Venezuela's Chavez Defends TV Decision

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Arcex
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Arcex
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Arcex
Originally posted by: K1052

Yes, however my argument is that Bush sucks less and is rather limited by the relatively robust construction protecting freedoms in our government. To dissent, agree, or present a moderate interpretation of events is totally up to the particular channel.

I'd agree with you except for the fact that Bush has been doing everything he can to remove that "relatively robust construction" so he can be more free to run this country as he sees fit with no oversight whatsoever. He's used signing documents to prevent us from seeing documents from his administration, grant himself immunity from any and all wrongdoing, while at the same time denying he's actually done anything wrong. Why would he need to grant himself immunity if he hasn't done anything? His administration is a joke. Chavez's is worse, sure, IMO Bush should still be brought up on charges randing from sedition to crimes against humanity, as well as Cheney, Gonzales, and a host of others, including Chavez. At least Chavez is more honest about his grab for power.

That's hilarious.

How so? Chavez said because they worked against him they are shutting down the station, right? Here we have Murdock working behind the scenes to advance the Bush agenda and only admitting it after the fact (6 years into things) and Bush working behind the scenes to quietly put PBS on a shorter leash, all the while claiming about both issues that we are all imagining things. If thats what you consider hilarious then you my friend need to get out more.

I'm as big of a Bush critic as any, but you are living in a fantasy land like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the black box voter fraud folks. Lemme guess, Bush rigged the election and slammed planes into the Towers on his own, right?

I don't watch FoxNews. I consider them to be biased toward the Conservative viewpoint of politics and social issues (minus global warming a Murdoch pet). So what? I don't care. Murdoch has the FREEDOM to say and do what he wants. Just like MSNBC can do with Olbermann, or CNN can do. Same goes with SocialistWorker, NewsMax, WorldNutDaily, or DailyKOS. If they have a bias so ****** what? That's their right. If the American people are duped then it serves the mright.

I think you need to grow up and let the adults talk. The Government has no business interfering with media whether they are biased to the left or right.

First of all if you want to have an honest discussion about this then fine, I'm game, but leave the name calling out, its immature and makes you look like a hypocrite.

Second, don't put words in my mouth. Ever.

Third, Murdock is free to say whatever he wants, but if he is using the news organization he owns to influence people in a certain direction, which is exactly what he admitted to doing at the World Economic Forum earlier this year, that goes completely against the entire POINT of having a freedom of the press. This is different than a certain reporter being slanted in one way or the other, because he said he tried to use News Corp. in general, meaning Fox News, NY Post, TV Guide, all the Fox telvision / movie studios, and lots more.

Last, you argue with me, then practically quote me. The main point of my original post is that the Bush admin is interfering with the media, so what, are you arguing with me just for the sake of arguing with me?

I didn't call you any names. I said you need to stop acting like a child. Much like how you just pitched a fit saying I put words in your mouth and don't "ever" do that. Grow up. I don't think you are understanding anything I post. At the very least you aren't addressing my points.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Arcex
Look, Chavez is a tyrant who should be removed from office. Bush is a tyrant who should be removed from office. Can't they both be bad rulers without this decending to a slugging match? They both suck, end of story.

Can you imagine what would happen here if Bush pressured the FCC to not renew/revoke the license of a major network because it didn't support him, let alone send armed troops to secure the station's transmitters?

Chavez is a classless thug intent on moving up to socialist dictator. At least Bush will leave when his term is up.

That's not what Chavez did, either. Stop the lying.

Mill:
Chavez was not democratically elected. The election was rigged by intimidation, voter fraud, and other means to assure his victory. Only the nutty communists and super leftists try to say he was elected in a fair election.

Everyone, including the monitoring groups who are independant, says he did, but for the radical right, and even most of them seem to accept the truth there.

Or you talking about senile Jimmy Carter's statements that the election was fair? He observed about two ballot boxes in 30 minutes and then went back to his hotel. Why don't you ask some voters from Venezuela if they were intimidated, or if they think the election was fair. Oh, wait, you can't. You're an armchair expert and debater just like SteepleRot.

Just because some voters felt intimidated, doesn't mean the election wasn't fair. A lot of people feel intimidated or say they were intimidated in elections US considers fair, including our own.

We're not talking about feelings or weird non-tangential politic points. It takes me 30 seconds to vote. I used to vote in a near majority black district, and now I voted in a large white district. I've never had a single problem. Of course, I'd be a fool to say the US System doesn't have problems. It does, and I can see why some people lose or lost faith in it to an extent.

I find it very sad that you think I am here to support US Government Foreign Policy. I am not. US Government Foreign Policy has been a complete failure in many areas. In other areas that had the right ideas, but horrible execution. Look, this is not a foreign policy debate. I don't want the US to attack Chavez or do anything to him. I want us to keep normal relations with him and allow him to trip over his own ego. Unless he starts doing Stalinistic purges or Saddam's brutal attacks on ethnic and religious groups, it isn't our business to intefere. Even then, we look like hypocrites because we haven't done anything about other genocides, and we've supported dictators in other countries (like Saddam at one time).

What I am saying is that the election in Venezuela was rigged and intimidation was huge. Many people cast votes for Chavez and his party because they were scared that lists would be released of voters, and if they were not on it in support of the government -- they would be fired.

Chavez is not a total idiot. He's learned from the mistakes of past autocrats. He makes a bewildering show of putting opposition members in his government, but then they've have a miraculous conversion to his party a little while later. His ego is such that he takes a great idea (and a way to get the International Community off of his), but then makes the ministers have a "conversion experience" because he's so great. All autocrats have that big ego. It will be his downfall, too. Just like it is with most nutty dictators.

The fact is, International Observers observed only small segments of the voting -- they were essentially tricked and led to those areas. In addition, ballots afterwards were miscounted, thrown away, and other fraud tactics were used. Finally, there was large scale waves of intimidation and voting out of fear. Just ask anyone that was there. They will tell you -- hell, even some of the Chavistas will as well. The Chavistas think it is funny to see people scared into voting for their ideas. Isn't that a real riot? I'm over here guffawing.

It is a moribund situation in Venezuela right now. I had hope that Chavez had sense enough not to close down RCTV but he did. I'm not sure of the results, yet. He's pretty strong and entrenched in power, but protects could topple him (unlikely). The more likely scenario is that it strengthens his position and helps to quieten and quell the opposition. Completely that antithesis of democracy.

Military coups are also the antithesis of Democracy, and these so channels triggered and supported a military coup. Not only supported, but were used directly to organize and coordinate the coup and rally support to overthrow the government by violent means. If NBC was telling people to get their weapons and go rush the Capitol, they'd be taken off the air too, and much quicker than it took Chavez.
They lost, and now they are being shut down, for a very good reason. So really, it's a bunch of sour grapes and crocodile tears. They are just pissed off that it's Chavez and not their dictator in power. If they won, they would be shutting down pro Chavez stations, Pinochet style. I think Chavez is an idiot, and his policies are stupid, but he is a very popular idiot in Venezuela.

I would like to see a bit of evidence that says the stations triggered and supported a military coup. They were taken over and used by Chavez's enemies, but they doesn't mean they were complicit. There's a huge difference, and you are being unethical in saying that they did things than how they actually did in reality.

I find it even more hilarious that you think the opposite of Chavez would be a Pinochet style dictator. How about, unlikely?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Arcex
Look, Chavez is a tyrant who should be removed from office. Bush is a tyrant who should be removed from office. Can't they both be bad rulers without this decending to a slugging match? They both suck, end of story.

Can you imagine what would happen here if Bush pressured the FCC to not renew/revoke the license of a major network because it didn't support him, let alone send armed troops to secure the station's transmitters?

Chavez is a classless thug intent on moving up to socialist dictator. At least Bush will leave when his term is up.

That's not what Chavez did, either. Stop the lying.

Mill:
Chavez was not democratically elected. The election was rigged by intimidation, voter fraud, and other means to assure his victory. Only the nutty communists and super leftists try to say he was elected in a fair election.

Everyone, including the monitoring groups who are independant, says he did, but for the radical right, and even most of them seem to accept the truth there.

Or you talking about senile Jimmy Carter's statements that the election was fair? He observed about two ballot boxes in 30 minutes and then went back to his hotel. Why don't you ask some voters from Venezuela if they were intimidated, or if they think the election was fair. Oh, wait, you can't. You're an armchair expert and debater just like SteepleRot.

Just because some voters felt intimidated, doesn't mean the election wasn't fair. A lot of people feel intimidated or say they were intimidated in elections US considers fair, including our own.

We're not talking about feelings or weird non-tangential politic points. It takes me 30 seconds to vote. I used to vote in a near majority black district, and now I voted in a large white district. I've never had a single problem. Of course, I'd be a fool to say the US System doesn't have problems. It does, and I can see why some people lose or lost faith in it to an extent.

I find it very sad that you think I am here to support US Government Foreign Policy. I am not. US Government Foreign Policy has been a complete failure in many areas. In other areas that had the right ideas, but horrible execution. Look, this is not a foreign policy debate. I don't want the US to attack Chavez or do anything to him. I want us to keep normal relations with him and allow him to trip over his own ego. Unless he starts doing Stalinistic purges or Saddam's brutal attacks on ethnic and religious groups, it isn't our business to intefere. Even then, we look like hypocrites because we haven't done anything about other genocides, and we've supported dictators in other countries (like Saddam at one time).

What I am saying is that the election in Venezuela was rigged and intimidation was huge. Many people cast votes for Chavez and his party because they were scared that lists would be released of voters, and if they were not on it in support of the government -- they would be fired.

Chavez is not a total idiot. He's learned from the mistakes of past autocrats. He makes a bewildering show of putting opposition members in his government, but then they've have a miraculous conversion to his party a little while later. His ego is such that he takes a great idea (and a way to get the International Community off of his), but then makes the ministers have a "conversion experience" because he's so great. All autocrats have that big ego. It will be his downfall, too. Just like it is with most nutty dictators.

The fact is, International Observers observed only small segments of the voting -- they were essentially tricked and led to those areas. In addition, ballots afterwards were miscounted, thrown away, and other fraud tactics were used. Finally, there was large scale waves of intimidation and voting out of fear. Just ask anyone that was there. They will tell you -- hell, even some of the Chavistas will as well. The Chavistas think it is funny to see people scared into voting for their ideas. Isn't that a real riot? I'm over here guffawing.

It is a moribund situation in Venezuela right now. I had hope that Chavez had sense enough not to close down RCTV but he did. I'm not sure of the results, yet. He's pretty strong and entrenched in power, but protects could topple him (unlikely). The more likely scenario is that it strengthens his position and helps to quieten and quell the opposition. Completely that antithesis of democracy.

Military coups are also the antithesis of Democracy, and these so channels triggered and supported a military coup. Not only supported, but were used directly to organize and coordinate the coup and rally support to overthrow the government by violent means. If NBC was telling people to get their weapons and go rush the Capitol, they'd be taken off the air too, and much quicker than it took Chavez.
They lost, and now they are being shut down, for a very good reason. So really, it's a bunch of sour grapes and crocodile tears. They are just pissed off that it's Chavez and not their dictator in power. If they won, they would be shutting down pro Chavez stations, Pinochet style. I think Chavez is an idiot, and his policies are stupid, but he is a very popular idiot in Venezuela.

I would like to see a bit of evidence that says the stations triggered and supported a military coup. They were taken over and used by Chavez's enemies, but they doesn't mean they were complicit. There's a huge difference, and you are being unethical in saying that they did things than how they actually did in reality.

I find it even more hilarious that you think the opposite of Chavez would be a Pinochet style dictator. How about, unlikely?

Did you watch the google video in the link I posted before? They weren't taken over and used, they were complicit. A rightwing coup against a democratically elected leftist president, I don't know why Pinochet came to my mind. :roll:
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Arcex
Look, Chavez is a tyrant who should be removed from office. Bush is a tyrant who should be removed from office. Can't they both be bad rulers without this decending to a slugging match? They both suck, end of story.

Can you imagine what would happen here if Bush pressured the FCC to not renew/revoke the license of a major network because it didn't support him, let alone send armed troops to secure the station's transmitters?

Chavez is a classless thug intent on moving up to socialist dictator. At least Bush will leave when his term is up.

That's not what Chavez did, either. Stop the lying.

Mill:
Chavez was not democratically elected. The election was rigged by intimidation, voter fraud, and other means to assure his victory. Only the nutty communists and super leftists try to say he was elected in a fair election.

Everyone, including the monitoring groups who are independant, says he did, but for the radical right, and even most of them seem to accept the truth there.

Or you talking about senile Jimmy Carter's statements that the election was fair? He observed about two ballot boxes in 30 minutes and then went back to his hotel. Why don't you ask some voters from Venezuela if they were intimidated, or if they think the election was fair. Oh, wait, you can't. You're an armchair expert and debater just like SteepleRot.

Just because some voters felt intimidated, doesn't mean the election wasn't fair. A lot of people feel intimidated or say they were intimidated in elections US considers fair, including our own.

We're not talking about feelings or weird non-tangential politic points. It takes me 30 seconds to vote. I used to vote in a near majority black district, and now I voted in a large white district. I've never had a single problem. Of course, I'd be a fool to say the US System doesn't have problems. It does, and I can see why some people lose or lost faith in it to an extent.

I find it very sad that you think I am here to support US Government Foreign Policy. I am not. US Government Foreign Policy has been a complete failure in many areas. In other areas that had the right ideas, but horrible execution. Look, this is not a foreign policy debate. I don't want the US to attack Chavez or do anything to him. I want us to keep normal relations with him and allow him to trip over his own ego. Unless he starts doing Stalinistic purges or Saddam's brutal attacks on ethnic and religious groups, it isn't our business to intefere. Even then, we look like hypocrites because we haven't done anything about other genocides, and we've supported dictators in other countries (like Saddam at one time).

What I am saying is that the election in Venezuela was rigged and intimidation was huge. Many people cast votes for Chavez and his party because they were scared that lists would be released of voters, and if they were not on it in support of the government -- they would be fired.

Chavez is not a total idiot. He's learned from the mistakes of past autocrats. He makes a bewildering show of putting opposition members in his government, but then they've have a miraculous conversion to his party a little while later. His ego is such that he takes a great idea (and a way to get the International Community off of his), but then makes the ministers have a "conversion experience" because he's so great. All autocrats have that big ego. It will be his downfall, too. Just like it is with most nutty dictators.

The fact is, International Observers observed only small segments of the voting -- they were essentially tricked and led to those areas. In addition, ballots afterwards were miscounted, thrown away, and other fraud tactics were used. Finally, there was large scale waves of intimidation and voting out of fear. Just ask anyone that was there. They will tell you -- hell, even some of the Chavistas will as well. The Chavistas think it is funny to see people scared into voting for their ideas. Isn't that a real riot? I'm over here guffawing.

It is a moribund situation in Venezuela right now. I had hope that Chavez had sense enough not to close down RCTV but he did. I'm not sure of the results, yet. He's pretty strong and entrenched in power, but protects could topple him (unlikely). The more likely scenario is that it strengthens his position and helps to quieten and quell the opposition. Completely that antithesis of democracy.

Military coups are also the antithesis of Democracy, and these so channels triggered and supported a military coup. Not only supported, but were used directly to organize and coordinate the coup and rally support to overthrow the government by violent means. If NBC was telling people to get their weapons and go rush the Capitol, they'd be taken off the air too, and much quicker than it took Chavez.
They lost, and now they are being shut down, for a very good reason. So really, it's a bunch of sour grapes and crocodile tears. They are just pissed off that it's Chavez and not their dictator in power. If they won, they would be shutting down pro Chavez stations, Pinochet style. I think Chavez is an idiot, and his policies are stupid, but he is a very popular idiot in Venezuela.

I would like to see a bit of evidence that says the stations triggered and supported a military coup. They were taken over and used by Chavez's enemies, but they doesn't mean they were complicit. There's a huge difference, and you are being unethical in saying that they did things than how they actually did in reality.

I find it even more hilarious that you think the opposite of Chavez would be a Pinochet style dictator. How about, unlikely?

Did you watch the google video in the link I posted before? They weren't taken over and used, they were complicit. A rightwing coup against a democratically elected leftist president, I don't know why Pinochet came to my mind. :roll:

Because you are a troll that likes Chavez because of his politics and ignores the bad things he does?
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I really don't care what Chavez does...like it or not, he was "democratically elected" by the people of Venezuela, and it's THEIR problem, not ours. Do I think it's right? No, but being an American, I value the freedom of the press. However, last time I checked, we hadn't annexed Venezuela yet, so it's really none of our business...except that they DO have copious amounts of "Black Gold"...and that makes them a potential target...
Let's just Annex the entire hemisphere...we'd gain all the oil, bananas, no visa/passport to visit Cabo or Alcapulco...and it would solve the illegal immigrant problem...;)

Chavez was not democratically elected. The election was rigged by intimidation, voter fraud, and other means to assure his victory. Only the nutty communists and super leftists try to say he was elected in a fair election.

Prove it. Prove that the election was rigged and that illegal tactics of coercion were used.

If you don't accept my evidence how can I prove anything? I'm not about to continue debating a nitwit that demands evidence for a burden of proof that can never be reached. There is no onus on me to prove ANYTHING -- even though I did. I posted plenty of evidence posts ago. You've done nothing but shout and proclaim the greatness of Chavez. You've provided no evidence of your own. You've provided no personal accounts. You've never been there, you've never talked to the citizens, and all you know is that Uncle Hugo is putting out an economic system that you would like yourself. It has nothing to do with the man -- it has to do with the system for you. You want socialism. See, my opposition is not to Hugo's chosen system of economics. It is to his policies that reduce freedoms, reduce the efficiency of his people, and the way he scares and harms them.

I have a similar amount of disrespect for Bush's anti-liberty and freedom policies. However, it wouldn't do your position any good to acknowledge what I've said on those issues -- instead you want to act as if I'm a mouthpiece of the RNC. The best you can do is ladle a cup full of fallacies in this thread and hope that one sticks. The red herrings aren't going to work. The ad-homs aren't going to work. Neither is the insistence that I meet YOUR burden of proof. I provided evidence. If you choose not to accept it -- and you want to label the Seattle Times and USNews as biased, opinion-based sources then do so. It only makes YOU look like a NUTJOB. That bolsters my argument more than any evidence I could ever provide.

First the only so called evidence you've provided so far are slanted opinion pieces and inconclusive articles. If you make a claim well then back it up with factual evidence and not anecdotal evidence of people with clear agendas. Second my evidence is the fact that his elections were cited by the UN and this nation as being fair and meeting the standards of how elections should be conducted. We all know had those elections of had the slightest hint of fraud the Bush administration would be tripping all over themselves proclaiming them as being invalid across the American airwaves . So my "evidence" is the commonly shared factual data which was been widely accepted by our own administration and other nations across the world who have accepted the results those elections. All you have though are just blogs, opinion pieces and individuals whose motives and statements are questionable at best. So excuse me if I don't exactly by your claims when you've provide nothing of note and when the prevailing voices in Washington D.C. and at the UN all have stated the direct oppisite in regards to the elections results in Venezula and have up held those results as being legitimate.

P.S. Oh and yes this is your link you provided. Notice the word Opinion in the link. It's a opinion piece.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Give us some factual data that is verified by creditable independent sources that use factual evidence and which have reached common consensus with other independent groups that have declared the election results in Venezuela as being illegitimate and null and void in regards to Chavez's election and re-election.

No offense intended guys, but this is a little silly. The very nature of "rigged elctions" precludes such evidence.

Fern

Really so how did we find out about Saddam's rigged elections? If elections are rigged it's pretty obvious to outside observers and to those in a the nation about the fraudulent nature of those elections. If Chavez rigged his elections and guys like Mill know about it but our administration and the UN say other wise then someone has to be wrong here. Frankly I'd put my weight behind those who monitored the elections and who issued a final judgment on them then individuals with an axe to grind because they lost.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Arcex
Look, Chavez is a tyrant who should be removed from office. Bush is a tyrant who should be removed from office. Can't they both be bad rulers without this decending to a slugging match? They both suck, end of story.

Can you imagine what would happen here if Bush pressured the FCC to not renew/revoke the license of a major network because it didn't support him, let alone send armed troops to secure the station's transmitters?

Chavez is a classless thug intent on moving up to socialist dictator. At least Bush will leave when his term is up.

That's not what Chavez did, either. Stop the lying.

Mill:
Chavez was not democratically elected. The election was rigged by intimidation, voter fraud, and other means to assure his victory. Only the nutty communists and super leftists try to say he was elected in a fair election.

Everyone, including the monitoring groups who are independant, says he did, but for the radical right, and even most of them seem to accept the truth there.

Or you talking about senile Jimmy Carter's statements that the election was fair? He observed about two ballot boxes in 30 minutes and then went back to his hotel. Why don't you ask some voters from Venezuela if they were intimidated, or if they think the election was fair. Oh, wait, you can't. You're an armchair expert and debater just like SteepleRot.

Just because some voters felt intimidated, doesn't mean the election wasn't fair. A lot of people feel intimidated or say they were intimidated in elections US considers fair, including our own.

We're not talking about feelings or weird non-tangential politic points. It takes me 30 seconds to vote. I used to vote in a near majority black district, and now I voted in a large white district. I've never had a single problem. Of course, I'd be a fool to say the US System doesn't have problems. It does, and I can see why some people lose or lost faith in it to an extent.

I find it very sad that you think I am here to support US Government Foreign Policy. I am not. US Government Foreign Policy has been a complete failure in many areas. In other areas that had the right ideas, but horrible execution. Look, this is not a foreign policy debate. I don't want the US to attack Chavez or do anything to him. I want us to keep normal relations with him and allow him to trip over his own ego. Unless he starts doing Stalinistic purges or Saddam's brutal attacks on ethnic and religious groups, it isn't our business to intefere. Even then, we look like hypocrites because we haven't done anything about other genocides, and we've supported dictators in other countries (like Saddam at one time).

What I am saying is that the election in Venezuela was rigged and intimidation was huge. Many people cast votes for Chavez and his party because they were scared that lists would be released of voters, and if they were not on it in support of the government -- they would be fired.

Chavez is not a total idiot. He's learned from the mistakes of past autocrats. He makes a bewildering show of putting opposition members in his government, but then they've have a miraculous conversion to his party a little while later. His ego is such that he takes a great idea (and a way to get the International Community off of his), but then makes the ministers have a "conversion experience" because he's so great. All autocrats have that big ego. It will be his downfall, too. Just like it is with most nutty dictators.

The fact is, International Observers observed only small segments of the voting -- they were essentially tricked and led to those areas. In addition, ballots afterwards were miscounted, thrown away, and other fraud tactics were used. Finally, there was large scale waves of intimidation and voting out of fear. Just ask anyone that was there. They will tell you -- hell, even some of the Chavistas will as well. The Chavistas think it is funny to see people scared into voting for their ideas. Isn't that a real riot? I'm over here guffawing.

It is a moribund situation in Venezuela right now. I had hope that Chavez had sense enough not to close down RCTV but he did. I'm not sure of the results, yet. He's pretty strong and entrenched in power, but protects could topple him (unlikely). The more likely scenario is that it strengthens his position and helps to quieten and quell the opposition. Completely that antithesis of democracy.

Military coups are also the antithesis of Democracy, and these so channels triggered and supported a military coup. Not only supported, but were used directly to organize and coordinate the coup and rally support to overthrow the government by violent means. If NBC was telling people to get their weapons and go rush the Capitol, they'd be taken off the air too, and much quicker than it took Chavez.
They lost, and now they are being shut down, for a very good reason. So really, it's a bunch of sour grapes and crocodile tears. They are just pissed off that it's Chavez and not their dictator in power. If they won, they would be shutting down pro Chavez stations, Pinochet style. I think Chavez is an idiot, and his policies are stupid, but he is a very popular idiot in Venezuela.

I would like to see a bit of evidence that says the stations triggered and supported a military coup. They were taken over and used by Chavez's enemies, but they doesn't mean they were complicit. There's a huge difference, and you are being unethical in saying that they did things than how they actually did in reality.

I find it even more hilarious that you think the opposite of Chavez would be a Pinochet style dictator. How about, unlikely?

Did you watch the google video in the link I posted before? They weren't taken over and used, they were complicit. A rightwing coup against a democratically elected leftist president, I don't know why Pinochet came to my mind. :roll:

Hey, uh, was Perez in 1992 democratically elected? You realize your hero, Uncle Hugo, tried to have a military coup against Perez back then, right? Shouldn't Tio Chavez be in jail still?
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I really don't care what Chavez does...like it or not, he was "democratically elected" by the people of Venezuela, and it's THEIR problem, not ours. Do I think it's right? No, but being an American, I value the freedom of the press. However, last time I checked, we hadn't annexed Venezuela yet, so it's really none of our business...except that they DO have copious amounts of "Black Gold"...and that makes them a potential target...
Let's just Annex the entire hemisphere...we'd gain all the oil, bananas, no visa/passport to visit Cabo or Alcapulco...and it would solve the illegal immigrant problem...;)

Chavez was not democratically elected. The election was rigged by intimidation, voter fraud, and other means to assure his victory. Only the nutty communists and super leftists try to say he was elected in a fair election.

Prove it. Prove that the election was rigged and that illegal tactics of coercion were used.

If you don't accept my evidence how can I prove anything? I'm not about to continue debating a nitwit that demands evidence for a burden of proof that can never be reached. There is no onus on me to prove ANYTHING -- even though I did. I posted plenty of evidence posts ago. You've done nothing but shout and proclaim the greatness of Chavez. You've provided no evidence of your own. You've provided no personal accounts. You've never been there, you've never talked to the citizens, and all you know is that Uncle Hugo is putting out an economic system that you would like yourself. It has nothing to do with the man -- it has to do with the system for you. You want socialism. See, my opposition is not to Hugo's chosen system of economics. It is to his policies that reduce freedoms, reduce the efficiency of his people, and the way he scares and harms them.

I have a similar amount of disrespect for Bush's anti-liberty and freedom policies. However, it wouldn't do your position any good to acknowledge what I've said on those issues -- instead you want to act as if I'm a mouthpiece of the RNC. The best you can do is ladle a cup full of fallacies in this thread and hope that one sticks. The red herrings aren't going to work. The ad-homs aren't going to work. Neither is the insistence that I meet YOUR burden of proof. I provided evidence. If you choose not to accept it -- and you want to label the Seattle Times and USNews as biased, opinion-based sources then do so. It only makes YOU look like a NUTJOB. That bolsters my argument more than any evidence I could ever provide.

First the only so called evidence you've provided so far are slanted opinion pieces and inconclusive articles. If you make a claim well then back it up with factual evidence and not anecdotal evidence of people with clear agendas. Second my evidence is the fact that his elections were cited by the UN and this nation as being fair and meeting the standards of how elections should be conducted. We all know had those elections of had the slightest hint of fraud the Bush administration would be tripping all over themselves proclaiming them as being invalid across the American airwaves . So my "evidence" is the commonly shared factual data which was been widely accepted by our own administration and other nations across the world who have accepted the results those elections. All you have though are just blogs, opinion pieces and individuals whose motives and statements are questionable at best. So excuse me if I don't exactly by your claims when you've provide nothing of note and when the prevailing voices in Washington D.C. and at the UN all have stated the direct oppisite in regards to the elections results in Venezula and have up held those results as being legitimate.

P.S. Oh and yes this is your link you provided. Notice the word Opinion in the link. It's a opinion piece.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm

Are you still trying to accuse me of not having any facts. You can continue to say it, but saying it doesn't make it true.

BTW, here's what your buddies at the Carter Center had to say:

The Carter Center concluded that while the election irregularities would not have changed the 2000 presidential outcome, in which Hugo Chávez won with 60 percent of the vote, the significant politicization of the elections and organizational deficiencies contributed to a lack of confidence in the process and the nonpresidential results, thus leading the Center to characterize the July 2000 elections as flawed.

http://www.cartercenter.org/countries/venezuela.html

When it came to the Recall Election, Carter's team looked at a small portion of stations and declared it to be fair. This was after Mr. Carter had gone on TV and the Radio DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION, and said he felt it was extremely likely that the results would be fair. Furthemore, let's talk International Observers. The EU did not even send a team because Chavez wouldn't give them access or the support they needed. They want to conduct themselves like they did it all observations, and Chavez would not allow it. Look, you are a Chavez apologist. Nothing more and nothing less. You don't care anything about the legitimacy of the opposition's claims. I've provided plenty of evidence. If you choose not to accept that as proof then that is your right. I could not care less about whether or not you believe me or trust my evidence. I'm not attempting to change the minds of Chavez apologists. They are just like 9/11 conspiracy theorists -- kool-aid drinkers to the core.

Here' s a little more evidence, and you can stir up another batch of that delicious kool-aid.

Two indepedent experts who looked at the data collection practices and stats say that there's a high chance of fraud
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: skwicz212
This is what happen when the majority of people rebel. They vote for someone like Chavez. One group's injustice is another group justice.

and it will come to America when the left uses the "Fairness Doctrine" to silence speech they don't like, mainly conservative radio which sells more than liberal radio
 

Arcex

Senior member
Mar 23, 2005
722
0
0
Originally posted by: Mill

I'm as big of a Bush critic as any, but you are living in a fantasy land like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the black box voter fraud folks. Lemme guess, Bush rigged the election and slammed planes into the Towers on his own, right?

I don't watch FoxNews. I consider them to be biased toward the Conservative viewpoint of politics and social issues (minus global warming a Murdoch pet). So what? I don't care. Murdoch has the FREEDOM to say and do what he wants. Just like MSNBC can do with Olbermann, or CNN can do. Same goes with SocialistWorker, NewsMax, WorldNutDaily, or DailyKOS. If they have a bias so ****** what? That's their right. If the American people are duped then it serves the mright.

I think you need to grow up and let the adults talk. The Government has no business interfering with media whether they are biased to the left or right.

First of all if you want to have an honest discussion about this then fine, I'm game, but leave the name calling out, its immature and makes you look like a hypocrite.

Second, don't put words in my mouth. Ever.

Third, Murdock is free to say whatever he wants, but if he is using the news organization he owns to influence people in a certain direction, which is exactly what he admitted to doing at the World Economic Forum earlier this year, that goes completely against the entire POINT of having a freedom of the press. This is different than a certain reporter being slanted in one way or the other, because he said he tried to use News Corp. in general, meaning Fox News, NY Post, TV Guide, all the Fox telvision / movie studios, and lots more.

Last, you argue with me, then practically quote me. The main point of my original post is that the Bush admin is interfering with the media, so what, are you arguing with me just for the sake of arguing with me?[/quote]

I didn't call you any names. I said you need to stop acting like a child. Much like how you just pitched a fit saying I put words in your mouth and don't "ever" do that. Grow up. I don't think you are understanding anything I post. At the very least you aren't addressing my points.
[/quote]

Don't argue semantics with me. In my world, the real world, telling someone who isn't acting immature to grow up is insulting them, a synonym of which would be "name calling". You did try to put words in my mouth, so telling me I'm acting immature because I told you not to do that is a pretty pathetic argument.

And don't be a hypocrite by saying I'm not addressing your points, I did. Read my post again instead of skipping over the points that prove you wrong, then respond to them.


And IMO the radio stations did no more than practice their freedom of the press and freedom of speech, but with Chavez in charge I doubt they have those powers anymore. He's obviously just trying to silence any voice that might spread dissent against his administration, he's trying to protect his dictatorship.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Dashel
Originally posted by: Craig234
No, he and the Venezuelan people are 'the victim here' because he was illegally removed from office by a minority of people who form the 'cabal of wealth' there, who have no use for democracy and the blessings it spreads to the public at the expense of their cabal, who prefers to own pretty much everything and leave most of the country in poverty, led by a figurehead leader they get to select.

All this is tied into RCTV according to the findings of an impartial free and fair trial, right? Or no, maybe it's an inquiry by a third party investigation result? Hmm, well it's got to be based on incontrovertable DNA and video documentation released scrutinized and validated by experts! No? Maybe the Congress.... oh wait they ceded power to Chavez for 18 months... shoot. Eh checks and balances are for sissies anyway.

Heh, this is too easy :)


Originally posted by: Craig234
Oh noes, the government had to control the mob brought out by the cabal. Maybe the TV stations can doctor some footage that the government is shooting them at random, again.

You mean they tried to get away with peacefully assembling too??? Monsters.

Originally posted by: Craig234
As for sending a message, for sending one against participating in a coup of the wealthy to overthrow democracy, yes, that's a message I like to send.

I'm sure you would. Well send it through state owned TV stations.

Originally posted by: Craig234
You just keep on lying, Dashel.

Oh! Thanks for reminding me, time to check in on the lie-o-meter for you:

Originally posted by: Craig234
OK, time to point out the pack of lies from Dashel.

Originally posted by: Craig234
First, the lie that the station was shut down for "criticizing" Chavez. That's a lie

Originally posted by: Craig234
The next lie is about Al Jazeera being the equivalent of that station

Originally posted by: Craig234
The next lie is that Al Jazeera is getting 'freedom of speech' access in the US

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, everything Dashel posted is pretty much a lie

Originally posted by: Craig234
and is willing to, lie about the facts to get it.

Originally posted by: Craig234
as with a lot of lies and propaganda

Originally posted by: Craig234
The right has nothing but lies to post

Originally posted by: Craig234
yet they reach for the comparison to form the lie for their position.

Originally posted by: Craig234
It's one thing to debate the issues, and quite another to use lies

Originally posted by: Craig234
As you continue to lie by saying my post was in favor of squashing free speech

Originally posted by: Craig234
And another lie - you pack them in

Originally posted by: Craig234
I know 3 year olds who do lie

I'm sensing a theme here, but I cant quite.... place it.... :D

Craig234 is the most comically predictable poster here. Whatever he accuses you of doing is EXACTLY what he is doing. It's that simple. He a clueless ideologue who pontificates at great length about how he suffers no challenges to his precious (and otherwise undefendable) groupthink. What's worse is that, like mindless brainwashed groupthinkers, he will always assume that you're one too. As he is incapable of independent thought, so must be everybody else.

The simple and obvious fact is that he's lying to himself. All he'd have to do in order to understand this is recognize that he would absolutely never tolerate this kind of abuse of power from GW Bush here in America, even under identical circumstances (and neither would I). But what he (and all the other Chavez sheep) will do is try to find some way in which they can hypocritically say that Chavez is somehow justified in doing something to the Venezuelan people that they themselves would never tolerate the American government to do to the American people.

Like I said, it's comical. A person is defined by their actions, not ideology. As such, Chavez is a dictator, no matter how much the ideologues want to wish otherwise..
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Mill on Carter's role in the 2000 Venezuelan election when he disagrees:

Or you talking about senile Jimmy Carter's statements that the election was fair? He observed about two ballot boxes in 30 minutes and then went back to his hotel.

Mill on Carter's role in the 2000 Venezuelan election when he agrees:

BTW, here's what your buddies at the Carter Center had to say:

The Carter Center concluded that while the election irregularities would not have changed the 2000 presidential outcome, in which Hugo Chávez won with 60 percent of the vote, the significant politicization of the elections and organizational deficiencies contributed to a lack of confidence in the process and the nonpresidential results, thus leading the Center to characterize the July 2000 elections as flawed.

Wow. Reporting how the elections had significant politicization and organizational deficiencies and concluding the election was flawed is pretty good for a senile guy who saw two stations in 30 minutes.

Mill, you have some valid points to make, but you screw it up by overstating your position - your time in Venezuela not only gives you legitimate info to report (reasonable), but you insiniuate that no one who has not spent time in Venezuela can have any valid opinion on anything about Venezuela, however else they've gotten informed (absurd).

Your comments offer some truth, in my view, about some problems with Chavez, while being extremely one-sided in not recognizing the 'other sides' view at all, such as the issues with the extreme concentrations of power, wealth and land ownership among about 500 families, and the difficulties faced by those like Chavez who want to improve this (however good or bad the changes he's making).

As for your experiences - they are valid, but you lack the bigger picture context, judging by your posts. You could ask two Americans who live here what's going on, and get extremely different answers, including the facts, from a democrat and a republican - much less if you asked a foreign visitor to the US, like you are in Venezuela. Use your experiences visiting reasonably in your posts.

I'm going to respond a lot less with challenges to the fact that Chavez has done some questionable things, than with the issue of what anyone in his shoes, facing the powerful and wealthy of his nation, who could and did try everything from a national economic shutdown, to a recall, to a military coup, not to mention the opposition of the US and the CIA and such, making him have to do some things that aren't ideal to keep power.

If you like the idea of his being gone and the extreme concentrations of wealth and power to remain as they were, you will not give him much room for measures to deal with the rabid opposition. I suspect it has a lot to do with sympathies.

Of course, our founding fathers were traitorous, murdering no-good criminals to some with different sympathies. It's a tricky discussion to try to navigate the evil dictators from the great leaders. You do have someting to offfer that discussion, if you can refrain from the overstatement. BTW, all the Venezuelans I know of who come to the US are not among the poor who are Chavez's base, trying to eat; they're sympathetic to and usually among the wealthy.

Of course they'll have stories they're outraged about, some of which are true, just as opponents of Bush and Bill Clinton each had theirs, some of which are pretty questionable - how many times have I read about the Clintons and Vince Foster and accusations of murder, despite the clear evidence to the contrary? But you need to consider the larger issues for Venezuela and poverty globally as well.

I for one am very happy to see nations stand up to the institutions that would perpetuate the concentration of wealth to the harm of society. Before a right-winger misconstrues that, I'm for some inequality of wealth; that's necessary and appropriate for the prosperity of the society as a whole, incenting good behavior that produces for the nation. It's the extremes, based on self-interested corruption rather than the good of society I see as a problem.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
I for one am very happy to see nations stand up to the institutions that would perpetuate the concentration of wealth to the harm of society. Before a right-winger misconstrues that, I'm for some inequality of wealth; that's necessary and appropriate for the prosperity of the society as a whole, incenting good behavior that produces for the nation. It's the extremes, based on self-interested corruption rather than the good of society I see as a problem.

This is a good thing, but it is unfortunate that he is a paranoid control freak. What I don't get is why the US can't leave well enough alone. Let him run the country how he wants- not really our business. No one is really being persecuted there yet. Although this shutting down the station does not bode well.. I am glad he stands against the centralization of wealth and the exploitation of the poor, but this recent move is not good.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Not surprising, expected actually.

That so call coup that landed the organizer in Chavez's cabinet reminds of Hitlers reichstag fire. A trumped up action to consolidate power. You can spot these dictators from a million miles away. Unless of course you are on all fours anxiously awaiting their arrival. But maybe you have eyes in the back of your head?


 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
I for one am very happy to see nations stand up to the institutions that would perpetuate the concentration of wealth to the harm of society. Before a right-winger misconstrues that, I'm for some inequality of wealth; that's necessary and appropriate for the prosperity of the society as a whole, incenting good behavior that produces for the nation. It's the extremes, based on self-interested corruption rather than the good of society I see as a problem.
You make this sound good, but at the same time you're saying it in support of a dictator who is actively working to concentrate all the wealth in his country into his own hands. How is that NOT "to the harm of society?" How is that NOT an extreme based on self-interest corruption? How is that you can't figure out that you are exactly just like the flag-waving Freedom? right-wing nuts you claim to be so superior to? The only differences between you and them is that you're playing for a different team, but otherwise you support the same actions and tyrannies so long it's in your team's favor.

Keep in mind here, that we're discussing CENSORSHIP in its most repugnant form, i.e. the forced government closing of a media outlet because it said or condoned something against the current government. The rest of your nonsense, what that media outlet did, what it supports, etc., is all simply justification for your ideology, and has nothing to do with the facts.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Arcex
Look, Chavez is a tyrant who should be removed from office. Bush is a tyrant who should be removed from office. Can't they both be bad rulers without this decending to a slugging match? They both suck, end of story.

Can you imagine what would happen here if Bush pressured the FCC to not renew/revoke the license of a major network because it didn't support him, let alone send armed troops to secure the station's transmitters?

Chavez is a classless thug intent on moving up to socialist dictator. At least Bush will leave when his term is up.

That's not what Chavez did, either. Stop the lying.

Mill:
Chavez was not democratically elected. The election was rigged by intimidation, voter fraud, and other means to assure his victory. Only the nutty communists and super leftists try to say he was elected in a fair election.

Everyone, including the monitoring groups who are independant, says he did, but for the radical right, and even most of them seem to accept the truth there.

Or you talking about senile Jimmy Carter's statements that the election was fair? He observed about two ballot boxes in 30 minutes and then went back to his hotel. Why don't you ask some voters from Venezuela if they were intimidated, or if they think the election was fair. Oh, wait, you can't. You're an armchair expert and debater just like SteepleRot.

Just because some voters felt intimidated, doesn't mean the election wasn't fair. A lot of people feel intimidated or say they were intimidated in elections US considers fair, including our own.

We're not talking about feelings or weird non-tangential politic points. It takes me 30 seconds to vote. I used to vote in a near majority black district, and now I voted in a large white district. I've never had a single problem. Of course, I'd be a fool to say the US System doesn't have problems. It does, and I can see why some people lose or lost faith in it to an extent.

I find it very sad that you think I am here to support US Government Foreign Policy. I am not. US Government Foreign Policy has been a complete failure in many areas. In other areas that had the right ideas, but horrible execution. Look, this is not a foreign policy debate. I don't want the US to attack Chavez or do anything to him. I want us to keep normal relations with him and allow him to trip over his own ego. Unless he starts doing Stalinistic purges or Saddam's brutal attacks on ethnic and religious groups, it isn't our business to intefere. Even then, we look like hypocrites because we haven't done anything about other genocides, and we've supported dictators in other countries (like Saddam at one time).

What I am saying is that the election in Venezuela was rigged and intimidation was huge. Many people cast votes for Chavez and his party because they were scared that lists would be released of voters, and if they were not on it in support of the government -- they would be fired.

Chavez is not a total idiot. He's learned from the mistakes of past autocrats. He makes a bewildering show of putting opposition members in his government, but then they've have a miraculous conversion to his party a little while later. His ego is such that he takes a great idea (and a way to get the International Community off of his), but then makes the ministers have a "conversion experience" because he's so great. All autocrats have that big ego. It will be his downfall, too. Just like it is with most nutty dictators.

The fact is, International Observers observed only small segments of the voting -- they were essentially tricked and led to those areas. In addition, ballots afterwards were miscounted, thrown away, and other fraud tactics were used. Finally, there was large scale waves of intimidation and voting out of fear. Just ask anyone that was there. They will tell you -- hell, even some of the Chavistas will as well. The Chavistas think it is funny to see people scared into voting for their ideas. Isn't that a real riot? I'm over here guffawing.

It is a moribund situation in Venezuela right now. I had hope that Chavez had sense enough not to close down RCTV but he did. I'm not sure of the results, yet. He's pretty strong and entrenched in power, but protects could topple him (unlikely). The more likely scenario is that it strengthens his position and helps to quieten and quell the opposition. Completely that antithesis of democracy.

Military coups are also the antithesis of Democracy, and these so channels triggered and supported a military coup. Not only supported, but were used directly to organize and coordinate the coup and rally support to overthrow the government by violent means. If NBC was telling people to get their weapons and go rush the Capitol, they'd be taken off the air too, and much quicker than it took Chavez.
They lost, and now they are being shut down, for a very good reason. So really, it's a bunch of sour grapes and crocodile tears. They are just pissed off that it's Chavez and not their dictator in power. If they won, they would be shutting down pro Chavez stations, Pinochet style. I think Chavez is an idiot, and his policies are stupid, but he is a very popular idiot in Venezuela.

I would like to see a bit of evidence that says the stations triggered and supported a military coup. They were taken over and used by Chavez's enemies, but they doesn't mean they were complicit. There's a huge difference, and you are being unethical in saying that they did things than how they actually did in reality.

I find it even more hilarious that you think the opposite of Chavez would be a Pinochet style dictator. How about, unlikely?

Did you watch the google video in the link I posted before? They weren't taken over and used, they were complicit. A rightwing coup against a democratically elected leftist president, I don't know why Pinochet came to my mind. :roll:

Because you are a troll that likes Chavez because of his politics and ignores the bad things he does?

If you can't handle a mature discussion on politics without name calling, maybe you should stick to Off Topic? I think Chavez is an idiot, and I said it repeatedly. I also respect the right of Venezuelans to elect an idiot for their president, just like I respected American's right to do so in 2000 and 2004. Him being an idiot doesn't excuse these networks being involved in an attempt to violently overthrow his elected government.
You are the one who is letting his politics get in the way of your thinking.You hate his views, so you automatically assumed he must have been cheating to get elected, even if the evidence is that he has broad popular support in his country.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Craig234
I for one am very happy to see nations stand up to the institutions that would perpetuate the concentration of wealth to the harm of society. Before a right-winger misconstrues that, I'm for some inequality of wealth; that's necessary and appropriate for the prosperity of the society as a whole, incenting good behavior that produces for the nation. It's the extremes, based on self-interested corruption rather than the good of society I see as a problem.

This is a good thing, but it is unfortunate that he is a paranoid control freak. What I don't get is why the US can't leave well enough alone. Let him run the country how he wants- not really our business. No one is really being persecuted there yet. Although this shutting down the station does not bode well.. I am glad he stands against the centralization of wealth and the exploitation of the poor, but this recent move is not good.
Heh? Nationalization of industry is a centralization of wealth. Wealth in the state and party that controls that state. That is what is so amusing about communist sympathizers(I am not saying you are one, just in general). They have these grand visions of wealth equality and grant the state the power to take wealth and own it. What you end up with is a concentration of wealth in the hands of people who have absolute power over the people. The communists in the USSR were no different, castro in Cuba, N. Korea.

99% of the people are dirt poor while the state, its party, and its leader lead a life of luxury on the toil of the population at the end of a gun.



 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
Not surprising, expected actually.

That so call coup that landed the organizer in Chavez's cabinet reminds of Hitlers reichstag fire. A trumped up action to consolidate power. You can spot these dictators from a million miles away. Unless of course you are on all fours anxiously awaiting their arrival. But maybe you have eyes in the back of your head?

Liberty dies to Craig234's thunderous applause.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Craig234
I for one am very happy to see nations stand up to the institutions that would perpetuate the concentration of wealth to the harm of society. Before a right-winger misconstrues that, I'm for some inequality of wealth; that's necessary and appropriate for the prosperity of the society as a whole, incenting good behavior that produces for the nation. It's the extremes, based on self-interested corruption rather than the good of society I see as a problem.
You make this sound good, but at the same time you're saying it in support of dictator who is actively working to concentrate all the wealth in his country into his own hands. How is that NOT "to the harm of society?" How is that NOT an extreme based on self-interest corruption? How is that you can't figure out that you are exactly just like the flag-waving Freedom? right-wing nuts you claim to be so superior to? The only differences between you and them is that you're playing for a different team, but otherwise you support the same actions and tyrannies as long it's in your team's favor.

Keep in mind here, that we're discussing CENSORSHIP in its most repugnant form, i.e. the forced government closing of a media outlet because it said or condoned something against the current government. The rest of your nonsense, what that media outlet did, what it supports, etc., is all simply justification for your ideology, and has nothing to do with the facts.


What is sad part about his comment above is all he is a saying is it is "ok" to have some wealth inequality. In other words, it is ok for the people he agree's with once done raping the country of its wealth to be rich and everybody else can go eff themselves.

 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Craig234
I for one am very happy to see nations stand up to the institutions that would perpetuate the concentration of wealth to the harm of society. Before a right-winger misconstrues that, I'm for some inequality of wealth; that's necessary and appropriate for the prosperity of the society as a whole, incenting good behavior that produces for the nation. It's the extremes, based on self-interested corruption rather than the good of society I see as a problem.

This is a good thing, but it is unfortunate that he is a paranoid control freak. What I don't get is why the US can't leave well enough alone. Let him run the country how he wants- not really our business. No one is really being persecuted there yet. Although this shutting down the station does not bode well.. I am glad he stands against the centralization of wealth and the exploitation of the poor, but this recent move is not good.
Heh? Nationalization of industry is a centralization of wealth. Wealth in the state and party that controls that state. That is what is so amusing about communist sympathizers(I am not saying you are one, just in general). They have these grand visions of wealth equality and grant the state the power to take wealth and own it. What you end up with is a concentration of wealth in the hands of people who have absolute power over the people. The communists in the USSR were no different, castro in Cuba, N. Korea.

99% of the people are dirt poor while the state, its party, and its leader lead a life of luxury on the toil of the population at the end of a gun.

In all fairness, Venezuela is not like that yet, although it could become like what you are saying. Right now the poor have been given many more opportunities than they were previously. Previously the rich stole the lands where the Amerindians were living and the poor were left to rot. Chavez has changed that. And this is what people who appreciate what he has done are appreciating. However, he is a freak of sorts and I am guessing that things will go bad eventually as demonstrated by this recent move.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Arcex
Look, Chavez is a tyrant who should be removed from office. Bush is a tyrant who should be removed from office. Can't they both be bad rulers without this decending to a slugging match? They both suck, end of story.

Can you imagine what would happen here if Bush pressured the FCC to not renew/revoke the license of a major network because it didn't support him, let alone send armed troops to secure the station's transmitters?

Chavez is a classless thug intent on moving up to socialist dictator. At least Bush will leave when his term is up.

That's not what Chavez did, either. Stop the lying.

Mill:
Chavez was not democratically elected. The election was rigged by intimidation, voter fraud, and other means to assure his victory. Only the nutty communists and super leftists try to say he was elected in a fair election.

Everyone, including the monitoring groups who are independant, says he did, but for the radical right, and even most of them seem to accept the truth there.

Or you talking about senile Jimmy Carter's statements that the election was fair? He observed about two ballot boxes in 30 minutes and then went back to his hotel. Why don't you ask some voters from Venezuela if they were intimidated, or if they think the election was fair. Oh, wait, you can't. You're an armchair expert and debater just like SteepleRot.

Just because some voters felt intimidated, doesn't mean the election wasn't fair. A lot of people feel intimidated or say they were intimidated in elections US considers fair, including our own.

We're not talking about feelings or weird non-tangential politic points. It takes me 30 seconds to vote. I used to vote in a near majority black district, and now I voted in a large white district. I've never had a single problem. Of course, I'd be a fool to say the US System doesn't have problems. It does, and I can see why some people lose or lost faith in it to an extent.

I find it very sad that you think I am here to support US Government Foreign Policy. I am not. US Government Foreign Policy has been a complete failure in many areas. In other areas that had the right ideas, but horrible execution. Look, this is not a foreign policy debate. I don't want the US to attack Chavez or do anything to him. I want us to keep normal relations with him and allow him to trip over his own ego. Unless he starts doing Stalinistic purges or Saddam's brutal attacks on ethnic and religious groups, it isn't our business to intefere. Even then, we look like hypocrites because we haven't done anything about other genocides, and we've supported dictators in other countries (like Saddam at one time).

What I am saying is that the election in Venezuela was rigged and intimidation was huge. Many people cast votes for Chavez and his party because they were scared that lists would be released of voters, and if they were not on it in support of the government -- they would be fired.

Chavez is not a total idiot. He's learned from the mistakes of past autocrats. He makes a bewildering show of putting opposition members in his government, but then they've have a miraculous conversion to his party a little while later. His ego is such that he takes a great idea (and a way to get the International Community off of his), but then makes the ministers have a "conversion experience" because he's so great. All autocrats have that big ego. It will be his downfall, too. Just like it is with most nutty dictators.

The fact is, International Observers observed only small segments of the voting -- they were essentially tricked and led to those areas. In addition, ballots afterwards were miscounted, thrown away, and other fraud tactics were used. Finally, there was large scale waves of intimidation and voting out of fear. Just ask anyone that was there. They will tell you -- hell, even some of the Chavistas will as well. The Chavistas think it is funny to see people scared into voting for their ideas. Isn't that a real riot? I'm over here guffawing.

It is a moribund situation in Venezuela right now. I had hope that Chavez had sense enough not to close down RCTV but he did. I'm not sure of the results, yet. He's pretty strong and entrenched in power, but protects could topple him (unlikely). The more likely scenario is that it strengthens his position and helps to quieten and quell the opposition. Completely that antithesis of democracy.

Military coups are also the antithesis of Democracy, and these so channels triggered and supported a military coup. Not only supported, but were used directly to organize and coordinate the coup and rally support to overthrow the government by violent means. If NBC was telling people to get their weapons and go rush the Capitol, they'd be taken off the air too, and much quicker than it took Chavez.
They lost, and now they are being shut down, for a very good reason. So really, it's a bunch of sour grapes and crocodile tears. They are just pissed off that it's Chavez and not their dictator in power. If they won, they would be shutting down pro Chavez stations, Pinochet style. I think Chavez is an idiot, and his policies are stupid, but he is a very popular idiot in Venezuela.

I would like to see a bit of evidence that says the stations triggered and supported a military coup. They were taken over and used by Chavez's enemies, but they doesn't mean they were complicit. There's a huge difference, and you are being unethical in saying that they did things than how they actually did in reality.

I find it even more hilarious that you think the opposite of Chavez would be a Pinochet style dictator. How about, unlikely?

Did you watch the google video in the link I posted before? They weren't taken over and used, they were complicit. A rightwing coup against a democratically elected leftist president, I don't know why Pinochet came to my mind. :roll:

Because you are a troll that likes Chavez because of his politics and ignores the bad things he does?

If you can't handle a mature discussion on politics without name calling, maybe you should stick to Off Topic? I think Chavez is an idiot, and I said it repeatedly. I also respect the right of Venezuelans to elect an idiot for their president, just like I respected American's right to do so in 2000 and 2004. Him being an idiot doesn't excuse these networks being involved in an attempt to violently overthrow his elected government.
You are the one who is letting his politics get in the way of your thinking.You hate his views, so you automatically assumed he must have been cheating to get elected, even if the evidence is that he has broad popular support in his country.

What you refuse to understand is that he doesn't have broad support. Speaking of violently overthrowing the government, what did Chavez attempt to do in 1992? Did you forget about that? It has nothing to do with me hating his views -- it has to do with me hating his actions of destroying freedom, a great country, and selling it to the uneducated and the poor as this great opiate that will cure all their ills. His economic policies are not going to fix anything. A fixed exchange rate? Price ceilings? Where have we heard about that before? Has it ever worked?

 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Mill on Carter's role in the 2000 Venezuelan election when he disagrees:

Or you talking about senile Jimmy Carter's statements that the election was fair? He observed about two ballot boxes in 30 minutes and then went back to his hotel.

Mill on Carter's role in the 2000 Venezuelan election when he agrees:

BTW, here's what your buddies at the Carter Center had to say:

The Carter Center concluded that while the election irregularities would not have changed the 2000 presidential outcome, in which Hugo Chávez won with 60 percent of the vote, the significant politicization of the elections and organizational deficiencies contributed to a lack of confidence in the process and the nonpresidential results, thus leading the Center to characterize the July 2000 elections as flawed.

While I understand what you are trying to insinuate (that I speak out of both corners of my mouth), that is not at all what I did. Since my evidence was not being accepted, I turned to the source that is oft mentioned by believers in the fairness of the Recall election -- the Carter Center. I still believe they badly boggled their observation -- in both elections. However, I felt it was possible to reach some common ground if even the great Carter Center had found irregularities and problems in prior elections.

Wow. Reporting how the elections had significant politicization and organizational deficiencies and concluding the election was flawed is pretty good for a senile guy who saw two stations in 30 minutes.

Well, you have to admit that Carter isn't exactly the best choice for an International Observer. He's been doing it for years, but he has greenlit some pretty horrible elections and leaders. Again, I was attempting to show that even the Carter Center -- who certified the elections -- still found problems.

Mill, you have some valid points to make, but you screw it up by overstating your position - your time in Venezuela not only gives you legitimate info to report (reasonable), but you insiniuate that no one who has not spent time in Venezuela can have any valid opinion on anything about Venezuela, however else they've gotten informed (absurd).

I do insiniuate that to an extent, but here's why: there are a lot of people on this forum that argue about Chavez from a political viewpoint instead of a learned viewpoint. They think people don't like him because of his politics. They pigeonhole you as a rightwinger and try to discuss the politics instead of his actions. So, I think, if someone hasn't been there to see the actions -- or hasn't taken the time to educate themselves -- then how valid is their position going to be?

Your comments offer some truth, in my view, about some problems with Chavez, while being extremely one-sided in not recognizing the 'other sides' view at all, such as the issues with the extreme concentrations of power, wealth and land ownership among about 500 families, and the difficulties faced by those like Chavez who want to improve this (however good or bad the changes he's making).

First, you have to understand that I do understand. I see extreme poverty everytime I'm in South America. My fiancee's family is hardly wealthy, and her extended family is simply struggling to survive at times. Her Uncle is trying to get political asylum in Canada because the FARC is trying to kill him (his family was starving so he ran drugs and got caught, and now the FARC doesn't have their money or drugs). Not 30 minutes ago I got off the phone with a friend who's mother was a politician in Cali, Colombia. He's trying to get political asylum here. His mother was a member of the Liberal Party there (supported in part by FARC monies), and her job was to "educate" the poor on how to vote. Well, that's exactly what she did, and it wasn't what the FARC meant by educate them on how to vote. They meant it a bit more literally i.e. tell them WHO they better vote for. But ,she was teaching the rural populace how to read, educating them, and then telling them to vote for what they thought was right. The FARC really didn't care for that. Remember -- she was in the Liberal Party, too. Attempted kidnappings and violence ensued, and now his entire family is in a nice pickle. He was just explaining a story of a friend from school who came and stayed with him for a bit (he came illegally) because the FARC had kidnapped some of his family, and he was trying to get away and get money to pay the ransom. I see the poverty up close everytime I am down there. I see the Mansions in North Bogota and the slums to the South -- shantytowns that few people here can even imagine. I've seen human degredation and life treated as if it were a simple economic decision -- its intrinsic value was considered that of less than a few dollars. The concentration of power and wealth is no joke in either Venezuela or Colombia. However, movements like the FARC and Chavez's actions are not going to bring about the change they claim to desire. In fact, the FARC and Chavez are duping the hell out of the poor. They are taking advantage of them. They are using them for political power, and in case of the FARC as soliders (young kids, too, I might add). Sure, there are true believers in the FARC camp, and in Chavez's world. However, neither Chavez nor the FARC are using legitimate means, and they both are harming liberty in democracy while creating promises they cannot keep, and being unfair to those that worked hard and are in the middle and upper classes. Not everyone in both countries that are well off simply inherited it. It isn't that I don't understand or discount the other side, it is that they exploit the poor to gain power, wealth, and stature just like the wealthy families and the old governments did.

As for your experiences - they are valid, but you lack the bigger picture context, judging by your posts. You could ask two Americans who live here what's going on, and get extremely different answers, including the facts, from a democrat and a republican - much less if you asked a foreign visitor to the US, like you are in Venezuela. Use your experiences visiting reasonably in your posts.

I've barely scratched the surface. I haven't just talked to a few random people. I talk to people all the time, and I e-mail with several professors at think-tanks as well. Plus, I have my own eyes and ears, and I'm always engaging friends and strangers in a discussion. Not always the smartest thing to do, but I am genuinely curious and honest, and not seeking to validate my own opinion. Chavez and the FARC have their supporters, or they wouldn't exist. The problem, however, is that many of them have been fed lies, and are being screwed the same way they were screwed in the past. BTW, I want to clarify that Chavez is a far cry from the FARC. I'm just saying they are in the same league as far as being less than honest in my opinion, and the way they attempt to achieve political change is not the right way. My experiences are not just of casual visits and conversations. I am actively involved in the lives of many people and I relate their stories here. If people choose to give it credibility or not is their decision. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means, but I am very informed on this issue.


I'm going to respond a lot less with challenges to the fact that Chavez has done some questionable things, than with the issue of what anyone in his shoes, facing the powerful and wealthy of his nation, who could and did try everything from a national economic shutdown, to a recall, to a military coup, not to mention the opposition of the US and the CIA and such, making him have to do some things that aren't ideal to keep power.

Well, the problem I have with this is that Chavez himself tried to overthrow a democratically elected government in 1992. Furthermore, if we go on the tangent of doing what a person can to work in the bounds of a bad political system, then why feel that RCTV is doing anything different than what Chavez and his supporters did? Unconventional means perhaps by both, but if one can do it why can't the other? That goes for the Coup attempt in 2002 as well. I can't see how it was ok for Chavez to try to overthrow the government because he didn't think he could get elected in a fair election, but then it wasn't ok for others to think and do the same thing because they were worried about the electoral process.

If you like the idea of his being gone and the extreme concentrations of wealth and power to remain as they were, you will not give him much room for measures to deal with the rabid opposition. I suspect it has a lot to do with sympathies.

There are many strategies of dealing with inequity in society and an economy. Capitalist means and conditions can work as well as, or in my opinion, much better than Socialist approaches. I don't even consider what much of Chavez is doing is true to Socialist means. He's more of a dictator reducing liberty to implement a political system that HE VIEWS as necessary and correct -- not necessarily the people. The ones that agree with him do so in large part because someone on their side is better than no one at all. Plus, his views and ideas are palatable to those that don't have education and training.

Of course, our founding fathers were traitorous, murdering no-good criminals to some with different sympathies. It's a tricky discussion to try to navigate the evil dictators from the great leaders. You do have someting to offfer that discussion, if you can refrain from the overstatement. BTW, all the Venezuelans I know of who come to the US are not among the poor who are Chavez's base, trying to eat; they're sympathetic to and usually among the wealthy.

Well, I'm not even referring to US based people -- I talk more with Mexican immigrants in the US than I do immigrants from Colombia or Venezuela. I talk to the latter in South America. But, you are right that it is tricky to navigate between evil dictators and great leaders. However, I think there's plenty of evidence that Chavez is doing quite enough to put himself in the former category rather than the latter. I don't feel that any great leader permanently restricts liberty or shuts down the freedom of the media -- or attempts to be elected for life (20 years is what Chavez wants these days). Ego gets into the way at some point, and I think Chavez's ego is part of the reason that he doesn't have the patience to affect social change with more patience and equitable ways. I'm not about to act like the US has always been a bastion of liberty or didn't support dictators. I've seriously questioned our foreign policy in Latin America and the Middle East for sometime. However, I'm not here on behalf of the government. I'm here as an individual that expects MORE out of my government and Chavez. But, I can say that the US press has much more freedom that Venezuela's does (just look at the Reporters Without Borders rankings), as well as economic freedom. I've been less than happy with the Patriot Act and other liberty reducing tools. In essence, I'm no hypocrite on the issue of liberty, yet I do also understand the pressing need for reform in Thirld World countries with large gaps between the rich and the poor.

Of course they'll have stories they're outraged about, some of which are true, just as opponents of Bush and Bill Clinton each had theirs, some of which are pretty questionable - how many times have I read about the Clintons and Vince Foster and accusations of murder, despite the clear evidence to the contrary? But you need to consider the larger issues for Venezuela and poverty globally as well.

I for one am very happy to see nations stand up to the institutions that would perpetuate the concentration of wealth to the harm of society. Before a right-winger misconstrues that, I'm for some inequality of wealth; that's necessary and appropriate for the prosperity of the society as a whole, incenting good behavior that produces for the nation. It's the extremes, based on self-interested corruption rather than the good of society I see as a problem.

But, the balance can teeter the other way as well. The FARC has strayed largely from its communist message, and plenty of its leaders are high hog off cocaine proceeds, and they torture and tax the hell out of the poor to maintain their lifestyle. Sure, there are some true believers, but not so much anymore. Same goes for Chavez, his extreme actions have taken possible good and replaced it with a restriction on the media, lip service to the poor, corruption, and a way to inflate his own ego (fighting Bush and associating with Rogue States just to rub it in the face of others). Chavez's ego is fully in the way of any change he might have been able to accomplish. Unless he gets it into check, and actually follows through with his promises (see Caracas' crumbling infrastructure and roads), instead of little minute programs that sound good but do much less, and reduces his attack on liberty, he will go into the history books as a dictator -- he's already seen by much of the world and many of his people as one already.


 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: spittledip
Originally posted by: Craig234
I for one am very happy to see nations stand up to the institutions that would perpetuate the concentration of wealth to the harm of society. Before a right-winger misconstrues that, I'm for some inequality of wealth; that's necessary and appropriate for the prosperity of the society as a whole, incenting good behavior that produces for the nation. It's the extremes, based on self-interested corruption rather than the good of society I see as a problem.

This is a good thing, but it is unfortunate that he is a paranoid control freak. What I don't get is why the US can't leave well enough alone. Let him run the country how he wants- not really our business. No one is really being persecuted there yet. Although this shutting down the station does not bode well.. I am glad he stands against the centralization of wealth and the exploitation of the poor, but this recent move is not good.
Heh? Nationalization of industry is a centralization of wealth. Wealth in the state and party that controls that state. That is what is so amusing about communist sympathizers(I am not saying you are one, just in general). They have these grand visions of wealth equality and grant the state the power to take wealth and own it. What you end up with is a concentration of wealth in the hands of people who have absolute power over the people. The communists in the USSR were no different, castro in Cuba, N. Korea.

99% of the people are dirt poor while the state, its party, and its leader lead a life of luxury on the toil of the population at the end of a gun.

In all fairness, Venezuela is not like that yet, although it could become like what you are saying. Right now the poor have been given many more opportunities than they were previously. Previously the rich stole the lands where the Amerindians were living and the poor were left to rot. Chavez has changed that. And this is what people who appreciate what he has done are appreciating. However, he is a freak of sorts and I am guessing that things will go bad eventually as demonstrated by this recent move.

Well, it is headed that way. Chavez has faced a lot of criticism at home by spending Venezuela's money abroad trying to look like a bigshot instead of distributing it like he said he would. A lot of his programs have failed to materialize, and those that have have been raft with corruption and a lot more talk/show than results. Price controls (any economist will tell you they unbalance the market and lead to shortages) have already reduced the availability of many products, and many stores are out of one item or another for days at a time. A control on currency has created a burgeoning blackmarket for dollars, and that has resulted in a phantom exchange rate for the Bolivar -- almost double that of the real rate, and his idea to lop off zeros will simply create increased menu costs for businesses and cost the government money while they create new currency and print it.