• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

No Breaks for "Mr. Danger": Chavez wins re-election by LANDSLIDE

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,371
3,490
126
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The leftist/socialist track record for Central/South America and otther countries seems to speak for themselves.

They start out doing good; become power hungry and then someone is asked to solve the problem.

Typical Catch 22 situation.

Not to say that our system is the best; but when other countries attempt to follow the socialist regime, the end up worse for their population that we are.

Psuedo dictatorsips develop with filtered information available to the outside world. The media gets spoon fed and people lap it up.
right/capitalist in central/south america also have less than stellar trackbrecords.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The leftist/socialist track record for Central/South America and otther countries seems to speak for themselves.

They start out doing good; become power hungry and then someone is asked to solve the problem.

Typical Catch 22 situation.

Not to say that our system is the best; but when other countries attempt to follow the socialist regime, the end up worse for their population that we are.

Psuedo dictatorsips develop with filtered information available to the outside world. The media gets spoon fed and people lap it up.
right/capitalist in central/south america also have less than stellar trackbrecords.
Another two wrongs make a right scenario from a lefty. Gee, imagine that :D


 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Mill

proof?
Well first hand testimonial posted here didn't count as proof for you, so what's the point?
opinion is not proof
It wasn't opinion. It was experience.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The leftist/socialist track record for Central/South America and otther countries seems to speak for themselves.

They start out doing good; become power hungry and then someone is asked to solve the problem.

Typical Catch 22 situation.

Not to say that our system is the best; but when other countries attempt to follow the socialist regime, the end up worse for their population that we are.

Psuedo dictatorsips develop with filtered information available to the outside world. The media gets spoon fed and people lap it up.
right/capitalist in central/south america also have less than stellar trackbrecords.
They don't when it comes to human rights, but when it comes to economics...

Pinochet was a fvcking asshole and a terrorist, but he did a remarkable job with Chile's economy. That doesn't excuse his abuses, but it is better than the left ware solution of being a nasty fascist AND destroying the economy. Neither are decent or workable solutions. What you don't understand is that it isn't about left or right to me. It is about leaders that actually do something good and smart for their country. I'm a fan of Lula and Uribe, and gaining admiration for Calderón. I wouldn't say any of them are exactly rightwing fascists. Right now the largest and most stable economies in South America are Capitalist... Brazil, Chile and the fastest growing Peru, Colombia, Mexico are capitalist as well. Venezuela is one spot where the petrodollars are propping up the state regulated and controlled economy. It won't last. Argentina is doing well as well, but Kirchner is more of an opportunist like Lula than a fascist like Chavez.

Human rights and economic situations are approving in most of Latin America. Human rights are going backwards in Bolivia and Venezuela. Call it opinion all you want. I can continue to post article after article agreeing with my position, and then I get a reconfirmation from the tons of Latins I speak with on a weekly basis.

You call it opinion, but when it comes out of their mouth -- it is experience.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,371
3,490
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The leftist/socialist track record for Central/South America and otther countries seems to speak for themselves.

They start out doing good; become power hungry and then someone is asked to solve the problem.

Typical Catch 22 situation.

Not to say that our system is the best; but when other countries attempt to follow the socialist regime, the end up worse for their population that we are.

Psuedo dictatorsips develop with filtered information available to the outside world. The media gets spoon fed and people lap it up.
right/capitalist in central/south america also have less than stellar trackbrecords.
Another two wrongs make a right scenario from a lefty. Gee, imagine that :D
really?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,371
3,490
126
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Mill

proof?
Well first hand testimonial posted here didn't count as proof for you, so what's the point?
opinion is not proof
It wasn't opinion. It was experience.
experience? is "feel" experience or perception?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,371
3,490
126
Originally posted by: Mill
experience? is "feel" experience or perception?
I don't understand what you are asking. Please clarify.
what did the person you talked to "experience". reading what you posted makes one wonder just how much he could have experienced given the scope of what he said. sounds to me he has simply told you what someone else told him, not actually experienced for himself.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The leftist/socialist track record for Central/South America and otther countries seems to speak for themselves.

They start out doing good; become power hungry and then someone is asked to solve the problem.

Typical Catch 22 situation.

Not to say that our system is the best; but when other countries attempt to follow the socialist regime, the end up worse for their population that we are.

Psuedo dictatorsips develop with filtered information available to the outside world. The media gets spoon fed and people lap it up.
right/capitalist in central/south america also have less than stellar trackbrecords.
Another two wrongs make a right scenario from a lefty. Gee, imagine that :D
really?
Sure looks like it to me.

 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Mill
experience? is "feel" experience or perception?
I don't understand what you are asking. Please clarify.
what did the person you talked to "experience". reading what you posted makes one wonder just how much he could have experienced given the scope of what he said. sounds to me he has simply told you what someone else told him, not actually experienced for himself.
What I said were his words and his experience. He has experience with the poor Cuban doctors. He said many of his family and friends with decent jobs didn't vote. He said that he's watched the petrodollars be used abroad instead of domestically, and that as a whole the people are not happy with it. Everything I said was his experience and not what people told him. That much I'm certain of, because he gave me specific instances.

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,349
9,086
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Vic
There's a reason for this (although I don't approve, being a borderline isolationist). History has shown us time and again that governments like Chavez' are inherently authoritarian, centered around the cult of personality, and that human rights abuses inevitably follow. And when that happens, the US is condemned for not intervening. Damned if you do damned if you don't. I don't know why the world expects the US to be its babysitter, but I do wish they'd be more respectful about it.
i'll grant you that chavez could turn authoritarian, but until he does most(here) criticism against him is unwarranted.
All existing evidence shows that he turned authoritarian years ago. Wacko conspiracy theorists aside, that wasn't CIA snipers firing on unarmed protesters in April 2002. That wasn't Bush who fired nearly 20,000 union oil workers to replace them with workers for a newly-created pro-Chavez union.

Chavez is just following the model set by Castro. How to trick the people into seizing power in order to form a modern absolute monarchy -- call it socialism and tell them you'll use the force of government to solve all the people's problems. They'll fall over themselves to give you absolute power and cult of personality status, and by the time they realized they've been tricked, it's too late.

And BTW, in reference to another post of yours, capitalism and authoritarian are contradictions in terms. Capitalism is inherently libertarian (in that it is a system in which free markets are tolerated rather than prohibited). The authoritarian right-wing economic model is fascism, which bears a great deal more in common with communism in practice than it does capitalism.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,371
3,490
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Vic
There's a reason for this (although I don't approve, being a borderline isolationist). History has shown us time and again that governments like Chavez' are inherently authoritarian, centered around the cult of personality, and that human rights abuses inevitably follow. And when that happens, the US is condemned for not intervening. Damned if you do damned if you don't. I don't know why the world expects the US to be its babysitter, but I do wish they'd be more respectful about it.
i'll grant you that chavez could turn authoritarian, but until he does most(here) criticism against him is unwarranted.
All existing evidence shows that he turned authoritarian years ago. Wacko conspiracy theorists aside, that wasn't CIA snipers firing on unarmed protesters in April 2002. That wasn't Bush who fired nearly 20,000 union oil workers to replace them with workers for a newly-created pro-Chavez union.

Chavez is just following the model set by Castro. How to trick the people into seizing power in order to form a modern absolute monarchy -- call it socialism and tell them you'll use the force of government to solve all the people's problems. They'll fall over themselves to give you absolute power and cult of personality status, and by the time they realized they've been tricked, it's too late.

And BTW, in reference to another post of yours, capitalism and authoritarian are contradictions in terms. Capitalism is inherently libertarian (in that it is a system in which free markets are tolerated rather than prohibited). The authoritarian right-wing economic model is fascism, which bears a great deal more in common with communism in practice than it does capitalism.
haha, ever the comedian.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,349
9,086
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Vic
There's a reason for this (although I don't approve, being a borderline isolationist). History has shown us time and again that governments like Chavez' are inherently authoritarian, centered around the cult of personality, and that human rights abuses inevitably follow. And when that happens, the US is condemned for not intervening. Damned if you do damned if you don't. I don't know why the world expects the US to be its babysitter, but I do wish they'd be more respectful about it.
i'll grant you that chavez could turn authoritarian, but until he does most(here) criticism against him is unwarranted.
All existing evidence shows that he turned authoritarian years ago. Wacko conspiracy theorists aside, that wasn't CIA snipers firing on unarmed protesters in April 2002. That wasn't Bush who fired nearly 20,000 union oil workers to replace them with workers for a newly-created pro-Chavez union.

Chavez is just following the model set by Castro. How to trick the people into seizing power in order to form a modern absolute monarchy -- call it socialism and tell them you'll use the force of government to solve all the people's problems. They'll fall over themselves to give you absolute power and cult of personality status, and by the time they realized they've been tricked, it's too late.

And BTW, in reference to another post of yours, capitalism and authoritarian are contradictions in terms. Capitalism is inherently libertarian (in that it is a system in which free markets are tolerated rather than prohibited). The authoritarian right-wing economic model is fascism, which bears a great deal more in common with communism in practice than it does capitalism.
haha, ever the comedian.
Is this going to be yet another example on your part of pure emotional denial without providing a supporting argument? You seem to do that often. In the meantime, I explained mine.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,371
3,490
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Vic
There's a reason for this (although I don't approve, being a borderline isolationist). History has shown us time and again that governments like Chavez' are inherently authoritarian, centered around the cult of personality, and that human rights abuses inevitably follow. And when that happens, the US is condemned for not intervening. Damned if you do damned if you don't. I don't know why the world expects the US to be its babysitter, but I do wish they'd be more respectful about it.
i'll grant you that chavez could turn authoritarian, but until he does most(here) criticism against him is unwarranted.
All existing evidence shows that he turned authoritarian years ago. Wacko conspiracy theorists aside, that wasn't CIA snipers firing on unarmed protesters in April 2002. That wasn't Bush who fired nearly 20,000 union oil workers to replace them with workers for a newly-created pro-Chavez union.

Chavez is just following the model set by Castro. How to trick the people into seizing power in order to form a modern absolute monarchy -- call it socialism and tell them you'll use the force of government to solve all the people's problems. They'll fall over themselves to give you absolute power and cult of personality status, and by the time they realized they've been tricked, it's too late.

And BTW, in reference to another post of yours, capitalism and authoritarian are contradictions in terms. Capitalism is inherently libertarian (in that it is a system in which free markets are tolerated rather than prohibited). The authoritarian right-wing economic model is fascism, which bears a great deal more in common with communism in practice than it does capitalism.
haha, ever the comedian.
Is this going to be yet another example on your part of pure emotional denial without providing a supporting argument? You seem to do that often. In the meantime, I explained mine.
too many times discussed before to care to go over it all again.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Vic
There's a reason for this (although I don't approve, being a borderline isolationist). History has shown us time and again that governments like Chavez' are inherently authoritarian, centered around the cult of personality, and that human rights abuses inevitably follow. And when that happens, the US is condemned for not intervening. Damned if you do damned if you don't. I don't know why the world expects the US to be its babysitter, but I do wish they'd be more respectful about it.
i'll grant you that chavez could turn authoritarian, but until he does most(here) criticism against him is unwarranted.
All existing evidence shows that he turned authoritarian years ago. Wacko conspiracy theorists aside, that wasn't CIA snipers firing on unarmed protesters in April 2002. That wasn't Bush who fired nearly 20,000 union oil workers to replace them with workers for a newly-created pro-Chavez union.

Chavez is just following the model set by Castro. How to trick the people into seizing power in order to form a modern absolute monarchy -- call it socialism and tell them you'll use the force of government to solve all the people's problems. They'll fall over themselves to give you absolute power and cult of personality status, and by the time they realized they've been tricked, it's too late.

And BTW, in reference to another post of yours, capitalism and authoritarian are contradictions in terms. Capitalism is inherently libertarian (in that it is a system in which free markets are tolerated rather than prohibited). The authoritarian right-wing economic model is fascism, which bears a great deal more in common with communism in practice than it does capitalism.
haha, ever the comedian.
Is this going to be yet another example on your part of pure emotional denial without providing a supporting argument? You seem to do that often. In the meantime, I explained mine.
too many times discussed before to care to go over it all again.
We have all week, please do tell.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Vic
There's a reason for this (although I don't approve, being a borderline isolationist). History has shown us time and again that governments like Chavez' are inherently authoritarian, centered around the cult of personality, and that human rights abuses inevitably follow.
i'll grant you that chavez could turn authoritarian, but until he does most(here) criticism against him is unwarranted.
You know, many said the same thing about JFK, that he was a 'tyrant'; heck, the very song 'cult of personality' includes JFK speaking in it.

George Washington by all accounts was a 'cult of personality', too. It doens't necessarily mean tyrant; Chavez has done much to increase democracy in Venezuela.

Because they are starting at a very different point than we are at, some of the measures look different.

For example, some land reform to give land to peasants looks very different between the US's conditions now, and the Venezuelan situation where a few hundred families own almost all the wealth and land, and you had masses without food and a lot of unused land. Actually, it was JFK who recommended the land redistribution to Venezuela. If we had most Americans without food and that level of concentration of land ownership, you would see our views change a whole lot, too. But the right fails to account for that.

People also fail to give any consideration to the situations some of these people find themselves in. If we had most of the wealth in the US focused on defeating democracy and overthrowing our president, you would see a lot of measures taked to defend both here, too, and, I suspect, broad public support for them. Such measures are in the interest of democracy when protecting democracy is the agenda and they are limited to that need. It's when they're used to thwart democracy that it's a problem.

When leaders don't take such measures, consider what happens, such as to Salvador Allende (elected president lost his life in a US-backed move to dictatorship), the leader of Iran (replaced by the Shah in a newly powerful role as dictator by the US, with a CIA-created brutal security force), and so on; we tried to assassinate Castro dozens of times; look at what happened to President Aristide of Haiti, as he ping ponged in and out of power (now out) as the US switched between democrats and republicans. Consider Daniel Ortega in the 80's in Nicaragua, who did nothing against us, but had to protect his country from a large US-created terrorist force made up of former security forces and criminals, as the US literally committed terrorism - the use of violence terrorizing the population to force it to vote how the outside force wants, and it worked.

Chavez increased the democracy in Venezuela. He removed voting barriers, he added a recall power for the public which was used against him and he abided by it.

If we had a TV station in this country owned by the 'wealthy elite' that was actively putting out lies to defeat democracy and remove the president for their own wealth to be better protected, including not just influencing opinion but being involved in an actual coup that had replaced our president by a new dictatorial government that abolished congress for a couple days - which is what happened in Venezuela - we'd say we were *very* patient for that station to remain operating for six years. That's not about free speech.

We'd demand the coup people be imprisoned as traitors at least - and Chavez was more gentle to them than that, I think he even put one into a position of power.

All existing evidence shows that he turned authoritarian years ago. Wacko conspiracy theorists aside, that wasn't CIA snipers firing on unarmed protesters in April 2002.
No, it was the opposition's snipers firing on the crowd of Chavez supporters, to get them to shoot back, and this very same tv station at issue here then put out a phony report making it look like the Chavez supporters had shot into a a crowd - to create an incident to trigger the coup. But film from another angle shows the Chavez crown was not shooting at a crowd, but at the snipers who were killing them.

Thanks for proving the point about the problem with the lies put out by the station.

That wasn't Bush who fired nearly 20,000 union oil workers to replace them with workers for a newly-created pro-Chavez union.
The US and Venezuelan elites also tried to force Chavez out of office with a devastating striked and economic meltodown. He again did the responsible thing and took the power out of the hands of those who abused it so badly to protect the Venezuelan economy. US corporations had the passwords for computers and such which they simply refused to hand over, and Chavez took steps not to leave the country so vulnerable to people who had abused their role to try to overthrow democracy.

And you condemn that while praising Reagan for getting rid of the air traffic controller union for far less cause, as he made our airline travel less safe?

Chavez is just following the model set by Castro. How to trick the people into seizing power in order to form a modern absolute monarchy -- call it socialism and tell them you'll use the force of government to solve all the people's problems. They'll fall over themselves to give you absolute power and cult of personality status, and by the time they realized they've been tricked, it's too late.
You are not telling the truth. It's fine as fictional paranoia, but not the facts of what's happening. For example, when the opposition had US funding for the 'recall election' - something against our law were it done here - Chavez was very restrained in not taking steps to shut it down as a foreign-pushed initiative, but he actually said he would resign if it passed, and allowed international election inspectors (something else we don't do, which wasn't an issue until 2000 and later).

I will say I'm concerned about reports of Chavez wanting to make the presedential term 25 years. I haven't seen confirmation they're true yet, they could be propaganda.

If they are true, I'd hear his side but start out against the move. So far, he's been great for democracy, in a very tough situation where the nation's money is in open treason.

Seems to me that Chavez should be a hero to America.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,349
9,086
126
Sorry, I forgot that it was Pepsico that ordered the hit on Allende...

:roll:
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Craig234, you are truly the most delusional person I've ever encountered in my life. And I've got an Uncle that thinks he's fighter pilot even though he hasn't left his basement in years.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Look in the mirror, Mill - if you had any actual substance with which to challenge my post, I assume you would post that instead of not including any substance whatsoever.

vic, we all know about already. There's really nothing you can say to his nonsense.

For example, see his mocking of the idea that Pepsi played a role in the US policy against Allenda, and then read the following article and see if you think his mocking merely illustrates his ignorance.

The article includes facts, from the declassified cables to the revelations by the then-US Ambassador of what 'really happened':

Link

Without getting into the whole controversy, just consider the facts in the article and see how they reflect on vic's claim.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,349
9,086
126
Originally posted by: Mill
Craig234, you are truly the most delusional person I've ever encountered in my life. And I've got an Uncle that thinks he's fighter pilot even though he hasn't left his basement in years.
He has the classic "2 legs good, 4 legs bad" mentality (i.e. "all animals are equal but some are more equal then others," Orwell labeled it best IMO which is why I use his examples) Meaning that he groups people by ideology (religion IMO, but that's another thread) as opposed to their actual actions. So if Chavez does something, it must be good because Chavez represents the proper ideological symbols, while if Bush were to do the exact same thing, it must be bad because Bush represents the wrong ideological symbols. It's the mentality of a gang member, looking to justify why his gang is good and their gang is bad when in fact both gangs behave in similar fashion.
It is, of course, flawed thinking based on flawed premises, the inevitable result of which is that he devolves into an apologist at best, whacked-out conspiracy theorist at worst. As he demonstrates over and over and over again.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,349
9,086
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Look in the mirror, Mill - if you had any actual substance with which to challenge my post, I assume you would post that instead of not including any substance whatsoever.

vic, we all know about already. There's really nothing you can say to his nonsense.

For example, see his mocking of the idea that Pepsi played a role in the US policy against Allenda, and then read the following article and see if you think his mocking merely illustrates his ignorance.

The article includes facts, from the declassified cables to the revelations by the then-US Ambassador of what 'really happened':

Link

Without getting into the whole controversy, just consider the facts in the article and see how they reflect on vic's claim.
Those aren't facts. That's an opinion article based on hearsay from a single and long discredited source (Edward Korry). Learn how to read journalism.
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Look in the mirror, Mill - if you had any actual substance with which to challenge my post, I assume you would post that instead of not including any substance whatsoever.
He's posted more substance here than you've ever brought forth.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
You're like a fish talking about running a marathon, jrenz, when you say anything about 'substance'. You have it exactly backwards as usual.

Go ahead and show me the substance in his post at hand which I was commenting on. We'll wait.

There's an old saying you can lead a horse to water but not make it drink.

You show that you can lead the other end of a horse to water, throw it in, put tubes into it, and it can still refuse to say anything other than that it's in a desert without water.

You are being spoon-fed the history above with declassified memos, statements and confessions from the players involved, and you are blind.

And someone still wonders why I call it a cult.

Think twice before posting more hot air, and getting that pointed out again, the forum does not benefit from that waste.
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
You're like a fish talking about running a marathon, jrenz, when you say anything about 'substance'. You have it exactly backwards as usual.

Go ahead and show me the substance in his post at hand which I was commenting on. We'll wait.
He posted first hand research from natives of the country you seem to be an expert on. I guess experience is only important if it supports your armchair view of the world, right?

Think twice before posting more hot air, and getting that pointed out again, the forum does not benefit from that waste.
Any what does it benefit from? The constant circle jerk you and your friends have over how great Chavez is and how eeeevvviillll Bush is? You're as much a leftist sheep as any righties on here, but you refuse to see that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY