Hugo Chavez has done it this time.

[NWO Sentryman]

Okay, i can't wait to see how Chavez defenders everywhere are going to defend this :eek:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/americas/26venez.html

CARACAS, Venezuela — Agents from Venezuela’s military intelligence agency on Thursday arrested Guillermo Zuloaga, the owner of the independent television network Globovisión and one of the country’s most influential critics of President Hugo Chávez, heightening concerns over an intensifying clampdown on news organizations and opposition political leaders.

Mr. Zuloaga was released several hours later and told not to leave the country while the investigation continued. International human rights groups and the Organization of American States had pressed the government to release him.

[Praktik]

oh good new thread I can get this in on time:

where are all the Chavez apologists?

EDIT: damn... OP beat me to it..;)

[Captain.Sassy]

Sounds like an abuse of executive power.

I still don't buy the Chavez=Evil rhetoric.

[Skeptic]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

You're waiting for the concentration camps and death squads, I gather, before you're going to buy into the evil Republican propaganda about Chavez.

The way things are going, you won't wait long.

[Virus]

The standard pro-Chavez defense to his media bullying is that the Venezuelan media are fascists and they tried to kill him.

[Praktik]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

You're waiting for the concentration camps and death squads, I gather, before you're going to buy into the evil Republican propaganda about Chavez.

The way things are going, you won't wait long.

LOL!

The world is a comic book!

[cornsail]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/wo...s/26venez.html

So Globovision, a news organization that has encouraged the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government and amazingly still exists is being "investigated"? What an awful dictatorship.
(or am I missing something) :confused:

[Thunder]

So Globovision, a news organization that has encouraged the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government and amazingly still exists is being "investigated"? What an awful dictatorship.
(or am I missing something) :confused:

proof?

[NWO Sentryman]

Cornsail, you seem to think that being elected means that you can do whatever the hell you want in your own borders. By that logic, it was ok for Hitler to mass intern dissidents, which included communists and socialists as well as journalists who disagreed with him.

[cornsail]

proof?

During the coup they focused their coverage on the opposition and gave free airtime (valued at about $3 million) to ads calling for citizens to join in the insurrection.

[cornsail]

Cornsail, you seem to think that being elected means that you can do whatever the hell you want in your own borders. By that logic, it was ok for Hitler to mass intern dissidents, which included communists and socialists as well as journalists who disagreed with him.

I've tried talking to you before and straw men like this are common place, I think I'll pass this time.

[funk de fino]

During the coup they focused their coverage on the opposition and gave free airtime (valued at about $3 million) to ads calling for citizens to join in the insurrection.

Clearly you are getting confused with RCTV. No-one called for anyone to get involved in any resurrection.

RCTV asked people to go to the protests and demos.

[SonOfLaertes]

So Globovision, a news organization that has encouraged the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government and amazingly still exists is being "investigated"? What an awful dictatorship.
(or am I missing something) :confused:

Attorney General Luisa Ortega said that Mr. Zuloaga had been arrested in connection with comments he made this month at an Inter American Press Association meeting in Aruba that were considered false and “offensive” to Mr. Chávez. Among other remarks at the meeting, Mr. Zuloaga pointedly criticized methods used by Mr. Chávez’s government to shut down news outlets, and was quoted as saying it meant the country lacked freedom of expression.

So the Attorney General admits that Mr. Zuloaga was arrested for stating that the country lacked freedom of expression. So the Attorney General therefore admits that the country lacks fredom of expression.

And you defend this?

ETA: Yes, my recollection is that it was RCTV that incited the protests.

[cornsail]

They both gave almost unlimited airtime to the opposition and refused to cover any counter protests when the coup was successful.

[cornsail]

So the Attorney General admits that Mr. Zuloaga was arrested for stating that the country lacked freedom of expression. So the Attorney General therefore admits that the country lacks fredom of expression.

And you defend this?

ETA: Yes, my recollection is that it was RCTV that incited the protests.

I don't defend it, but the Chavez demonization is overblown.

[SonOfLaertes]

I don't defend it, but the Chavez demonization is overblown.

Sorry, I don't see how arresting a journalist for pointing out that the government is arresting journalists can be considered overblown.

It sounds like suppression of free speech to me.

[cornsail]

It's overblown if you don't consider the context/history, the fact that he was released shortly after being arrested etc.

[NWO Sentryman]

Yeah, but he is still "under investigation".

Chavez has also been nothing but a disaster for the venezuelan economy. Food prices have skyrocketed, infrastructure is a mess. Basically, this guy is Mugabe in Slow Motion and with a lot more appeal to the left. :eek:

[cornsail]

Yeah, but he is still "under investigation".

Wow.

Chavez has also been nothing but a disaster for the venezuelan economy. Food prices have skyrocketed, infrastructure is a mess.

Last I checked poverty has decreased and health care has improved for most of the population, although I haven't really been following Venezuela the past few months.

[WildCat]

Last I checked
Check again.

[Childlike Empress]

Attorney General Luisa Ortega said that Mr. Zuloaga had been arrested in connection with comments he made this month at an Inter American Press Association meeting in Aruba that were considered false and “offensive” to Mr. Chávez. Among other remarks at the meeting, Mr. Zuloaga pointedly criticized methods used by Mr. Chávez’s government to shut down news outlets, and was quoted as saying it meant the country lacked freedom of expression.
So the Attorney General admits that Mr. Zuloaga was arrested for stating that the country lacked freedom of expression. So the Attorney General therefore admits that the country lacks fredom of expression.


You have fallen for the typical NYT spin. Notice that they don't say for which comments he was arrested.

But they imply by using "in connection with comments" and "among other remarks" that it was for critizing censorship.

Which is untrue (http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5223).

The charges stem from Zuloaga’s statements during an Inter-American Press Society conference in Aruba this week. Zuloaga narrated the 2002 coup d’état from the perspective of the coup plotters, alleging that Chavez resigned from office after ordering armed government supporters to open fire on peaceful opposition protestors on April 11th, 2002.

Investigations carried out after the coup revealed that opposition-aligned policemen were responsible for the sniper shootings of both pro-Chavez and opposition protestors, and that prominent television stations, including Globovision, manipulated video images to frame Chavez’s supporters as the culprits in order to legitimate the coup regime.


The New York Times article completely fails to mention this.

[cornsail]

Check again.

Fill me in w/ a source?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Let me jump in and give my opinion and clarification as well, since I am after all a Venezuelan and I´ve been living most of this Hell.

Yes, it is true that Globovision perfectly well qualifies as an Anti-Chavist broadcast medium (RCTV too, and also many newspapers)

Yes, it is true that during the coup and the "Paro Cìvico", these channels transmitted things in a very biased way.

It is also true that one, as a citizen, cannot know how true these things are. Neither the ones against the government nor the ones for the government. A strong reason for this is that the government is being commanded by Venezuelans, and so is the opposition. And Venezuelans are, with exceptions, deceptive and opportunist.

However, I don´t think that that is a reason to shut down a news channel, unless there is direct evidence that such channel was attempting to do something illegal and/or that jeopardized the security of the citizens.

Unfortunately, in a third world country such as my country, it is simply put impossible to know who the hell is telling the truth. Everything can and most likely will be, falsified.

This has gone far beyond a problem of Chavism vs Oposition. This is a problem of a completely prehistoric, archaic country in which there are no guarantees of anything. What is happening now is just a reflection of the consequences of that.

[WildCat]

It's 10 a.m., and tempers are already flaring at the Cada supermarket in Caracas' San Bernardino neighborhood. The store has just taken delivery of two pallets of 4- and 11-pound sacks of sugar. With dozens of shoppers swarming around him, Rigoberto Fernández tries to pass out the bags one by one. The clerk hands a smaller one to a gray-haired woman, but she flings it back. "How dare you tell me I can't have one of the larger bags?" she screams. The sack splits open, spilling sugar everywhere.

Within 10 minutes, the shipment has vanished. "I am so fed up with these food shortages," Fernández mutters as he sweeps up the mess. "People get desperate and start behaving like animals."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_12/b4171046603604.htm

That's some real progress there Hugo! Like the USSR ca. 1980. Or Cuba today. You know, those icons of success.

[WildCat]

Fill me in w/ a source?
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_12/b4171046603604.htm

It doesn't get any more clear you're doing something very, very wrong when your policies create food shortages.

[Captain.Sassy]

Deteriorating relations with Colombia and other factors may have exacerbated the food shortage in Venezuela, but you can't ignore the drought that is plaguing Latin America right now and causing crop failures all over the continent.

[cornsail]

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

It doesn't get any more clear you're doing something very, very wrong when your policies create food shortages.

The country had very high poverty before Chavez and as pointed out above, there is the issue of drought. Obviously poverty is still a problem, but I was more interested in actual statistics etc.

[WildCat]

Deteriorating relations with Colombia and other factors may have exacerbated the food shortage in Venezuela, but you can't ignore the drought that is plaguing Latin America right now and causing crop failures all over the continent.
There's droughts in the US all the time. I can't ever remember a time when "there's no chicken, beef, or sugar" on my supermarket shelf.

Is there a food shortage in Colombia?

The shortage has nothing to do with the drought, and everything to do with Chavez' price controls and nationalizing grocery stores and food production companies.

[funk de fino]

They both gave almost unlimited airtime to the opposition and refused to cover any counter protests when the coup was successful.

So?

[funk de fino]

The New York Times article completely fails to mention this.

You have been suckered by a bias site again. There is still no confirmation what exactly happened that day. You rail against bias with worse bias.

Glass houses and all that...........

[cornsail]

So?

So Globovision supported the overthrow of a democratically elected government (like I said already). The didn't explicitly state this as their goal or position, just as Fox News has claimed not to be a conservative network. But I can almost guarantee you that if Fox "favorably covered" a serious insurrection campaign in the US to the same extent as Globovision, they would not be tolerated long--right or wrong.

[funk de fino]

So Globovision supported the overthrow of a democratically elected government (like I said already). The didn't explicitly state this as their goal or position, just as Fox News has claimed not to be a conservative network. But I can almost guarantee you that if Fox "favorably covered" a serious insurrection campaign in the US to the same extent as Globovision, they would not be tolerated long--right or wrong.

No, they did not. RCTV encouraged people to go to the protests. Same as the tea partiers et al. Please provide evidence they supported any coup on that day. It was the military who turned it into a coup. There were protests and counter protests on that day.

[Captain.Sassy]

Is there a food shortage in Colombia?


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-05/colombia-s-inflation-rate-may-rise-to-11-month-high-on-drought.html

Food prices are up, despite the fact that Venezuela is reducing imports from Colombia

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=a7SEknTpsJcY

So Hugo Chavez' geopolitical posturing seems to be helping Colombia out, at least in terms of keeping food prices down.

[cornsail]

No, they did not. RCTV encouraged people to go to the protests. Same as the tea partiers et al. Please provide evidence they supported any coup on that day. It was the military who turned it into a coup. There were protests and counter protests on that day.

As I've been saying the support was not direct, but based on favorable and one-sided coverage. Do you dispute that their coverage was heavily favorable toward the opposition?

[WildCat]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-05/colombia-s-inflation-rate-may-rise-to-11-month-high-on-drought.html

You seem to have a hard time understanding the question, I'll try again.

Do you have evidence of food shortages in Colombia? You know, where the store shelves are free of sugar, beef, and chicken?

[WildCat]

As I've been saying the support was not direct, but based on favorable and one-sided coverage. Do you dispute that their coverage was heavily favorable toward the opposition?
So what?

Should Bush have taken MSNBC off the air? Should Obama have Rupert Murdoch arrested?

I'm astonished you think political opposition is grounds for arrest.

[Captain.Sassy]

You seem to have a hard time understanding the question, I'll try again.

Do you have evidence of food shortages in Colombia? You know, where the store shelves are free of sugar, beef, and chicken?

lol
relax comrade.

There is chronic malnutrition in Colombia.

Stocked shelves mean little to those who cannot afford food.

The drought is driving food prices higher there, but Venezuela shutting off imports has dampened the inflationary effect.

[cornsail]

So what?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5764132&postcount=31

Should Bush have taken MSNBC off the air? Should Obama have Rupert Murdoch arrested?

No, because these networks did not support (indirectly via free airtime and favorable/one-sided coverage) a coup against Bush or Obama...

I'm astonished you think political opposition is grounds for arrest.

I'm astonished you're putting words in my mouth.

"I don't defend it, but the Chavez demonization is overblown. " -myself earlier in thread

[fuelair]

Okay, i can't wait to see how Chavez defenders everywhere are going to defend this :eek:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/americas/26venez.html

It has defenders?

[WildCat]

No, because these networks did not support (indirectly via free airtime and favorable/one-sided coverage) a coup against Bush or Obama...
So "indirect" support for a coup and "favorable coverage" is reason for arrest in your world?

[WildCat]

It has defenders?
Cornsail, Captain Sassy, and Childlike Empress have all rushed to find excuses for loveable little Hugo.

[quarky]

Its not surprising that the left and the right get to take turns exaggerating. And coming into power.

[Skeptic]

Deteriorating relations with Colombia and other factors may have exacerbated the food shortage in Venezuela, but you can't ignore the drought that is plaguing Latin America right now and causing crop failures all over the continent.

Sounds familiar! Oh wait, yes: when Stalin's engineered Ukrainian famine killed millions, there were those who rushed to claim (after first denying it or saying the reports are exaggerated) that it's all due to factors beyond poor lovable uncle Joe's control, such as droughts.

Funny. There are droughts in the USA and Australia -- to name two -- all the time, yet there never seems to be a food shortage.

Somehow the evil capitalist oppressors manage when the good ol' socialist men of the people, who nationalize the economy to protect the downtrodden, fail to do.

Amazing, isn't it?

It's almost as if there's something that doesn't work with all this one-party dictatorial nationalization.

[Virus]

Useful idiot Sean Penn says the government should jail anyone calling Uncle Hugo a dictator.

"Every day, this elected leader is called a dictator here, and we just accept it, and accept it. And this is mainstream media. There should be a bar by which one goes to prison for these kinds of lies."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/11/sean-penn-hugo-chavez-venezuela

[Skeptic]

Unsurprising about Sean Penn.

By the way, the one-party rule, jailing of opponents, and so on doesn't much bother the usual gang of revolutionaries: you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs, you know (and besides, it's just brown people far away, so who cares?). The food shortages do get under their skin, since once more, it turns out that not only are eggs broken, but, as usual in socialist revolutions, there's no omlette.

[Ziggurat]

It's like the old joke about the communist takeover of the Saharah. Everything was going fine for a few years, and then suddenly they ran out of sand.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Was I the only one who clicked on this thread expecting to see that Chavez endorsed the tea party?

[McHrozni]

Useful idiot Sean Penn says the government should jail anyone calling Uncle Hugo a dictator.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/11/sean-penn-hugo-chavez-venezuela

Hmmm. Would he support mass jailings of grassroots Democrats in the US based on them calling Bush a dictator a few years ago? Does anyone know how we could ask him?

So Globovision supported the overthrow of a democratically elected government (like I said already). The didn't explicitly state this as their goal or position, just as Fox News has claimed not to be a conservative network. But I can almost guarantee you that if Fox "favorably covered" a serious insurrection campaign in the US to the same extent as Globovision, they would not be tolerated long--right or wrong.

Tell me something, cornsail, do you think that Venezuelan media currently behave fairly to all concerned? Do the state media give any free coverage to the government? Are media mandated to give free coverage to the president?

Please explain how that is not overthrowing democracy. One side mandates free coverage of it's propaganda and jails journalists for giving free propaganda for it's coverage. How do you defend that?

As a side note, I think it wasn't explicitly mentioned here yet, but the 'offensive' comments were made in Aruba, not in Venezuela. Apparently Chavez thinks criticizing him is of the same severity as a crime against humanity, and claims extraterritorial jurisdiction right.

McHrozni

[Pardalis]

Useful idiot Sean Penn says the government should jail anyone calling Uncle Hugo a dictator.

What happened to your sacred freedom of speech, Penn?

Funny how those self-described "freedom lovers" are the first to want to jail anyone who disagrees with them.

Hey, Penn, maybe you should you have been jailed for saying this about Bush?:

http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php/organizers-mainmenu-223/writer-staff-mainmenu-291/3781-sean-penn-10206

[Ziggurat]

Hmmm. Would he support mass jailings of grassroots Democrats in the US based on them calling Bush a dictator a few years ago?

Of course not. That was The TruthTM. But calling Chavez a dictator is a LieTM. Naturally, LiesTM should be outlawed, but The TruthTM never should be. And when in doubt about which is which, just ask Sean Penn. Or Hugo himself. They'll be sure to let you know.

[cornsail]

So "indirect" support for a coup and "favorable coverage" is reason for arrest in your world?

No but, "misreading" my posts right after "having been corrected" for the exact same thing is a reason to stop responding to you. The discussion is obviously not going anywhere if you're too lazy to actually read what I write...

I'm astonished you think political opposition is grounds for arrest.

I'm astonished you're putting words in my mouth.

"I don't defend it, but the Chavez demonization is overblown. " -myself earlier in thread

[Pardalis]

Sean Penn is also very fond of Fidel and Raoul Castro.

Now, clearly, the Castros are dictators, I mean come on Penn, they've been in power for over 50 years. What does he call that?

[cornsail]

Tell me something, cornsail, do you think that Venezuelan media currently behave fairly to all concerned? Do the state media give any free coverage to the government? Are media mandated to give free coverage to the president?

Not sure what you mean by "Venezuelan media" specifically, but I doubt any media (to overgeneralize a bit) "behave fairly to all concerned".

"State media" obviously give free coverage to the government, as do virtually all state medias and most private medias. Am I misunderstanding the question?

Private media in Venezuela are mandated to show government responses to issues if they request it. This law was enacted due to the one-sided nature of the coverage of certain stations. They've very rarely tried to enforce it, but they did leading up to the coup (however the stations complied with the law only partially). So they've basically just enforced it when the security of the government was at stake, which is understandable.

ETA: The recent arrest sounds less legit or understandable though, based on what very little I know about it.

Please explain how that is not overthrowing democracy.

Seriously? We have similar laws in the US. For example in an election, NBC can be biased, but they can't decide they only want to give airtime to their favorite Democratic candidate or something.

In terms of abuse of media, Silvio Berlusconi would be a better example of a "dictator" although I wouldn't go that far with him either.

One side mandates free coverage of it's propaganda and jails journalists for giving free propaganda for it's coverage. How do you defend that?

I don't agree with jailing journalists, but enforcing the laws that exist is fine I think (and I'm not claiming this is a case of enforcing existing law btw).

[cornsail]

Sean Penn also said Bill O'Reily was worse than Hitler and Osama Bin Laden. And something about Bush regarding soiled undies if I recall. Pretty sure the dude is nuts or just enjoys talking out of his ***, LOL.

[Virus]

Sean Penn is also very fond of Fidel and Raoul Castro.

Now, clearly, the Castros are dictators, I mean come on Penn, they've been in power for over 50 years. What does he call that?

He also supports Iran and was soft on Saddam Hussein.

[McHrozni]

Not sure what you mean by "Venezuelan media" specifically, but I doubt any media (to overgeneralize a bit) "behave fairly to all concerned".

Obviously, they don't. However, you seem to be defending a guy who thinks they should only behave fairly to him. Or something.

"State media" obviously give free coverage to the government, as do virtually all state medias and most private medias. Am I misunderstanding the question?

Yes, cornsail, you are. You seem it's a problem for a privately owned station to give free media coverage to the side it supports, but it is not a problem for a state owned station to give free media coverage to the side the government supports. Care to guess which side that is? It's also not a problem for the government to demand from all stations to give free coverage to it's side of the issue, only for the opposition.

Terms "abuse of power" and "corruption" come to mind.

Private media in Venezuela are mandated to show government responses to issues if they request it.

See? My point exactly.

ETA: The recent arrest sounds less legit or understandable though, based on what very little I know about it.

He was arrested for making a few comments on the freedom of speech in Venezuela, NOT for giving free coverage to the opposition during the coup. The comment that got the guy arrested was made in Aruba, not in Venezuela. Do you still support it?

Seriously? We have similar laws in the US. For example in an election, NBC can be biased, but they can't decide they only want to give airtime to their favorite Democratic candidate or something.

How about outside of an election, as was the case here?

In terms of abuse of media, Silvio Berlusconi would be a better example of a "dictator" although I wouldn't go that far with him either.

Chavez is hardly a dictator soely because his abuse of media. I do agree Berlusconi is problematic to say the least. In case you didn't notice, however, he lost an election despite his influence in the media. Surely loosing a power in a democratic election would disqualify one for being a dictator more than retaining power in a (-n allegedly) democratic election?

I don't agree with jailing journalists, but enforcing the laws that exist is fine I think (and I'm not claiming this is a case of enforcing existing law btw).

Really. Suppose there was a law mandating priests must rape young children. Would enforcing such a law also be fine?

McHrozni

[cornsail]

Yes, cornsail, you are. You seem it's a problem for a privately owned station to give free media coverage to the side it supports, but it is not a problem for a state owned station to give free media coverage to the side the government supports.

If the side it supports is a serious threat to the security of the government and they only give coverage to that side, then yes I think that's a problem and the law passed to deal with it was hardly extreme or draconic especially when you consider how few times the government actually requested some coverage.

Care to guess which side that is? It's also not a problem for the government to demand from all stations to give free coverage to it's side of the issue, only for the opposition.

If the opposition respected democratic elections then maybe it wouldn't be an issue?

[cornsail]

He was arrested for making a few comments on the freedom of speech in Venezuela, NOT for giving free coverage to the opposition during the coup. The comment that got the guy arrested was made in Aruba, not in Venezuela. Do you still support it?

Wow, it never stops. Respectfully,

I don't defend it, but the Chavez demonization is overblown.

I'm astonished you're putting words in my mouth.

"I don't defend it, but the Chavez demonization is overblown. " -myself earlier in thread

No but, "misreading" my posts right after "having been corrected" for the exact same thing is a reason to stop responding to you. The discussion is obviously not going anywhere if you're too lazy to actually read what I write...

I'm astonished you're putting words in my mouth.

"I don't defend it, but the Chavez demonization is overblown. " -myself earlier in thread

The recent arrest sounds less legit or understandable though, based on what very little I know about it.

I don't agree with jailing journalists

[cornsail]

Chavez is hardly a dictator soely because his abuse of media. I do agree Berlusconi is problematic to say the least. In case you didn't notice, however, he lost an election despite his influence in the media. Surely loosing a power in a democratic election would disqualify one for being a dictator more than retaining power in a (-n allegedly) democratic election?

Why do you say allegedly?

Really. Suppose there was a law mandating priests must rape young children. Would enforcing such a law also be fine?

No I think the media law in place was fine..

[funk de fino]

If the side it supports is a serious threat to the security of the government and they only give coverage to that side, then yes I think that's a problem and the law passed to deal with it was hardly extreme or draconic especially when you consider how few times the government actually requested some coverage.

When was the last time the military required airtime coverage? They were the ones who carried out the coup. Or are you saying all political opposition to Chavez is a threat to the security of govt? That would certainly seem to be very dictator like?

The govt is harassing and trying to close down Globo because they do not show Chavez propoganda. You trying to say the govt does not enforce it is false. It's one of the weapons they use against Globo. Was it one of his special laws that did not go before the govt? Or an amendement that was voted on twice in one session which contravenes the constitution?

If the opposition respected democratic elections then maybe it wouldn't be an issue?

When was the last time the political opposition called for an organised coup?

[cornsail]

Cornsail, Captain Sassy, and Childlike Empress have all rushed to find excuses for loveable little Hugo.

Missed this snarky little wonder.. clever, clever. :rolleyes:

Would you like to apologize for repeatedly misrepresenting my posts while ignoring corrections, BTW?

[McHrozni]

Wow, it never stops. Respectfully,

Ehm.

If the side it supports is a serious threat to the security of the government and they only give coverage to that side, then yes I think that's a problem and the law passed to deal with it was hardly extreme or draconic especially when you consider how few times the government actually requested some coverage.

No I think the media law in place was fine..

If the opposition respected democratic elections then maybe it wouldn't be an issue?

ETA: The recent arrest sounds less legit or understandable though, based on what very little I know about it.

Do you want allegations that you defend Chavez and his blatant abuses of power to stop? Simple, stop defending his blatant abuses of power. Is that so much to ask?

Again, please acknowledge that the support for the coup had nothing to do with this arrest as far as the law is concerned. This man was arrested because of the comments he made about freedom of speech in Venezuela while attending a conference in Aruba. The Venezuelan media laws and the justifications behind them, as pathetic as they are, are meaningless. He was arrested because he expressed his opinion - a justified opinion, especially if the reaction is taken into account - in another country. If that is not a violation of the freedom of speech, what is?

Why do you say allegedly?

Because the government mandates free coverage of it's side of the issues and denies the same thing to the opposition, and because of a wide variety of accusations against the Venezuelan government of rampant and widespread abuse of it's power and influence in forcing some of the voters to vote for the incumbents. That's more than enough to suspect the democratic process in Venezuela was not all that democratic, and more than enough to use "alleged democratic elections" instead of "democratic elections".

If the side it supports is a serious threat to the security of the government and they only give coverage to that side, then yes I think that's a problem and the law passed to deal with it was hardly extreme or draconic especially when you consider how few times the government actually requested some coverage.

Wait, you just said that if something is a threat to the security of a government, it should be dealt with, harshly if necessary. The greatest threat to the security of a democratic government are - elections. Although you did describe Venezuela rather well, I suspect you wanted to say something else.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

Let me jump in and give my opinion and clarification as well, since I am after all a Venezuelan and I´ve been living most of this Hell.

Hm, interesting. Could you give us some insight on the allegations by the Venezuelan government of the drop in poverty levels? Is that a result of skewed statistics, useless entitlements (extremely low quality but free health care and education, for example) counting towards ones' well-being, or a genuine improvement in daily lives of a large segment of population?

McHrozni

[Childlike Empress]

Again, please acknowledge that the support for the coup had nothing to do with this arrest as far as the law is concerned. This man was arrested because of the comments he made about freedom of speech in Venezuela while attending a conference in Aruba. The Venezuelan media laws and the justifications behind them, as pathetic as they are, are meaningless. He was arrested because he expressed his opinion - a justified opinion, especially if the reaction is taken into account - in another country. If that is not a violation of the freedom of speech, what is?


I showed you in #21 that this is not true. It had everything to do with the coup, but the NYT doesn't want you to know about it.

Oh, and before i forget:

:cheerleader2:cheerleader2:cheerleader2http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/1742/hugod.jpg:cheerleader2:cheerleader2:cheerleader2

LOL.

[cornsail]

Ehm.

If the side it supports is a serious threat to the security of the government and they only give coverage to that side, then yes I think that's a problem and the law passed to deal with it was hardly extreme or draconic especially when you consider how few times the government actually requested some coverage.

No I think the media law in place was fine..

If the opposition respected democratic elections then maybe it wouldn't be an issue?

I guess you missed this part: "I'm not claiming [the recent arrest] is a case of enforcing existing law"?


ETA: The recent arrest sounds less legit or understandable though, based on what very little I know about it.

Yes, exactly. Thank you.

Do you want allegations that you defend Chavez and his blatant abuses of power to stop?

No I want "allegations" that I defend specific actions of Chavez that I do not defend to stop. I defend some things and not others. It's not complicated...

Out for now, I'll look at the rest of your response later.

[McHrozni]

I showed you in #21 that this is not true. It had everything to do with the coup, but the NYT doesn't want you to know about it.

No, I saw that. I just consider Venezuela analysis as credible as Soviet Pravda - which is to say, not at all.

An example why:
Workers in the electrical sector are set to embark on nationwide consultation process to elaborate strategic and immediate solutions for the electricity crisis.

This could just as easily come from KCNA. It's a regimes' mouthpiece, nothing more and nothing less, obviously they will only say what they want you to think. There is also an article comparing Venezuela to Canada and claiming Venezuela is more democratic. Yay.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

I guess you missed this part: "I'm not claiming [the recent arrest] is a case of enforcing existing law"?

So why did you start saying "the guy who was arrested is also evil look at what he has done"?

No I want "allegations" that I defend specific actions of Chavez that I do not defend to stop. I defend some things and not others. It's not complicated...

It is when you don't tell us which actions of Chavez you do support and which ones you don't. I still don't know if you support this arrest or not.

McHrozni

[WildCat]

No but, "misreading" my posts right after "having been corrected" for the exact same thing is a reason to stop responding to you. The discussion is obviously not going anywhere if you're too lazy to actually read what I write...
I didn't misread anything, those were your own words.

And for someone who claims not to "defend it", you sure spend a lot of time doing just that. If you don't want to be accused of defending Hugo, don't defend him.

[WildCat]

Seriously? We have similar laws in the US. For example in an election, NBC can be biased, but they can't decide they only want to give airtime to their favorite Democratic candidate or something.
Absolute, utter, and complete BS. There are no such laws in the US. NBC can favort any candidate or party they like, without consequence from the government.

eta: the only law is they must accept all campaign ads. There is no regulation on the amount or type of coverage.

[Childlike Empress]

No, I saw that. I just consider Venezuela analysis as credible as Soviet Pravda - which is to say, not at all.

An example why:


This could just as easily come from KCNA. It's a regimes' mouthpiece, nothing more and nothing less, obviously they will only say what they want you to think. There is also an article comparing Venezuela to Canada and claiming Venezuela is more democratic. Yay.


McHrozni, you're wrong about venezuelanalysis. You don't have to agree with their (open) positions to see that they are very credible. It's no problem to rely on their words when they state facts, proven over and over again. Like in this case, in which it took me a few seconds to find an El Pais article (http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Detenido/Venezuela/presidente/Globovision/criticar/Gobierno/elpepuint/20100325elpepuint_12/Tes) which reports the same facts the NYT omits.

[WildCat]

Missed this snarky little wonder.. clever, clever. :rolleyes:

Would you like to apologize for repeatedly misrepresenting my posts while ignoring corrections, BTW?
Absolutely not. You are defending him, even going so far as to make the BS claim that the US has similar laws.

You don't get to say "I don't defend him" and then spend the rest of the post doing just that withour getting called out on it.

[McHrozni]

McHrozni, you're wrong about venezuelanalysis.

Really.
In the current opening page, they praise their electrical company for the effective response to the current electrical crisis.

Frankly, this would be enough for any sane person to question their allegience. They also praise Venezuelan democratic institutions compared to Canadian ones, because, as a first reason, many Canadian streets and offices still bear British names and because Queen Elizabeth is still Canadian head of state.

Seriously, how can you say I'm the one who's wrong about venezuelanalysis?

McHrozni

[NWO Sentryman]

Venezuelanalysis is as credible as thirdworldtraveler or Prison Planet. They are just like those sites defending North Korea, or Michael moore.

[Childlike Empress]

Really.
In the current opening page, they praise their electrical company for the effective response to the current electrical crisis.

Frankly, this would be enough for any sane person to question their allegience. They also praise Venezuelan democratic institutions compared to Canadian ones, because, as a first reason, many Canadian streets and offices still bear British names and because Queen Elizabeth is still Canadian head of state.

Seriously, how can you say I'm the one who's wrong about venezuelanalysis?

McHrozni


You obviously haven't read the article about the democratic institutions, otherwise you wouldn't claim that the author "praised" Venezuela against Canada. This article is as sober as it gets.

But you are derailing. What about the NYT? Do you now, after i delivered the EL Pais article including transcript of Zuloaga's speech, concede that their reporting is misleading at best?

[Marduk]

Clearly you are getting confused with RCTV. No-one called for anyone to get involved in any resurrection.


Clearly you are getting confused with Jesus
:p

[Praktik]

They are just like those sites defending North Korea, or Michael moore.

Yes yes, or to take another pair of "likes": sites defending Stalin or Thomas Friedman... had a real LOL moment there thank you..:)

[NWO Sentryman]

Yes yes, or to take another pair of "likes": sites defending Stalin or Thomas Friedman... had a real LOL moment there thank you..:)

And i should have clarified though: They are like Michael Moore, or the sites that defend North Korea.

[Childlike Empress]

To confuse the Sentryman: Here's a nice article about Michael Moore on venezuelanalysis...

The Moore Saga (http://venezuelanalysis.com/blog/eva/4897) :D

[McHrozni]

You obviously haven't read the article about the democratic institutions, otherwise you wouldn't claim that the author "praised" Venezuela against Canada. This article is as sober as it gets.

Really. As a matter of fact, I did read it, including gems such as:

As shown in this analysis, many aspects of Venezuela's system of democracy are not substantially different than those of Canada, while many other key aspects actually compare favorably when juxtaposed with Canada's system.

Through various forms of legislation since Confederation, Canada has increased its independence from Great Britain, although remnants of the country's colonial past persist to present day; Canadian city names and streets still bear the names of British cities and leaders, and most significantly in this vein, the Queen of Britain formally remains the Head of State in Canada. This has many significant implications for how government functions in Canada.

An argument can be made however that a unicameral legislature is more democratic. This is because, as is the case in the United States, each state elects the same number of senators regardless of the state's population (9), which can lead to disproportionate representation.

While the role of the British Monarch and her representatives is now essentially limited to a ceremonial position in Canada, it is notable that the Crown can still play a very significant role in Canadian politics.

Although the elimination of limits with regard to presidential reelections has raised eyebrows in and outside of Venezuela, it must be remembered that there are no executive term re-election limits in many other countries in the world, including Canada.

Never mind the fact Canada has a Westminster model of a parliamentary democracy, whereas Venezuela has a presidential model, eh? Or that Venezuela has yet to have a peaceful transition of government under this new constitution, unlike, say, Canada.
Did you read it? At all?

But you are derailing. What about the NYT? Do you now, after i delivered the EL Pais article including transcript of Zuloaga's speech, concede that their reporting is misleading at best?

My knowledge of Spanish is limited to a few words of Italian, so no, I can't concede anything.

McHrozni

[NWO Sentryman]

To confuse the Sentryman: Here's a nice article about Michael Moore on venezuelanalysis...

The Moore Saga (http://venezuelanalysis.com/blog/eva/4897) :D

I was saying that VA had the same amount of credibility as TWT, Michael Moore or Prison Planet

[funk de fino]

McHrozni, you're wrong about venezuelanalysis. You don't have to agree with their (open) positions to see that they are very credible. It's no problem to rely on their words when they state facts, proven over and over again. Like in this case, in which it took me a few seconds to find an El Pais article (http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Detenido/Venezuela/presidente/Globovision/criticar/Gobierno/elpepuint/20100325elpepuint_12/Tes) which reports the same facts the NYT omits.

You constantly source it even though it is an openly biased site for Chavez and his goons. It is funded by a organisation who openly admit bias for Chavez and they state on the site.

We welcome article submissions, but will only post them if they meet our editorial aims and standards.

There is speculation that they are also under control of Venezuela's Ministry of Communications & Information. Even other Chavez supporters have claimed it is supported by the govt.

It's like right wingers trying to say Fox is independant and unbiased.

[McHrozni]

It's like right wingers trying to say Fox is independant and unbiased.

I'm tempted to say that compared to Venezuelanalysis, it is independent and unbiased :D

McHrozni

[dudalb]

The Chavezistas are very amusing in their attempts to either justify Chavez actions or try to prove that the negative information about him are Lies,Lies, All Capitalist Imperialist Lies.
Fact is a lot of people on the Left in the US bought into Chavez as The Great Champion of the people, and now refuse to admit they were wrong.

[cornsail]

lol... This thread is unbelievable. Apparently no one can tell the difference between not defending a specific action of someone and defending them in other regards.

[Praktik]

lol... This thread is unbelievable. Apparently no one can tell the difference between not defending a specific action of someone and defending them in other regards.

You wouldn't believe the number of liberals who openly supported Saddam Hussein! Talk about being on the wrong side of history... there's a saying for that I think: "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"

We've seen that with Stalin, Saddam - and now Chavez.

Wise words...wise words...

[Captain.Sassy]

lol... This thread is unbelievable. Apparently no one can tell the difference between not defending a specific action of someone and defending them in other regards.

it's nuts.

I guess you aren't allowed to have even a sliver of nuance in a Chavez-related opinion, it's either all or nothing.

Hey Praktik remember when you and me were in the tank for Ahmedinejad? Fun times.

[cornsail]

It is when you don't tell us which actions of Chavez you do support and which ones you don't. I still don't know if you support this arrest or not.]

I said it six times. It's not my fault if people refuse to read.

[dudalb]

it's nuts.

I guess you aren't allowed to have even a sliver of nuance in a Chavez-related opinion, it's either all or nothing.

Hey Praktik remember when you and me were in the tank for Ahmedinejad? Fun times.

Funny, I did not hear that about Bush very often from a lot of you.

[cornsail]

I didn't misread anything, those were your own words.

Just an outright lie or abysmal reading comprehension.

[Captain.Sassy]

Funny, I did not hear that about Bush very often from a lot of you.

maybe not. I wasn't here for the Bush years.

But...

I think you can disagree with a leader's policies without demonizing them. I think the characterization of Chavez often tends towards the latter.

It's like in Star Wars where they go into the bar and there's the alien that looks like Satan.

[McHrozni]

lol... This thread is unbelievable. Apparently no one can tell the difference between not defending a specific action of someone and defending them in other regards.

Did you read post number 67 and why not?

McHrozni

[cornsail]

Did you read post number 67 and why not?

McHrozni

I was going to say yes, but it looks like you've already answered the question for me? I think that post (67) ranks as the most logically flawed post in the thread along with WildCat's. Apparently it's incomprehensible to you that I could both criticize Globovision and not support locking them up. And equally incomprehensible that I could defend certain policies of Chavez without endorsing everything he does.

Do you understand now and why not?

[McHrozni]

I was going to say yes, but it looks like you've already answered the question for me? I think that post (67) ranks as the most logically flawed post in the thread along with WildCat's. Apparently it's incomprehensible to you that I could both criticize Globovision and not support locking them up. And equally incomprehensible that I could defend certain policies of Chavez without endorsing everything he does.

Do you understand now and why not?

You didn't read the first part, that's why.

If you disagree with locking this guy up and don't want to defend Chavez in this case, why then did you point out the evils he supposedly did in the past in the thread dedicated to him being locked up on ridiculous charges?

I'm really looking forward to your explanation.

McHrozni

[DC]

i think its wrong to lock them up.
but still i think the anti chavez media in Venezuela acted wrong.

[cornsail]

You didn't read the first part, that's why.

I did read it, I just didn't respond.

If you disagree with locking this guy up and don't want to defend Chavez in this case, why then did you point out the evils he supposedly did in the past in the thread dedicated to him being locked up on ridiculous charges?

I'm really looking forward to your explanation.

McHrozni

Partly because there's two Chavez threads going on and the consensus seems to be that he's an awful "dictator". My first response ITT was poor in that it was strawmanish with regard to this thread specifically. I made it clear shortly after that that I don't defend the arrest described in the article (and almost 10 times subsequently), although it's "less bad" given some of the context of back story that I brought up. After that, the back story became the bulk of the discussion.

[cornsail]

but still i think the anti chavez media in Venezuela acted wrong.

Why do you support locking up journalists?[/WildCat Mode]

[DC]

Why do you support locking up journalists?[/WildCat Mode]

because i love Stalin and his politics. [Dudalb's most loved answer]

[McHrozni]

Partly because there's two Chavez threads going on and the consensus seems to be that he's an awful "dictator". My first response ITT was poor in that it was strawmanish with regard to this thread specifically. I made it clear shortly after that that I don't defend the arrest described in the article (and almost 10 times subsequently), although it's "less bad" given some of the context of back story that I brought up. After that, the back story became the bulk of the discussion.

General defense of Chavez, then. Got it, thanks :)

McHrozni

[cornsail]

As far as the dictator label and other such characterizations are concerned, yes. I actually specified that early on:
"I don't defend it, but the demonization of Chavez is overblown."

[McHrozni]

As far as the dictator label and other such characterizations are concerned, yes. I actually specified that early on:
"I don't defend it, but the demonization of Chavez is overblown."

As I said, Chavez did something bad, and you jumped to his defense, claiming this particular act was bad, but that he wasn't as bad overall as generally portrayed. No matter how many times you claim otherwise, this is exactly what you did :)

McHrozni

[DC]

when someone claims, Hitler ate babys every morning, and you claim he didnt, you are a supporter of Hitler.

[McHrozni]

when someone claims, Hitler ate babys every morning, and you claim he didnt, you are a supporter of Hitler.

I call Godwin :)

McHrozni

[DC]

I call Godwin :)

McHrozni

no the Stalin comparison godwinned it already on page 1

[funk de fino]

As far as the dictator label and other such characterizations are concerned, yes. I actually specified that early on:
"I don't defend it, but the demonization of Chavez is overblown."

Except that at every point on this board most Chavistas attack anyone who criticizes him legitmitely. It's a two way street.

[cornsail]

As I said, Chavez did something bad, and you jumped to his defense, claiming this particular act was bad, but that he wasn't as bad overall as generally portrayed.

No, actually you said I supported the arrest (via implication "do you still support it?"), then when I pointed out like four posts where I'd said I don't defend the arrest you felt the need to argue about it.

No matter how many times you claim otherwise, this is exactly what you did :)

You're right, that's what I said in post 15. Please point me to where I've ever said otherwise.

[Captain.Sassy]

Except that at every point on this board most Chavistas attack anyone who criticizes him legitmitely. It's a two way street.

I honestly haven't seen anything vaguely resembling an attack coming from the Chavez skeptic camp (called by some here the Chavez Apologists), but have seen many very broad accusations coming from the other side (the Chavez tortures babies camp).

What I have seen is some people putting forward balanced positions on Chavez being ignored. It's amazing actually. It doesn't matter how many times, for example, Cornsail says (s)he opposes the arrest of the journalist, he's still accused of mounting 'general defences of Chavez'.

It's like that Twilight Zone episode where some people couldn't read certain words on the internet.

[McHrozni]

You're right, that's what I said in post 15. Please point me to where I've ever said otherwise.

Defending a dictator by pointing out he wasn't as bad as portrayed when he did a new bad thing is hardly something to be proud of. Neither is derailing a thread dedicated to jailing of a man based on expressing his opinion (!) in another country (!) by pointing out not all pro-opposition media have yet been closed.

McHrozni

[Captain.Sassy]

Defending a dictator by pointing out he wasn't as bad as portrayed when he did a new bad thing is hardly something to be proud of. Neither is derailing a thread dedicated to jailing of a man based on expressing his opinion (!) in another country (!) by pointing out not all pro-opposition media have yet been closed.

McHrozni

Doo dee doo doo doo dee doo doo doo dee doo doo
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9333/ist2372282twilightzone.jpg

[funk de fino]

I honestly haven't seen anything vaguely resembling an attack coming from the Chavez skeptic camp (called by some here the Chavez Apologists), but have seen many very broad accusations coming from the other side (the Chavez tortures babies camp).

What I have seen is some people putting forward balanced positions on Chavez being ignored. It's amazing actually. It doesn't matter how many times, for example, Cornsail says (s)he opposes the arrest of the journalist, he's still accused of mounting 'general defences of Chavez'.

It's like that Twilight Zone episode where some people couldn't read certain words on the internet.

Try some of the other Chavez threads.

[Alferd_Packer]

So Globovision, a news organization that has encouraged the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government and amazingly still exists is being "investigated"? What an awful dictatorship.
(or am I missing something) :confused:

Two words: Glen Beck

[funk de fino]

Two words: Glen Beck

They prefer to ignore that.

[Beerina]

So Globovision, a news organization that has encouraged the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government and amazingly still exists is being "investigated"? What an awful dictatorship.
(or am I missing something)

"Democracy" isn't the end-all of forms of government. There's another concept, "freedom", which is given short shrift, especially when compared to "democracy". They overlap, but are not the same thing.

"Democracy" that votes in asinine policies that lord over everybody is hardly some desirable place just because it's "democracy".

[cornsail]

Two words: Glen Beck

I've already disowned that post, but there's a discussion of Fox News compared with RCTV in the other Chavez thread.

[cornsail]

They prefer to ignore that.

Wow, I'm discussing Fox News with you in the other thread and you come here and act like I'm ignoring it? WTF?

[cornsail]

"Democracy" isn't the end-all of forms of government. There's another concept, "freedom", which is given short shrift, especially when compared to "democracy". They overlap, but are not the same thing.

"Democracy" that votes in asinine policies that lord over everybody is hardly some desirable place just because it's "democracy".

True, but the good news is they have the option of voting for someone else.

[funk de fino]

Wow, I'm discussing Fox News with you in the other thread and you come here and act like I'm ignoring it? WTF?

Exactly what did you post in relation to Glen Beck?

Bring it here and prove me wrong.

[cornsail]

Exactly what did you post in relation to Glen Beck?

Bring it here and prove me wrong.

Are you serious? When I write about Fox News that obviously includes Glen Beck. And I've explained at some length what I perceive the relevant differences to be between the two networks. This has to be the dumbest cheap shot I've ever seen.

[funk de fino]

Are you serious? When I write about Fox News that obviously includes Glen Beck. And I've explained at some length what I perceive the relevant differences to be between the two networks. This has to be the dumbest cheap shot I've ever seen.

I asked you specifically about Glenn Beck and the 912 thing. Please bring me your answer to that and prove me wrong.

Glenn Beck is not a network.

[cornsail]

I asked you specifically about Glenn Beck and the 912 thing.

Yes, you asked:

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

To which I responded:

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

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5766009&postcount=153

Then it was:

"You said there were the same laws in the US. Where are they? Where is Fox news supportive of Obama? are they made to run Obama popoganda to get a license? Is Glenn Beck in jail?"

I went on to talk in some length about what I see as the contrast between Fox News (which includes Glenn Beck) and RCTV in that thread. BTW, none of your questions about Glenn Beck were specific in anyway. I assume "Is Glenn Beck in jail?" was rhetorical.

[WildCat]

Just an outright lie or abysmal reading comprehension.
Really? :rolleyes:

So Globovision, a news organization that has encouraged the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government and amazingly still exists is being "investigated"? What an awful dictatorship.
(or am I missing something) :confused:

During the coup they focused their coverage on the opposition and gave free airtime (valued at about $3 million) to ads calling for citizens to join in the insurrection.

They both gave almost unlimited airtime to the opposition and refused to cover any counter protests when the coup was successful.

It's overblown if you don't consider the context/history, the fact that he was released shortly after being arrested etc.

So Globovision supported the overthrow of a democratically elected government (like I said already). The didn't explicitly state this as their goal or position, just as Fox News has claimed not to be a conservative network. But I can almost guarantee you that if Fox "favorably covered" a serious insurrection campaign in the US to the same extent as Globovision, they would not be tolerated long--right or wrong.

As I've been saying the support was not direct, but based on favorable and one-sided coverage. Do you dispute that their coverage was heavily favorable toward the opposition?

Whose words are those?

And are you still claiming the US has laws requiring equal air time, or any air time at all?

[Captain.Sassy]

:rolleyes:

And are you still claiming the US has laws requiring equal air time, or any air time at all?

I believe that coup d'etats are illegal, as would be aiding and abetting them.

But

IANAL.

[cornsail]

Really? :rolleyes:

Yup, really.

And are you still claiming the US has laws requiring equal air time, or any air time at all?

I guess it's easy to get 25+ thousand posts when you don't bother reading the threads you post in. My brief exchanges with you in the past have also been similarly unpleasant. I'm adding you to ignore along with Skeptic and Marc39 just FYI.

[Captain.Sassy]

I'm adding you to ignore along

Don't do it!

WildCat can actually be quite sharp and mount good intellectual challenges to positions at times, though it's true that he has a vexing style of engagement.

[cornsail]

Don't do it!

WildCat can actually be quite sharp and mount good intellectual challenges to positions at times, though it's true that he has a vexing style of engagement.

Okay, I'll unignore him next week in that case.

I already have 10+ posts explaining that I don't defend the arrest, multiple posts saying I think my first response was poor and multiple posts explaining that I'm not "ignoring Glenn Beck" (unrelated but equally trivial), and a post repeating that I said the US law I mentioned was "similar" not "the same". Enter the straw that broke the aardvark's snout.

[McHrozni]

Okay, I'll unignore him next week in that case.

I already have 10+ posts explaining that I don't defend the arrest, multiple posts saying I think my first response was poor and multiple posts explaining that I'm not "ignoring Glenn Beck" (unrelated but equally trivial), and a post repeating that I said the US law I mentioned was "similar" not "the same". Enter the straw that broke the aardvark's snout.

Yeah, but you're the only one actually putting up a defense of Chavez around here, so obviously everybody will pick on you. :)

McHrozni

[cornsail]

As long as people actually read the thread and offer productive discussion, I have no problem with that.

[McHrozni]

What I have seen is some people putting forward balanced positions on Chavez being ignored. It's amazing actually. It doesn't matter how many times, for example, Cornsail says (s)he opposes the arrest of the journalist, he's still accused of mounting 'general defences of Chavez'.

Uhm. This thread is not about Chavez in general, but about a specific action by his government.

To use a comparison made earlier, it's like coming to a thread about the Holocaust, writing "but Hitler didn't eat babies!" and claiming you presented a more balanced position on the topic and weren't defending him at all.

One the other hand, you're right about the twilight zone. You just don't know which side is the one that can't read.

McHrozni

[cornsail]

Uhm. This thread is not about Chavez in general, but about a specific action by his government.

To use a comparison made earlier, it's like coming to a thread about the Holocaust, writing "but Hitler didn't eat babies!" and claiming you presented a more balanced position on the topic and weren't defending him at all.

One the other hand, you're right about the twilight zone. You just don't know which side is the one that can't read.

McHrozni

Are you saying I failed to read something or talking about others?

[McHrozni]

Are you saying I failed to read something or talking about others?

Yes, this:
Originally Posted by Captain.Sassy

McHrozni

[cornsail]

huh

[GlennB]

Should Obama have Rupert Murdoch arrested?

I'm astonished you think political opposition is grounds for arrest.

Can we make an exception for Murdoch? Please? :) :)