• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hugo Chavez gets an express pass

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Hayabusa Rider said:
Yes because Andrew Breitbart had people put down who opposed him. Well Bibi is worse than Hitler so there you go.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, who exactly did Chavez put down? Certainly there is evidence he engaged in quashing dissent through politically motivated arrests but at the very least his Wikipedia article and the official human rights reports leave this charge absent.
 
Abraxas said:
I'm sorry, who exactly did Chavez put down? Certainly there is evidence he engaged in quashing dissent through politically motivated arrests but at the very least his Wikipedia article and the official human rights reports leave this charge absent.
Click to expand...

People will happily make claims against those they dislike even if there's no evidence to support it. If someone is a bad person, well why not just add claims to make him sound even worse? Truth be damned! It's not really much different than truthers. George W Bush was a bad person and a horrible President, let's say he also had a hand in causing 9/11 because then he's a monster!
 
thraashman said:
People will happily make claims against those they dislike even if there's no evidence to support it. If someone is a bad person, well why not just add claims to make him sound even worse? Truth be damned! It's not really much different than truthers. George W Bush was a bad person and a horrible President, let's say he also had a hand in causing 9/11 because then he's a monster!
Click to expand...

You could've just said demonize. I mean lol 😉
 
Lemon law said:
But still we are left with overall thread question, does Hugo Chanez suffer from end stage cancer? Maybe true and hence his days are numbered. I have always felt a leaders term in power should be limited and not perpetual. As a blood bath power struggle may result when Hugo finally dies.
Click to expand...

Haybusa is mourning the days when the fascists were succesfully
running Venezuela for his good....

The 1980s oil glut led to an external debt crisis and a long-running economic crisis, which saw inflation peak at 100% in 1996 and poverty rates rise to 66% in 1995[7] as (by 1998) per capita GDP fell to the same level as 1963, down a third from its 1978 peak
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela
 
Last edited:
monovillage said:
http://news.investors.com/article/545008/201008251856/the-killing-fields-of-caracas.htm?p=full
Click to expand...
It's really amazing to me that so many can be so ignorant of what is happening around them. That people know nothing of Chavez and then in a knee-jerk reaction defend him is...just unbelievable. We've got a whole generation for whom Wikipedia is the source of all information. Really stunning and not in a good way.

Thanks for the link. Maybe it will educate a few around here. Well, they might learn something but they'll selectively retain what they wish.

Edit: How everything must be viewed through Bush colored glasses is just absurd. Anything deemed to be potentially bad must have a comparison drawn against the gold standard of bad, Bush.
 
Last edited:
monovillage said:
http://news.investors.com/article/545008/201008251856/the-killing-fields-of-caracas.htm?p=full
Click to expand...

Interesting. A few points though.

First, it doesn't even say Chavez was responsible for killing anyone or ordered anyone killed, just that he wants a high murder rate because evidently he is cartoonishly evil. Never mind he is running for reelection and relies on the people most victimized by murder as his primary support base. Never mind he had an entire police university built to produce more cops to get the city back under control. No, because Chavez is the President, he is responsible for and deliberately instigating the murders, in much the same way every US president has been responsible for the murder rate in Detroit because they ordered it.

Secondly, the article simply infers that she did it in protest of Chavez and his murdering ways, even though she never said as much.

Third, the editorial board of Investor's Business Daily kind of has a piss poor record with accuracy. These are the same people who were spouting off about how superior the American medical system over Britain, claiming that Stephen Hawking wouldn't have had a chance with British care, the same Stephen Hawking who has lived his entire life in Britain and actually did in fact receive British care. With fact checking like that, why should I consider any conclusion their editorial board jumps to without direct sources to have any merit?
 
Last edited:
boomerang said:
It's really amazing to me that so many can be so ignorant of what is happening around them. That people know nothing of Chavez and then in a knee-jerk reaction defend him is...just unbelievable. We've got a whole generation for whom Wikipedia is the source of all information. Really stunning and not in a good way.

Thanks for the link. Maybe it will educate a few around here. Well, they might learn something but they'll selectively retain what they wish.

Edit: How everything must be viewed through Bush colored glasses is just absurd. Anything deemed to be potentially bad must have a comparison drawn against the gold standard of bad, Bush.
Click to expand...

On the flip side, we have people such as yourself who know nothing of Chavez who jump to condemn him. Further, I don't see anyone in here actually defending Chavez.

We have dmcowen674 saying he only did one good thing, Eskimospy calling out the people who were outraged over people rejoicing over the death of one person rejoicing over the impending death of another and that he was a shitty human being, Lemon Law pointing out the important thing will be what follows his death, me asking who he killed, and traashman saying there was no evidence but he was still a bad person.

Funny thing, isn't it? You condemn people for using Wikipedia as a source when it is an effective and competent aggregator of knowledge for major events and figures and things like mass murder would in all probability be covered and sourced there, conveniently overlooked the fact that the one person who indicated they used Wikipedia in this thread, myself, also said they used the human rights reports on Venezuela for additional material just to be sure, and generally read up on the topic when you were operating principally from the sources of making crap up, making false claims about the other side, and general dishonest debate tactics; in short, better than Boomerang average.

But by all means, yes, read the link, as much for what it doesn't say as for what it does.
 
Abraxas said:
Interesting. A few points though.

First, it doesn't even say Chavez was responsible for killing anyone or ordered anyone killed, just that he wants a high murder rate because evidently he is cartoonishly evil. Never mind he is running for reelection and relies on the people most victimized by murder as his primary support base. Never mind he had an entire police university built to produce more cops to get the city back under control. No, because Chavez is the President, he is responsible for and deliberately instigating the murders, in much the same way every US president has been responsible for the murder rate in Detroit because they ordered it.

Secondly, the article simply infers that she did it in protest of Chavez and his murdering ways, even though she never said as much.

Third, the editorial board of Investor's Business Daily kind of has a piss poor record with accuracy. These are the same people who were spouting off about how superior the American medical system over Britain, claiming that Stephen Hawking wouldn't have had a chance with British care, the same Stephen Hawking who has lived his entire life in Britain and actually did in fact receive British care. With fact checking like that, why should I consider any conclusion their editorial board jumps to without direct sources to have any merit?
Click to expand...

Fact check yourself anything you'd like. Here's a site that may be more to your liking.


Elena Mora, Organizing Director of the Communist Party USA, went on CNBC to defend the 'nationalization' of the Venezuelan oil industry by Hugo Chavez. This originally aired January 31st, 2007.
Click to expand...

http://cpusa.org/communist-party-usa-on-cnbc/
 
monovillage said:
Fact check yourself anything you'd like. Here's a site that may be more to your liking.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with your link, it is without facts and so fact checking is impossible. It take the fact that Caracas has a high murder rate and then from that infers first that this is the fault of Chavez, and from there that Chavez is doing it on purpose to repress the population. No facts, no evidence, no reasoning is provided to justify the leap from high crime rate to deliberate political repression but you mindlessly lap it up because if conforms to your worldview.

Same with the seven star flag. The person in question never said it was chosen for political reasons, let alone the specific political reason of opposing the violent repression of the Venezuelan people; no evidence was collected that this was the case such as that being a common form of expression in Venezuela or previous statements of hers to that effect, nor any statement from those close to each other. However, that doesn't stop IBD from concluding from this no evidence she was lashing out at Chavez over the crime rate as opposed to merely being patriotic.

You cannot fact check baseless speculation and so far that is all you have.
 
Abraxas said:
That's the problem with your link, it is without facts and so fact checking is impossible. It take the fact that Caracas has a high murder rate and then from that infers first that this is the fault of Chavez, and from there that Chavez is doing it on purpose to repress the population. No facts, no evidence, no reasoning is provided to justify the leap from high crime rate to deliberate political repression but you mindlessly lap it up because if conforms to your worldview.

Same with the seven star flag. The person in question never said it was chosen for political reasons, let alone the specific political reason of opposing the violent repression of the Venezuelan people; no evidence was collected that this was the case such as that being a common form of expression in Venezuela or previous statements of hers to that effect, nor any statement from those close to each other. However, that doesn't stop IBD from concluding from this no evidence she was lashing out at Chavez over the crime rate as opposed to merely being patriotic.

You cannot fact check baseless speculation and so far that is all you have.
Click to expand...

You're right, he's a swell guy.
 
monovillage said:
You're right, he's a swell guy.
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. I have not yet commented once on his character, with the sole exception of "there is evidence he engaged in quashing dissent through politically motivated arrests".

I'm just going to Godwin this thing now and get it over with, but do you hate the Nazis for their persecution of the Aztecs? No? Does that mean you think they were swell guys?

The point I am making is not that Chavez is a good guy, it is that if you want to hold him to be a villain, at least limit your loathing to what he is known to have done and what evidence can be provided for him to have done. Once you start throwing in random unevidenced accusations to puff up his dark side points, you start to fall into the same category as the 9/11 Truthers; people hating for the sake of hating and who allow their desire to be against someone or something push them to unsupported and asinine conclusions.
 
Abraxas said:
Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. I have not yet commented once on his character, with the sole exception of "there is evidence he engaged in quashing dissent through politically motivated arrests".

I'm just going to Godwin this thing now and get it over with, but do you hate the Nazis for their persecution of the Aztecs? No? Does that mean you think they were swell guys?

The point I am making is not that Chavez is a good guy, it is that if you want to hold him to be a villain, at least limit your loathing to what he is known to have done and what evidence can be provided for him to have done. Once you start throwing in random unevidenced accusations to puff up his dark side points, you start to fall into the same category as the 9/11 Truthers; people hating for the sake of hating and who allow their desire to be against someone or something push them to unsupported and asinine conclusions.
Click to expand...

I think you're a swell guy too.
 
Abraxas said:
On the flip side, we have people such as yourself who know nothing of Chavez who jump to condemn him. Further, I don't see anyone in here actually defending Chavez.

We have dmcowen674 saying he only did one good thing, Eskimospy calling out the people who were outraged over people rejoicing over the death of one person rejoicing over the impending death of another and that he was a shitty human being, Lemon Law pointing out the important thing will be what follows his death, me asking who he killed, and traashman saying there was no evidence but he was still a bad person.

Funny thing, isn't it? You condemn people for using Wikipedia as a source when it is an effective and competent aggregator of knowledge for major events and figures and things like mass murder would in all probability be covered and sourced there, conveniently overlooked the fact that the one person who indicated they used Wikipedia in this thread, myself, also said they used the human rights reports on Venezuela for additional material just to be sure, and generally read up on the topic when you were operating principally from the sources of making crap up, making false claims about the other side, and general dishonest debate tactics; in short, better than Boomerang average.

But by all means, yes, read the link, as much for what it doesn't say as for what it does.
Click to expand...
You mad bro?
 
Good riddance. It will be interesting to see what happens once he's gone. After crushing opposition for so long, and getting the population used to government control of their lives at the level Craig would be proud of, are there any leaders left there that can step up and undo what Fidel, oops, I mean Chaves has done?

Of course there are plenty of idiots who will mourn the loss of a great hero Chavez when he does kick the bucket, many of them in DC in the current administration.
 
eskimospy said:
Ooh, I love these threads.

Now the same people who were OUTRAGED and OFFENDED that people were happy someone like Andrew Breitbart died can say that they are happy Hugo Chavez will die, and then the people on the other side can be OUTRAGED and OFFENDED.
Click to expand...
That DOES sound like fun!

Wait, which one am I again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top