what is wrong with Hugo Chaves?
- Thread starter oldman420
- Start date
He is a socialist, and believes that capitalism needs to be eradicated. I guess that means that "we" need to be eradicated. Sounds kind of dangerous to me......
From Jmman-
"He is a socialist, and believes that capitalism needs to be eradicated. I guess that means that "we" need to be eradicated. Sounds kind of dangerous to me......"
Any evidence to back that up, or are you merely repeating rightwing slurs and innuendo?
"He is a socialist, and believes that capitalism needs to be eradicated. I guess that means that "we" need to be eradicated. Sounds kind of dangerous to me......"
Any evidence to back that up, or are you merely repeating rightwing slurs and innuendo?
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
He is a paranoid socialist and wnats to keep power by finding a bogey man to redirect his peoples frustrations.
His country is a big player within the oil markets; yet he feels he is ignored.
EGO
His country is a big player within the oil markets; yet he feels he is ignored.
EGO
He's a new-age dictator, nothing less. I know all the leftists like to ride his crank because he's nasty to bush, of course they are all hypocrits* because they know nothing about what he's done in his own country.
Link
*exception being the leftists who idolize the state and believe it should hold all power so the ignorant unwashed masses are controlled.
Link
*exception being the leftists who idolize the state and believe it should hold all power so the ignorant unwashed masses are controlled.
A few select quotes, but I am sure there are many more:
"Capitalism is savagery. "
As reported by Agence France-Presse, Chavez, in a radio and TV interview, said the recent earthquakes in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan, and the mudslides in Mexico and Guatemala were nature?s answer to a "world global capitalist model? that has left the world "dangerously off balance.?
"Everyday I become more convinced, there is no doubt in my mind, and as many intellectuals have said, that it is necessary to transcend capitalism."
"Capitalism leads us straight to hell.?
In this typical diatribe, Chavez compared capitalism to Count Dracula, Frankenstein, Jack the Ripper and the Boston Strangler, but then added that Capitalists are much worse than those monsters.
I could find a ton more but it seems pointless......
He's not a Bush worshipping sissy.
He's not a warmonger.
His country has oil, but he doesn't allow himself to be exploited by American oil men like a good little 3rd worlder.
He uses his country's oil revenue to improve his country's infrastructure and housing situation, not to enrich CEOs of American oil companies.
All of those make him a horrible person, and an enemy of good Christian Capitalist Americans everywhere.
He's not a warmonger.
His country has oil, but he doesn't allow himself to be exploited by American oil men like a good little 3rd worlder.
He uses his country's oil revenue to improve his country's infrastructure and housing situation, not to enrich CEOs of American oil companies.
All of those make him a horrible person, and an enemy of good Christian Capitalist Americans everywhere.
Here's the problem with most right of center tripe . . . the people of friggin' Venezuela ELECTED Chavez. Like many developing countries with significant natural resources, Venezuela has an extensive history of corruption where some right of center government colludes with wealthy interests (domestic and foreign) to extract maximum resources while ignoring the general condition of the population.
Chavez has significant support in Venezuela, which is the primary reason he keeps getting elected AND survive coups. His opposition is not universally devoid of decent principles, though. There are legitimate criticisms to Chavez's consolidation of power; executive and his stodges in the legislature/judiciary. He's arguably a decent facsimile of Bush43. In both process and product, the Venezuelan government (despite its claims) appears to be corrupt and ineffective . . . just like Bush.
Chavez has significant support in Venezuela, which is the primary reason he keeps getting elected AND survive coups. His opposition is not universally devoid of decent principles, though. There are legitimate criticisms to Chavez's consolidation of power; executive and his stodges in the legislature/judiciary. He's arguably a decent facsimile of Bush43. In both process and product, the Venezuelan government (despite its claims) appears to be corrupt and ineffective . . . just like Bush.
So Hugo Chavez hates capitalism. So what? Not like he has declared Jihad on the west, he just disapproves of their economy.
quote:
Great source: the CIA participated in the 2002 against Chavez, and who is writing for your source of disinfo against democratically elected Chavez: John Deutch, the former director of central intelligence: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=1584
It is so funny how in their long article against Chavez, on page 2, the writer manages to tell us almost nothing about this coup. Is it because this coup was backed by the CIA and Bushist friends of this writer? Is it because the first political decision of the 2 days dictator was to suppress all democratic institutions? So we have a writer who spins everything he can against the democratic Chavez, while at the same time saying nothing against the friend of Bush and the CIA who immediately suppressed all democratic institutions. And not a word about the leader of the opposition who said that Venezuela needed a dictator to replace Chavez who won many elections. How strange: I thought the goal of the author was to attack the ennemies of democracy in Venezuela. Or was it?
To understand how this article disinforms its readers about some laws passed by the Chavez administration, one must remember that Venezuela was a puppet state, with corrupt leaders doing everything to enrich US oil corps, and mass-media much worse than Fox, spreading not only lies but tons of hatred and much worse on anyone criticizing the rich oligarchy and its absolute power.
For example: << Chávez secured congressional approval for an expansion of the Supreme Court from 20 to 32 justices and filled the new posts with unabashed revolucionarios >>. The Supreme Court was filled with corrupt judges loyal to the corrupt oligarchy that put them there; something had to be done to prevent the Supreme Court from blocking any reform, like the vast reform of the oil sector, through which Chavez enriched his country tremendously, infuriating the corrupt puppet oligarchy and their generous masters, the US oil corps.
<< 1999 constitution did away with congressional oversight of military affairs >>. As was proved by the coup of 2002, many generals and officers were fascists and friends of the CIA; the government had to do something about it without being blocked by the corrupt opposition, the same opposition that wants to replace Chavez with a dictator.
<< And let's not forget that Chavez's first attempt to come into power was via a violent COUP that failed. >> It was a coup against a corrupt president who jailed Chavez when his coup failed; but the next president then jailed his predecessor for corruption and set Chavez free. Chavez had tried to help his country get rid of a corrupt oligarchy that made the majority of the people of Venezuela very poor, making a minority very rich. Chavez is a hero for a majority of Venezuelans. Bush, on the other side, now appears like one of the worst presidents ever for a majority of US citizens, I guess, since he made the rich richer, and did his best to destroy the Constitution and turn this country into a police state, and invaded three countried, and .... How many coutries did Chavez invade? Zero. It is clear for the World who is the fascist.
Great source: the CIA participated in the 2002 against Chavez, and who is writing for your source of disinfo against democratically elected Chavez: John Deutch, the former director of central intelligence: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=1584
It is so funny how in their long article against Chavez, on page 2, the writer manages to tell us almost nothing about this coup. Is it because this coup was backed by the CIA and Bushist friends of this writer? Is it because the first political decision of the 2 days dictator was to suppress all democratic institutions? So we have a writer who spins everything he can against the democratic Chavez, while at the same time saying nothing against the friend of Bush and the CIA who immediately suppressed all democratic institutions. And not a word about the leader of the opposition who said that Venezuela needed a dictator to replace Chavez who won many elections. How strange: I thought the goal of the author was to attack the ennemies of democracy in Venezuela. Or was it?
To understand how this article disinforms its readers about some laws passed by the Chavez administration, one must remember that Venezuela was a puppet state, with corrupt leaders doing everything to enrich US oil corps, and mass-media much worse than Fox, spreading not only lies but tons of hatred and much worse on anyone criticizing the rich oligarchy and its absolute power.
For example: << Chávez secured congressional approval for an expansion of the Supreme Court from 20 to 32 justices and filled the new posts with unabashed revolucionarios >>. The Supreme Court was filled with corrupt judges loyal to the corrupt oligarchy that put them there; something had to be done to prevent the Supreme Court from blocking any reform, like the vast reform of the oil sector, through which Chavez enriched his country tremendously, infuriating the corrupt puppet oligarchy and their generous masters, the US oil corps.
<< 1999 constitution did away with congressional oversight of military affairs >>. As was proved by the coup of 2002, many generals and officers were fascists and friends of the CIA; the government had to do something about it without being blocked by the corrupt opposition, the same opposition that wants to replace Chavez with a dictator.
<< And let's not forget that Chavez's first attempt to come into power was via a violent COUP that failed. >> It was a coup against a corrupt president who jailed Chavez when his coup failed; but the next president then jailed his predecessor for corruption and set Chavez free. Chavez had tried to help his country get rid of a corrupt oligarchy that made the majority of the people of Venezuela very poor, making a minority very rich. Chavez is a hero for a majority of Venezuelans. Bush, on the other side, now appears like one of the worst presidents ever for a majority of US citizens, I guess, since he made the rich richer, and did his best to destroy the Constitution and turn this country into a police state, and invaded three countried, and .... How many coutries did Chavez invade? Zero. It is clear for the World who is the fascist.
He speaks his mind and tells Bush to kiss his pooper. What's wrong with him? I have no idea... most likely nothing, he's just not a coward and those in power don't like people who talk back.
What's funny is that you are the only looney to actually try and address the article. Everyone else posts "blah blah BUSH blah blah FASCIST". Of course, you did too, but at least you addressed Chavez specifically, in your meandering illogical and ill-formatted way.
So I'm assuming you'd be OK if Bush took all the actions Chavez did then in our country, since he is the elected president of our Federal Republic?
he really is kind of a split character...
On the one hand he moved to secure power for the masses in his country, taking it from a corrupted social elite. He has made some strides towards healthcare and education reforms (though not as much as he originally said he would), he nationalized the oil industry (and in so doing secured profits from it for the people instead of the .000001% previously benefiting), he backs humanitarian, equality, and social reforms not only within Venezuela but also in other nations including the US, he instigated land redistribution (again for the common man to rise against elitist oppression of previous generations),etc.
But then there's this whole election issue where he's basically making it possible for him to become a dictator instead of a democratic president. He's working against many civil freedoms and towards a VERY authoritarian government regime.
I can understand it in part, especially with America trying to topple him, but that doesn't make it right. I have no problem with his opposition to capitalism as it's run amok in the world, but that doesn't mean I support his lopsided socialist views. I think he's an underdog, the product of abuse and derision by the rest of the world for so many generations that he's got a chip on his shoulder. It's understandable I suppose.
My hope is that he succeeds in forming the Latin American coalition he's striving towards so that those nations can gain some measure of independence from America and the world bank. I hope once it's accomplished his successors will abandon the authoritarian (and perhaps some of the socialist) leanings.
On the one hand he moved to secure power for the masses in his country, taking it from a corrupted social elite. He has made some strides towards healthcare and education reforms (though not as much as he originally said he would), he nationalized the oil industry (and in so doing secured profits from it for the people instead of the .000001% previously benefiting), he backs humanitarian, equality, and social reforms not only within Venezuela but also in other nations including the US, he instigated land redistribution (again for the common man to rise against elitist oppression of previous generations),etc.
But then there's this whole election issue where he's basically making it possible for him to become a dictator instead of a democratic president. He's working against many civil freedoms and towards a VERY authoritarian government regime.
I can understand it in part, especially with America trying to topple him, but that doesn't make it right. I have no problem with his opposition to capitalism as it's run amok in the world, but that doesn't mean I support his lopsided socialist views. I think he's an underdog, the product of abuse and derision by the rest of the world for so many generations that he's got a chip on his shoulder. It's understandable I suppose.
My hope is that he succeeds in forming the Latin American coalition he's striving towards so that those nations can gain some measure of independence from America and the world bank. I hope once it's accomplished his successors will abandon the authoritarian (and perhaps some of the socialist) leanings.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
He's a corrupt populist socialist dictator (think new-age Venezuelan Huey Long) who incites his people to hate the "great satan" of the United States as a way to push his popularity and get his people to surrender their inherent rights and freedoms.
The thing that scares me is that I have family that lives there, and from talking to them, it seems as if people who disagree with Chavez are starting to "disappear". Reminds me of the Soviet Union or something. Don't get sucked in with his PR campaign about schools and such.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Who cares, they elected him let them deal with him. By fscking with him/his country we are only going to exacerbate things.
Same goes with Cuba,lets stop the embargo and give them a taste of real Capitalism and freedom. That will bring those guys down faster than some head up the ass rhetoric that our politiicans from both parties seem to prefer.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter