Venezuela's Chavez Defends TV Decision

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: yllus
Don't worry, I was just checking up to see if much had changed 'round here. Please go back to helping justify why the totalitarian takeover of Venezuela is okay because you personally agree with Chavez's politics.

Oh wait, this is sandorski - no, your official line is that you don't support Chavez, you're in a wait and see position right now. Because any day now, he could turn out just peachy keen! Too funny. :)

Ridiculous upon ridiculous.

Democracy.

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

It's a way of making decisions, not making sure that those decisions are fair and just.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
Anonymous, probably misattributed to Benjamin Franklin

Most if not all systems have 'achilles heels'. For example, capitalism's includes the problem of monopoly.

For democracy, an Achilles' Heel is the issue of 'tyranny of the majority', as the US learned in the civil war when the south got tired of being exploited by democracy.

One reduction of the problem is to limit democracy, as we do with the majority being prevented from passing some laws it wants, by having a constitution that requires a super-majority for some issues. It's hardly perfect, but it helps with some of the more common issues.

At the moment in Venezuela, the few wealthy are feeling the pain of democracy as their luxurious hold on power and wealth loses out to the vote.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
Anonymous, probably misattributed to Benjamin Franklin

Most if not all systems have 'achilles heels'. For example, capitalism's includes the problem of monopoly.

For democracy, an Achilles' Heel is the issue of 'tyranny of the majority', as the US learned in the civil war when the south got tired of being exploited by democracy.

One reduction of the problem is to limit democracy, as we do with the majority being prevented from passing some laws it wants, by having a constitution that requires a super-majority for some issues. It's hardly perfect, but it helps with some of the more common issues.

At the moment in Venezuela, the few wealthy are feeling the pain of democracy as their luxurious hold on power and wealth loses out to the vote.

I'm sure any grade-schooler knows (or should know) about tyranny of the majority and the importance of countering that with checks and balances and the rule of law. Just like any Econ major could tell you that monopoly is impossible within a capitalist economy without specific government intervention.

Nonetheless, you need to stay on topic. Chavez suppressing the freedom of the press by closing down this radio station is not emblematic of democracy, nor of the rich "feeling the pain of democracy as their luxurious hold on power and wealth loses out to the vote." Your ideology blinds you yet again. Democracy is ALL the people, with all their differences, diversity, inequalities, and inequities. Chavez closing down this radio station because it criticized HIM and HIS administration is emblematic of cult of personality, wherein one man pretends he is the people and democracy, and exercises power accordingly.

You only fool yourself, Craig.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Chavez did not shut down the station for 'free speech', he shut it down for broadcasting, under the law, after allowing it to use free speech to attack him for years, for participating in an illegal military coup to overthrow democracy.

You are lying every time you say otherwise. You are shameless.

And by the way, the station still has the right to air inVenezuela on cable, satellite, and the internet.

The day Chavez shuts down a station simply for airing different political views, I'll condemn that. Until then, you can't pretend he did by lying about it.

Oh, and "just like any Econ major could tell you that monopoly is impossible within a capitalist economy without specific government intervention. " - you are ignorant here, too. A so-called capitalist economy requires the government to enable it and preserve competition; without that, wealth and power centralize, and become 'the government'. There's a reason anti-trust legislation exists.

And any econ major should have read the history of the early 20th century and be able to explain that to you. As if giving you facts did any good.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Craig234

You agree with shutting down TV stations who broadcast criticisms of leaders?
And that so called coup, how can you explain why the guy who supposedly orchestrated it is in Chavez's cabinet? If this thing was CIA driven, doesnt that make Chavez a CIA puppet?

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Craig234

You agree with shutting down TV stations who broadcast criticisms of leaders?
And that so called coup, how can you explain why the guy who supposedly orchestrated it is in Chavez's cabinet? If this thing was CIA driven, doesnt that make Chavez a CIA puppet?

Genx, you post information that's wrong, as always.

The media situation in Venezuela has largely been that all but the one public station were owned by the small wealthy group of families, and broadcast anti-Chavez propaganda.

Chavez has left them on the air criticizing him for all the years he's been in power, so your claim that he shuts down stations just for criticizing him is a lie.

You are the one also lying when you refuse to deal with the fact that the station, its owner in particular, were part of the illegal coup to overthrow democracy.

You also display your ignorance of the coup when you call it 'so-called' and such. Even Mill, who doesn't agree with me on a lot about Chavez, I think would agree that the opposition to Chavez by the wealthy is real, not some pretend farce. I don't know the details why Chavez has turned some enemies into allies, but it's not the first time a good leader has done so; there's an old saying, 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'. There are plausible explanations other than the coup being phony.

As for your now knowing whether the US was involved, beyond the evidence of conspiracy you could find, there's a reason the US state department immediately issued a release containing the coup's party line, recognizing the new government and claiming Chavez had resigned and such. The content of their message, pushing the same phony story as the coup leaders, suggests collaboration between the US and the coup.

Why do you righties always act so surprised that the CIA actually does anything with all its covert people and funds?
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Chavez did not shut down the station for 'free speech', he shut it down for broadcasting, under the law, after allowing it to use free speech to attack him for years, for participating in an illegal military coup to overthrow democracy.
Neat. I like this interesting perversion of 'free speech' of yours that entails the government being able to shut down media outlets to be shut down for "attacking" the President. And what's with this "under the law" nonsense? What ridiculous world have you escaped to in which the letter of the law is more important than its spirit?

Plain and simple, this was the silencing of some of Mr. Chavez's most vocal critics. It's actually quite staggering that you're this deluded.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Hahaha the wool is pulled easily over your eyes. Ill tell you why the guy who orchestrated the coup is in Chavez's cabinet. Because he needed a manufactured crisis to consolidate more power. This is your typical standard progression for these dictators to take the country.

You just told us they broadcasted anti-chavez propaganda. Is that why they were shut down? I'd wonder what your reaction is if Bush did the same with the network stations in this country who on a daily basis broadcast anti-bush propaganda.

Ahh do us a favor and dont answer that question. We already know the answer to that one.

I am not surprised if the CIA was involved, my question to you is if the guy who orchestrated it is in Chavez's cabinet and was a puppet of the CIA, doesnt that make Chavez a puppet of the CIA? Obviously Chavez admits it was CIA backed, puts a CIA funded guy in his cabinet, makes him a willing accomplice.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Craig234
Chavez did not shut down the station for 'free speech', he shut it down for broadcasting, under the law, after allowing it to use free speech to attack him for years, for participating in an illegal military coup to overthrow democracy.
Neat. I like this interesting perversion of 'free speech' of yours that entails the government being able to shut down media outlets to be shut down for "attacking" the President. And what's with this "under the law" nonsense? What ridiculous world have you escaped to in which the letter of the law is more important than its spirit?

Plain and simple, this was the silencing of some of Mr. Chavez's most vocal critics. It's actually quite staggering that you're this deluded.

No, what's staggering is how deluded you are - that you take his leaving the critics on the air, dominating all but one of the channels, with propaganda against him, and you say the opposite happened. How deloded you are that you call participating in a military coup the same as 'criticizing the president'.

And you have no place to even talk about the spirit versus the letter of the law when you aren't strongly criticizing Bush's aggressive pushing the letter as far as he can.

Can you even quote the Venezuelan law and make a coherent argument how he is violating the spirit of it?

Hypocrite. And you are not even basically honest, as you repeat the same lie that the shutdown was for nothing but criticizing the president, denying the coup role.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
Learn to quote, Vic, and stop stealing others' quotes; and stop quoting them inaccurately. You should be apologizing, but you are too shameless.

Chavez did not shut down the station for 'free speech', he shut it down for broadcasting, under the law, after allowing it to use free speech to attack him for yearsa, for participating in an illegal military coup to overthrow democracy.

You are lying every time you say otherwise. As I said, you are shameless.

And by the way, the station still has the right to air inVenezuela on cable, sattelite, and the internet.

The day Chavez shuts down a station simply for airing different political views, I'll condemn that. Until then, you can't pretend he did by lying about it.

Oh, and "just like any Econ major could tell you that monopoly is impossible within a capitalist economy without specific government intervention. " - you are ignorant here, too. A so-called capitalist economy requires the government to enable it and preserve competition; without that, wealth and power centralize, and become 'the government'. There's a reason anti-trust legislation exists.

And any econ major should have read the history of the early 20th century and be able to explain that to you. As if giving you facts did any good.

First, it's not considered necessary to cite the source of a quote from a proverb with a well-known or anonymous source. It's not like I was trying to take credit for it. If I quoted "Sour grapes" or "The mice voted to bell the cat," do I have to cite Aesop as my source so you won't get all worked up and have to fall back on red herrings?

:roll:

As for the rest, more ideological blindness from you. If Chavez shut down the radio station for involvement in the coup attempt, then why did he wait 5 years to do so? Oh, that's right, you're full of it. And let's forget the fact that this coup attempt has so many controversies that go along with it that only a blind ideologue like yourself could possibly not see Chavez's own involvement in it (but that's another thread). Surely it had nothing to do with unarmed protestors from an opposition labor union being fired upon? (Oh, that's right, you believe in the conspiracy theory of CIA snipers :laugh: )

Moving on, you're just demonstrating the knee-jerk ignorance of economics typical of most paranoid populists. I welcome you to cite a single example of any true monopoly in this country that came to existence without direct government interference. Just one.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Craig234
Chavez did not shut down the station for 'free speech', he shut it down for broadcasting, under the law, after allowing it to use free speech to attack him for years, for participating in an illegal military coup to overthrow democracy.
Neat. I like this interesting perversion of 'free speech' of yours that entails the government being able to shut down media outlets to be shut down for "attacking" the President. And what's with this "under the law" nonsense? What ridiculous world have you escaped to in which the letter of the law is more important than its spirit?

Plain and simple, this was the silencing of some of Mr. Chavez's most vocal critics. It's actually quite staggering that you're this deluded.

No, what's staggering is how deluded you are - that you take his leaving the critics on the air, dominating all but one of the channels, with propaganda against him, and you say the opposite happened. How deloded you are that you call participating in a military coup the same as 'criticizing the president'.

And you have no place to even talk about the spirit versus the letter of the law when you aren't strongly criticizing Bush's aggressive pushing the letter as far as he can.

Can you even quote the Venezuelan law and make a coherent argument how he is violating the spirit of it?

Hypocrite. And you are not even basically honest, as you repeat the same lie that the shutdown was for nothing but criticizing the president, denying the coup role.

We already know the coup claim is a bunch o crap.

How can a tv station participate in a coup? What did they blast radio waves at Chavez?
Secondly, Chavez makes that point moot by taking the orchestrator of the coup into his cabinet. Obviously he is confused or blowing smoke up the ass of people like you.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
In Venezuela they have good coffee. Sometimes it tastes good with some cocoa or something too. I wonder if they drink tea there? I like tea. What would happen if you put cocoa in tea? Probably would be a bad idea!
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Hahaha the wool is pulled easily over your eyes. Ill tell you why the guy who orchestrated the coup is in Chavez's cabinet. Because he needed a manufactured crisis to consolidate more power. This is your typical standard progression for these dictators to take the country.

That's a fine motive for your story - but you lack any knowledge of any facts to back it up, just as those who say 9/11 was an inside job by Bush can point out how he benefitted politically, but lack any facts to show that's what actually happened. You and they both, in fact, ignore the evidence which shows you are wrong. But you are in the same camp as them for groundless conspiracy theories.

You just told us they broadcasted anti-chavez propaganda. Is that why they were shut down?

Yes, I did, and no, it's not. They were shut down for violating the requirements for a license - participating in an illegal military coup against democracy isn't 'public interest'.

I'd wonder what your reaction is if Bush did the same with the network stations in this country who on a daily basis broadcast anti-bush propaganda.

The same as I'd do if Chavez shut them down for that, which he didn't, I'd criticize it.

Of course, Al Jazeera has been unable to get any outlet on US airwaves or even cable and satellite - where this Venezuelan station can still be seen just fine.

And Bush bombed them.

Ahh do us a favor and dont answer that question. We already know the answer to that one.

You're welcome.

I am not surprised if the CIA was involved, my question to you is if the guy who orchestrated it is in Chavez's cabinet and was a puppet of the CIA, doesnt that make Chavez a puppet of the CIA? Obviously Chavez admits it was CIA backed, puts a CIA funded guy in his cabinet, makes him a willing accomplice.

No, it's called turning an enemy into an ally. Sometimes, US presidents, for example, have members of the other party in their cabinet.

Does that mean they endorse the other party? Again, more details are needed to reach conclusions, but there are plausible explanations far different than your assumption.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: Craig234
Chavez did not shut down the station for 'free speech', he shut it down for broadcasting, under the law, after allowing it to use free speech to attack him for years, for participating in an illegal military coup to overthrow democracy.
Neat. I like this interesting perversion of 'free speech' of yours that entails the government being able to shut down media outlets to be shut down for "attacking" the President. And what's with this "under the law" nonsense? What ridiculous world have you escaped to in which the letter of the law is more important than its spirit?

Plain and simple, this was the silencing of some of Mr. Chavez's most vocal critics. It's actually quite staggering that you're this deluded.

It's typical cult of personality nonsense from him, like I mentioned above. He wrongly interprets an attack on the personality as an attack on democracy itself, and apologizes for anti-democratic abuses accordingly. There's complex psychological reasonings for why people like Craig back cult of personality figures like Chavez, but it mostly has to do with their own frustration in trying to force the world into their personal vision and ideology.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
That's a fine motive for your story - but you lack any knowledge of any facts to back it up, just as those who say 9/11 was an inside job by Bush can point out how he benefitted politically, but lack any facts to show that's what actually happened. You and they both, in fact, ignore the evidence which shows you are wrong. But you are in the same camp as them for groundless conspiracy theories.

I had no idea it was possible for one person to write so much and say nothing. Congrats?

Yes, I did, and no, it's not. They were shut down for violating the requirements for a license - participating in an illegal military coup against democracy isn't 'public interest'.

Ill agree with Vic on this one, shutting down a station 5 years after the fact? Nice try.

The same as I'd do if Chavez shut them down for that, which he didn't, I'd criticize it.

Of course, Al Jazeera has been unable to get any outlet on US airwaves or even cable and satellite - where this Venezuelan station can still be seen just fine.

And Bush bombed them.

Nice deflection.

No, it's called turning an enemy into an ally. Sometimes, US presidents, for example, have members of the other party in their cabinet.

Does that mean they endorse the other party? Again, more details are needed to reach conclusions, but there are plausible explanations far different than your assumption.

Oh yeah? Can you give me an example of a US president who took in an opponent who participated in a coup?

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
I wonder if Craig thinks that it would be okay for Bush to shut down NPR? Hmmm....
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Vic

First, it's not considered necessary to cite the source of a quote from a proverb with a well-known or anonymous source. It's not like I was trying to take credit for it. If I quoted "Sour grapes" or "The mice voted to bell the cat," do I have to cite Aesop as my source so you won't get all worked up and have to fall back on red herrings?

It shouldn't be asking too much for you to quote both sentences of the 'well-known' quote; and you can exaggerate how well-known it is to justify using it.

However, before you posted this, I decided that it was well-known enough that I shouldn't have made an issue of that and edited my post to remove the issue.

As for the rest, more ideological blindness from you.

The irony is endless. Have I said you're shameless?

If Chavez shut down the radio station for involvement in the coup attempt, then why did he wait 5 years to do so? Oh, that's right, you're full of it.

Because he was acting under the law: directly opposte of what you say about his silencing his critics, he left them operating, attacking him, for 5 years, until the license expired.

And let's forget the fact that this coup attempt has so many controversies that go along with it that only a blind ideologue like yourself could possibly not see Chavez's own involvement in it (but that's another thread). Surely it had nothing to do with unarmed protestors from an opposition labor union being fired upon? (Oh, that's right, you believe in the conspiracy theory of CIA snipers :laugh: )

As usual, you have no evidence for your blind, ideological (see, the irony of your post) accusations. Is it plausible that a leader can have a phony coup to bolster support? Yes, and that's as far as you can take the issue, because the evidence quickly shows that the opposition is very real and willing to do great harm to Venezula to protect the power of the tiny oligarchy who had the vast bulk of money, power, and land before Chavez. But you are too lazy to get informed and deal with the facts, so you spout the nonsense.

Moving on, you're just demonstrating the knee-jerk ignorance of economics typical of most paranoid populists. I welcome you to cite a single example of any true monopoly in this country that came to existence without direct government interference. Just one.

What you fail to understand is that monopoly leads to the power needed to get the government to do the monopoly's bidding.

The cause and effect is that the powerful and wealthy people who want or have the monopoly are powerful enough to get the government to act as they want to further increase their wealth and power; it's not that the government is the initiator of creating the power and wealth for those people.

It's a spiral of corruption where the monopolists have the power to try to get the government to do their bidding and protect their monopolies. Sometimes it works.

The two are correlated for that reason; when there's not monopoly power, when wealth and power are more distributed, you don't see the government pushing monopolistic policies; and where wealth is greatly concentrated, you see the government doing the bidding of the people with the concentrated wealth, protecting monopoly.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Vic

First, it's not considered necessary to cite the source of a quote from a proverb with a well-known or anonymous source. It's not like I was trying to take credit for it. If I quoted "Sour grapes" or "The mice voted to bell the cat," do I have to cite Aesop as my source so you won't get all worked up and have to fall back on red herrings?

It shouldn't be asking too much for you to quote both sentences of the 'well-known' quote; and you can exaggerate how well-known it is to justify using it.

However, before you posted this, I decided that it was well-known enough that I shouldn't have made an issue of that and edited my post to remove the issue.

As for the rest, more ideological blindness from you.

The irony is endless. Have I said you're shameless?

If Chavez shut down the radio station for involvement in the coup attempt, then why did he wait 5 years to do so? Oh, that's right, you're full of it.

Because he was acting under the law: directly opposte of what you say about his silencing his critics, he left them operating, attacking him, for 5 years, until the license expired.

And let's forget the fact that this coup attempt has so many controversies that go along with it that only a blind ideologue like yourself could possibly not see Chavez's own involvement in it (but that's another thread). Surely it had nothing to do with unarmed protestors from an opposition labor union being fired upon? (Oh, that's right, you believe in the conspiracy theory of CIA snipers :laugh: )

As usual, you have no evidence for your blind, ideological (see, the irony of your post) accusations. Is it plausible that a leader can have a phony coup to bolster support? Yes, and that's as far as you can take the issue, because the evidence quickly shows that the opposition is very real and willing to do great harm to Venezula to protect the power of the tiny oligarchy who had the vast bulk of money, power, and land before Chavez. But you are too lazy to get informed and deal with the facts, so you spout the nonsense.

Moving on, you're just demonstrating the knee-jerk ignorance of economics typical of most paranoid populists. I welcome you to cite a single example of any true monopoly in this country that came to existence without direct government interference. Just one.

What you fail to understand is that monopoly leads to the power needed to get the government to do the monopoly's bidding.

The cause and effect is that the powerful and wealthy people who want or have the monopoly are powerful enough to get the government to act as they want to further increase their wealth and power; it's not that the government is the initiator of creating the power and wealth for those people.

It's a spiral of corruption where the monopolists have the power to try to get the government to do their bidding and protect their monopolies. Sometimes it works.

The two are correlated for that reason; when there's not monopoly power, when wealth and power are more distributed, you don't see the government pushing monopolistic policies; and where wealth is greatly concentrated, you see the government doing the bidding of the people with the concentrated wealth, protecting monopoly.

Utter nonsense. You are -- yet again -- indulging in your favorite tactic of red herring and similar distractions. You make a long convoluting post of nested quotes spouting nothing but mindless rhetoric and ideological distractions without answering or addressing a single one of my arguments. And then you call me names that most aptly describe what you are and what you are doing. It's pathetic. The logic being used against you is clear and rational. You rabid emotionalism won't defend you.

Recapping though, you attack me with red herrings for not citing the anonymous source of a proverb. Your call me a blind ideologue for questioning your ideology. You ask me for evidence regarding the coup when you have provided none yourself. And you sidestep (in a most long-winded fashion) when I ask you to cite a single example of a non-coercive monopoly with an actual capitalism.

And all this in defense of your argument that suppressing freedom of the speech that attacked a particular president and his adminstration is somehow emblematic of democracy. I mean... wow... did you quit smoking crack in order to switch to LSD?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
I had no idea it was possible for one person to write so much and say nothing. Congrats?

Nice deflection.

Poor deflection. You can't answer, so you say that.

Oh yeah? Can you give me an example of a US president who took in an opponent who participated in a coup?

Since the US has never had a military coup removing a president from office from which to choose people who might have then been turned into allies, that's be impossible.

Not to mention the also incorrect logic that unless it happened in the US, it can't have happened anywhere.

Enough of the iditotic exchanges. Is there any poster here who thinks vic's and genx87's posts are deserving of further response?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Genx87
I had no idea it was possible for one person to write so much and say nothing. Congrats?

Nice deflection.

Poor deflection. You can't answer, so you say that.

Oh yeah? Can you give me an example of a US president who took in an opponent who participated in a coup?

Since the US has never had a military coup removing a president from office from which to choose people who might have then been turned into allies, that's be impossible.

Not to mention the also incorrect logic that unless it happened in the US, it can't have happened anywhere.

Enough of the iditotic exchanges. Is there any poster here who thinks vic's and genx87's posts are deserving of further response?

Well well so why would you bother using an example of a president appointing somebody from the opposing party as an example? The analogy is bunk and poor as you are correct. There hasnt been a coup in the United States. Unlike in VZ where one of the cohorts is in the cabinet.

As for your last sentence. Bowing out so graciously again?
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Genx87
I had no idea it was possible for one person to write so much and say nothing. Congrats?

Nice deflection.

Poor deflection. You can't answer, so you say that.

Oh yeah? Can you give me an example of a US president who took in an opponent who participated in a coup?

Since the US has never had a military coup removing a president from office from which to choose people who might have then been turned into allies, that's be impossible.

Not to mention the also incorrect logic that unless it happened in the US, it can't have happened anywhere.

Enough of the iditotic exchanges. Is there any poster here who thinks vic's and genx87's posts are deserving of further response?

Well well so why would you bother using an example of a president appointing somebody from the opposing party as an example? The analogy is bunk and poor as you are correct. There hasnt been a coup in the United States. Unlike in VZ where one of the cohorts is in the cabinet.

As for your last sentence. Bowing out so graciously again?

I think this should end. You all have said with varying degrees of eloquence your total adherence to certain perspectives, and the reasoning thereof. Additional repeating of this will be unnecessary until the next Chavez/VZ thread ;)
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Genx87
I had no idea it was possible for one person to write so much and say nothing. Congrats?

Nice deflection.

Poor deflection. You can't answer, so you say that.

Oh yeah? Can you give me an example of a US president who took in an opponent who participated in a coup?

Since the US has never had a military coup removing a president from office from which to choose people who might have then been turned into allies, that's be impossible.

Not to mention the also incorrect logic that unless it happened in the US, it can't have happened anywhere.

Enough of the iditotic exchanges. Is there any poster here who thinks vic's and genx87's posts are deserving of further response?

Well well so why would you bother using an example of a president appointing somebody from the opposing party as an example? The analogy is bunk and poor as you are correct. There hasnt been a coup in the United States. Unlike in VZ where one of the cohorts is in the cabinet.

As for your last sentence. Bowing out so graciously again?

I think this should end. You all have said with varying degrees of eloquence your total adherence to certain perspectives, and the reasoning thereof. Additional repeating of this will be unnecessary until the next Chavez/VZ thread ;)


Bah, we have at least another 4-6 pages worth in us. ;)


 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
OMG did Craig just resort to "I'm rubberband and you're glue"? WTF. :roll:

For those who don't know much about the Coup, here's the wiki -- Text.
It's pretty well-sourced and cited in this case (although I'm sure Craig will claim the sources are biased, and then cite a source to ws or guardian or similar).

Basic background is that Chavez first nationalized the Venezuelan oil company and then began removing thousands of workers from the opposition union with workers from his own newly-created union. This sparked off massive protests (hundreds of thousands of protesters) and civil unrest that lead to violence and unarmed protestors being killed by the national guard under Chavez's command (Craig will tell you it was CIA snipers from the grasy knoll of Miraflores, Chavez's presidential palace). At that point, the military took control blah blah blah, and then returned power to Chavez a couple days later, whereupon he fired 18,000 PDVSA workers from the union unfavorable to him replacing them with workers from his own union.

All this was done, of course, in the name of DemocracyTM, the protection of FreedomTM, etc. The same as shutting down a political opposition media station is all about protecting freedom of speech and press. Can't you people SEEE.... ?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Enough of the iditotic exchanges. Is there any poster here who thinks vic's and genx87's posts are deserving of further response?
STFU and defend your BS.

It's amazing that anyone can lie as much as you do and be as deluded as you are and not see it. Look at you... pretending that you're fighting for democracy and against the "evil rich" while defending a cult of personality figure who lives in a freakin' palace who shuts down an opposition media outlet. Does it get anymore deluded than that?