[3. Having said the US sent too many marines, he illustrates this point by pointing out that the marines are nowhere to be seen. If armed marines were what was needed, he is saying, one would see them carrying out the relief efforts. But instead they are invisible.

Let's not make a phD about a single sentence. He probably wanted to say the US marines aren't doing anything (or not much) to help the people of Haiti. Would you agree with that assertion?

Chavez promised to send as much gasoline as Haiti needs for electricity generation and transport.
[4. In segment 1, Chavez said the real need was for relief supplies, not marines. Here, he is saying that he will help out by sending such supplies. If the US won't supply the help which is needed, I will.

Okay, I suppose.

I believe that the interpretation I have given above is a reasonable fit for the transcript provided. Some of you, on the other hand, are interpreting the above differently as saying that Chavez thinks the US has invaded Haiti, overthrown the government, and is now occupying the conquered country.

It wouldn't be his first such claim. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4359386.stm)

How can we tell which of these two interpretations -- Chavez is saying the US could have carried out the relief effort better (my interpretation) of Chavez is saying the US has staged a military takeover of Haiti (your interpretation) -- is correct?

Short of asking him, none. However, there is ample precedents for him making such claims. At best, he made a dubious claim that could be interpreted in the same way as his other, clear, claims.

Your analysis is flawed in the following ways:
- Chavez said the occupation was undercover, secret, invisible, however you call it, therefore calls for rebels and the UN are not exactly called for
- Chavez would happily compete hand down a vast arsenal to his critics by saying he wanted US relief efforts out of Haiti and called for rebels against them
- Chavez wouldn't wait for the appropriate time for PR moves such as calls for Haitians to rebel against the US forces in their country

Basically, the only point in your analysis that I do agree with is this:
Almost as if he cared more about embarrassing the US than about helping the Haitians, (...)

No, Nova, I don't think it's because we don't have the full transcript. He most likely wanted to embarrass the US and make his image better by lecturing them. That would explain why he mentioned the occupation in the first place rather well, don't you think?

McHrozni

[DC]

Experts disagree with you. Do you have anything better than an appeal to ignorance to counter them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Venezuela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Venezuela)

Blaming President Chavez or the Venezuelan government for the current bitter divisions in Venezuelan society, the bad economy, a sudden poverty growth and deaths in opposition demonstrations could result in an infraction of the law and therefore in strong penalizations (if the offense is "interpreted" or considered disrespectful towards legitimate institutions and authorities).

In other words, I could be penalized in Venezuela for saying what I am here. Do you consider that freedom? Justify, please.

McHrozni

so wiki are now experts?

[DC]

If you point out where I claimed Hugo was already cheating at elections, sure.

McHrozni

ah ok sofar he was elected without cheating, but in future he will cheat?
or what was your point?

[DC]

http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/World_press_ranking.pdf

ok in the Wiki article were indeed experts involved, sorry for that.

but interesting is,

Colombia is ranked 147th
USA in Irak is ranked 135th
Venezuela is Ranked 96th

...............

thats exactly what Childlike Empress pointed out.

so much for the claim there is no independent media in Venezuela......

try again

[McHrozni]

so wiki are now experts?

Look, I gave you a link for a reason. At least pretend you're interested in a discussion, and click the link. To prove you have done so, please copy the first sentence of the article. Then ask the question again, if you think this concern hasn't been already addressed.

McHrozni

[NWO Sentryman]

CE, Propaganda Model? Manufacturing Consent? That reads like something from Behold A Pale Horse by William Cooper or Prison Planet. What Next? Citing Infowars?

First off, Uribe and Chavez are in absolutely different situations. Uribe is trying to win a war in Colombia that has led to so much destruction. Chavez took an imperfect democracy and ruined it. According to Freedom House, Colombia's press freedom is "partly Free", while Venezuela's is "Not Free". Colombia has a score of 59 compared to Venezuela's 74.

ETA: I'm surprisingly reminded of this video

04IfpCGX61s

[DC]

deleted, missed the im :)
sorry

[McHrozni]

ah ok sofar he was elected without cheating, but in future he will cheat?
or what was your point?

From the article I posted and you apparently didn't even click on:
The Board of Directors of the Electoral Council is made up of Chávez's followers, and the electoral registry is highly unreliable. 39,000 voters are over 100 years old -- one lady appears to be 175 -- and 62 persons share the same name and birth date: Jose Gregorio Rodriguez Gonzalez, born April 8, 1962.

If that's not cheating, what is?

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/World_press_ranking.pdf

ok in the Wiki article were indeed experts involved, sorry for that.

but interesting is,

Colombia is ranked 147th
USA in Irak is ranked 135th
Venezuela is Ranked 96th

...............

thats exactly what Childlike Empress pointed out.

so much for the claim there is no independent media in Venezuela......

try again

Would you please pretend to be interested in a discussion and click the link. Once you have done so, please copy the full title here to prove it. Once you have done that and if you think the matter hasn't been already addressed you may state your question again.

McHrozni

[DC]

and i got a RWB report from 2003

in 2009

Colombia did indeed get closer up to Venezuela

Venezuela 124th
Colombia 126th

[DC]

From the article I posted and you apparently didn't even click on:
The Board of Directors of the Electoral Council is made up of Chávez's followers, and the electoral registry is highly unreliable. 39,000 voters are over 100 years old -- one lady appears to be 175 -- and 62 persons share the same name and birth date: Jose Gregorio Rodriguez Gonzalez, born April 8, 1962.

If that's not cheating, what is?

McHrozni

i read the claims, but cant find the evidence.

[DC]

Would you please pretend to be interested in a discussion and click the link. Once you have done so, please copy the full title here to prove it. Once you have done that and if you think the matter hasn't been already addressed you may state your question again.

McHrozni

listen, my 2 posts with the RWB ranking proofs perfectly that i did not only click on your link, i even read it true and went to the original source, the RWB homepage.........

[NWO Sentryman]

and i got a RWB report from 2003

in 2009

Colombia did indeed get closer up to Venezuela

Venezuela 124th
Colombia 126th

So that means Colombia has an improving press rights record whereas Venezuela's is taking a nose dive

[DC]

So that means Colombia has an improving press rights record whereas Venezuela's is taking a nose dive

yes, RCTV and other laws have sure had an impact on the ranking, which is well deserved and i hope they improve it soon.
But you cannot say they have no independt media anymore.

other countrys are much worse but there we do not hear about in our media. But we do like to make bussines with them.

how often have you read about colombias problems with freedom of press and how often about Venezuela?

[NWO Sentryman]

DC. Two completely different Contexts. Colombia is in a state of Civil War, and it is understandable that they would have tighter controls on the press.

Abraham Lincoln shut down many papers during the ACW on suspicions of confederate sympathies. Does that make him as bad as Chavez?

Besides, many other countries never really had a free press, so when an albeit imperfect democracy's press freedom takes a nose dive, it is much more prominent. It's like a medium sized candle going out, significantly darkening the room a lot more than smaller candles going out.

[McHrozni]

other countrys are much worse but there we do not hear about in our media. But we do like to make bussines with them.

When exactly did you get the idea that freedom of the press is the only reason we have issues with Venezuela?

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

listen, my 2 posts with the RWB ranking proofs perfectly that i did not only click on your link, i even read it true and went to the original source, the RWB homepage.........

And yet you still couldn't understand the claim?

Geez.

McHrozni