what is wrong with Hugo Chaves?

[MAW1082]

This is a quote from Ayn Rand:

"I most emphatically advocate a black-and-white view of the world. Let us define this. What is meant by the expression "black and white"? It means good and evil."

So this goes along with what Bush has said as well as with the Heinlein quote in your signature . . .

 

[palehorse]

gee, half the people here feel that Chavez in one swell dude, AND half of the people here are closet communists.

coincidence? I THINK NOT!

lol... what a bunch of clowns...

 

[rahvin]

I find the funniest claiming that to have freedom he must control the press! Or maybe it was when someone with FAMILY in venezuala mentions that his FAMILY told him that people oppossed to Chavez are starting to disappear and there is denial in the streets. Chavez went to the school of Castro's communism, a communism that routinely tortured and killed in the name of politics.

Ask yourself this while Chavez redistributes the wealth (thereby destroying all the wealth generating capacity in the country, outside the oil which if oil prices stay high through the end of the decade will become much less valuable as America's energy initiatives finally grow legs as a result of being funded by high oil prices), why does he have more money than he is distributing? Why is it in the best interests of the Venezualen people to give Oil to Castro for free? He'll be popular for a bit long while he still handing out tokens to the poor, but when they grow tired of the tokens and want the meat he will remove the democracy and declare himself permanent leader.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert Heinlein

That's what I am talking about. You are going to degrade everything into 'Freedom vs. Control'

This is not how the world works. There's more than just freedom and control, especially when you're dealing with multi dimensional issues.

Educate yourself and read the full quote which I posted above. It is obviously tongue-in-cheek.

The "black and white" argument is such a poor analogy to the real world. Let's think about it for a moment. Obviously the world is not just black and white, for the colors of the rainbow do exist. But obviously the world is not just grey either, for all the individual colors exist too (including black and white). So things aren't just black and white, and they aren't just grey either, but both -- all the shades exist, with black on one end and white on the other and everything in between. In its own way, the "black and white world" argument is very cryptic. I have found that when a person of your political persuasion says that there is no black and white, what they're really is that only the collective exists and individuals do not (this BTW ties in nicely with Votingisanillusion's inability to distinguish between a collectivist theory, corporatism, and an individualist theory, capitalism). Really, both the collective AND individuals exist. And like grey, the collective is composed of the individuals and would not exist without them. Which then, is more important and deserving of protection? The whole or the individual parts that comprise and support the whole? You answer the whole, I answer the individual parts. If that was all this was, I'd be fine with that, but it appears to me that you answer the whole so that you may pick and choose which parts to abuse and to steal from, and then hide behind an veil of self-denial with lies about the greater good, blah blah blah...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: rahvin
I find the funniest claiming that to have freedom he must control the press! Or maybe it was when someone with FAMILY in venezuala mentions that his FAMILY told him that people oppossed to Chavez are starting to disappear and there is denial in the streets. Chavez went to the school of Castro's communism, a communism that routinely tortured and killed in the name of politics.

Ask yourself this while Chavez redistributes the wealth (thereby destroying all the wealth generating capacity in the country, outside the oil which if oil prices stay high through the end of the decade will become much less valuable as America's energy initiatives finally grow legs as a result of being funded by high oil prices), why does he have more money than he is distributing? Why is it in the best interests of the Venezualen people to give Oil to Castro for free? He'll be popular for a bit long while he still handing out tokens to the poor, but when they grow tired of the tokens and want the meat he will remove the democracy and declare himself permanent leader.

Bingo. Chavez is a populist. No more. That means he gains and holds power by bribing the poor with other people's money, while making himself rich and fat in the process. He's just another Huey Long, as I said in my first post in this thread. That is all.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
gee, half the people here feel that Chavez in one swell dude, AND half of the people here are closet communists.

coincidence? I THINK NOT!

lol... what a bunch of clowns...

Since this is Anandtech I feel this comparison is warranted so here goes .....

The Federation is Communist and it's an ideal society. Capitalism must die to make the world unified.

 

[Genx87]

It just baffles me after all the proven failures of socialism people still believe in it.
Reading this fool Huey Long's info from your link I wonder if people really do believe in "Every Man a King" and understand the ramifications of trying to do such a thing.

It is an impossible dream that has been nothing but a nightmare for the past 100 or so years that people really believe if they try hard enough the nightmare will end in eternal bliss.

 

[oldman420]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: rahvin

Bingo. Chavez is a populist. No more. That means he gains and holds power by bribing the poor with other people's money, while making himself rich and fat in the process. He's just another Huey Long, as I said in my first post in this thread. That is all.

or perhaps a Thomas Paine.
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." -- Thomas Paine

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: rahvin
I find the funniest claiming that to have freedom he must control the press! Or maybe it was when someone with FAMILY in venezuala mentions that his FAMILY told him that people oppossed to Chavez are starting to disappear and there is denial in the streets. Chavez went to the school of Castro's communism, a communism that routinely tortured and killed in the name of politics.

Ask yourself this while Chavez redistributes the wealth (thereby destroying all the wealth generating capacity in the country, outside the oil which if oil prices stay high through the end of the decade will become much less valuable as America's energy initiatives finally grow legs as a result of being funded by high oil prices), why does he have more money than he is distributing? Why is it in the best interests of the Venezualen people to give Oil to Castro for free? He'll be popular for a bit long while he still handing out tokens to the poor, but when they grow tired of the tokens and want the meat he will remove the democracy and declare himself permanent leader.

Bingo. Chavez is a populist. No more. That means he gains and holds power by bribing the poor with other people's money, while making himself rich and fat in the process. He's just another Huey Long, as I said in my first post in this thread. That is all.

I watched a Documentary concerning the Venezuelan portrayal of the shooting Maw was talking about. If the Documentary is accurate, and it appeared to be, the Privately owned Media in Venezuala certainly twisted events against Chavez. I have a feeling there's more to this then we know and in such a light it seems that doing something regarding the Media is not unwarranted. That's not to defend Government control of the Media, but when something is clearly operating to undermine the Democratically elected Government of the People by encouraging Military Control and/or Armed Insurrection against the legitimate Government through Lies and twisting of the Facts something must be done.

Now I know you, Gen, and others have a problem with People choosing Socialism Democratically, but if that's what the People choose, regardless of the reason, then that's what the People should get. There is no Freedom if what the People choose is denied simply because of what it is or a Foreigners opinion of what it is.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: oldman420

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: rahvin

Bingo. Chavez is a populist. No more. That means he gains and holds power by bribing the poor with other people's money, while making himself rich and fat in the process. He's just another Huey Long, as I said in my first post in this thread. That is all.

or perhaps a Thomas Paine.
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." -- Thomas Paine

I do not see Chavez securing anyone's liberty but his own.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Now I know you, Gen, and others have a problem with People choosing Socialism Democratically, but if that's what the People choose, regardless of the reason, then that's what the People should get. There is no Freedom if what the People choose is denied simply because of what it is or a Foreigners opinion of what it is.

I have no problem with what you or anyone choose. Nor would I deny anyone's choice. Choice is not the issue. If people choose to be swindled by a con man, that is their decision. But that doesn't mean I have to like the con man, now does it?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It just baffles me after all the proven failures of socialism people still believe in it.
Reading this fool Huey Long's info from your link I wonder if people really do believe in "Every Man a King" and understand the ramifications of trying to do such a thing.

It is an impossible dream that has been nothing but a nightmare for the past 100 or so years that people really believe if they try hard enough the nightmare will end in eternal bliss.

It's the ultimate long con, and has been going on for as long as humans have made governments among themselves. An upstart to the throne promises to lead the people in a glorious revolution against the bad old king, failing to tell the people that his true intentions are to be the bad new king. "Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi!"

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: MAW1082
"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert Heinlein

That's what I am talking about. You are going to degrade everything into 'Freedom vs. Control'

This is not how the world works. There's more than just freedom and control, especially when you're dealing with multi dimensional issues.

Educate yourself and read the full quote which I posted above. It is obviously tongue-in-cheek.

The "black and white" argument is such a poor analogy to the real world. Let's think about it for a moment. Obviously the world is not just black and white, for the colors of the rainbow do exist. But obviously the world is not just grey either, for all the individual colors exist too (including black and white). So things aren't just black and white, and they aren't just grey either, but both -- all the shades exist, with black on one end and white on the other and everything in between. In its own way, the "black and white world" argument is very cryptic. I have found that when a person of your political persuasion says that there is no black and white, what they're really is that only the collective exists and individuals do not (this BTW ties in nicely with Votingisanillusion's inability to distinguish between a collectivist theory, corporatism, and an individualist theory, capitalism). Really, both the collective AND individuals exist. And like grey, the collective is composed of the individuals and would not exist without them. Which then, is more important and deserving of protection? The whole or the individual parts that comprise and support the whole? You answer the whole, I answer the individual parts. If that was all this was, I'd be fine with that, but it appears to me that you answer the whole so that you may pick and choose which parts to abuse and to steal from, and then hide behind an veil of self-denial with lies about the greater good, blah blah blah...

Enough with the antagonistic rhetoric: "Go educate yourself!"

I have an education.

I think you'd be a lot more influential if you refrained from insulting people. Oh yeah, and actually support your comments with quality arguments . . .

blah blah blah . . .

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Now I know you, Gen, and others have a problem with People choosing Socialism Democratically, but if that's what the People choose, regardless of the reason, then that's what the People should get. There is no Freedom if what the People choose is denied simply because of what it is or a Foreigners opinion of what it is.

I have no problem with what you or anyone choose. Nor would I deny anyone's choice. Choice is not the issue. If people choose to be swindled by a con man, that is their decision. But that doesn't mean I have to like the con man, now does it?

Of course not, but the discussion is not on the merits of Chavez's beliefs, for the most part. It usually devolves into the Legitimacy of his Election. Whether one agrees with his view(s) is immaterial to him being the Legitimate Leader of Venezuela.

That said, my previous post had more to do with the assertion that he was merely following a pattern leading towards Communism and Totalitarianism. It is clear that there are more problems in Venezuela than just Chavez. Manipulating the Media whether by Government or Private means is unacceptable.

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: rahvin
I find the funniest claiming that to have freedom he must control the press! Or maybe it was when someone with FAMILY in venezuala mentions that his FAMILY told him that people oppossed to Chavez are starting to disappear and there is denial in the streets. Chavez went to the school of Castro's communism, a communism that routinely tortured and killed in the name of politics.

Ask yourself this while Chavez redistributes the wealth (thereby destroying all the wealth generating capacity in the country, outside the oil which if oil prices stay high through the end of the decade will become much less valuable as America's energy initiatives finally grow legs as a result of being funded by high oil prices), why does he have more money than he is distributing? Why is it in the best interests of the Venezualen people to give Oil to Castro for free? He'll be popular for a bit long while he still handing out tokens to the poor, but when they grow tired of the tokens and want the meat he will remove the democracy and declare himself permanent leader.

Bingo. Chavez is a populist. No more. That means he gains and holds power by bribing the poor with other people's money, while making himself rich and fat in the process. He's just another Huey Long, as I said in my first post in this thread. That is all.

I watched a Documentary concerning the Venezuelan portrayal of the shooting Maw was talking about. If the Documentary is accurate, and it appeared to be, the Privately owned Media in Venezuala certainly twisted events against Chavez. I have a feeling there's more to this then we know and in such a light it seems that doing something regarding the Media is not unwarranted. That's not to defend Government control of the Media, but when something is clearly operating to undermine the Democratically elected Government of the People by encouraging Military Control and/or Armed Insurrection against the legitimate Government through Lies and twisting of the Facts something must be done.

Now I know you, Gen, and others have a problem with People choosing Socialism Democratically, but if that's what the People choose, regardless of the reason, then that's what the People should get. There is no Freedom if what the People choose is denied simply because of what it is or a Foreigners opinion of what it is.

Whoa . . . I'm not lying.

To add another piece to the puzzle. When Chavez came back to power a short time later, he informed the public via the state owned television channel what had happened. Thie individual citizens, not the military, protested outside these private media companies for days and demanded that they leave the country or cease toheir current anti-democratic activities.

The idea of the corporate elite owning and controlling a large majority of the media outlets in the world is quite possibly one of the most concerning issues of our time. Noam Chomsky has written a lot on this subject (Manufacturing Consent). The fact of the matter is that the media companies in Venezuela are owned by corporations whose mere existence is tied to international capitalism. Like any institution facing dissolution, it is fighting back with all the power it has, and it will continue to do so. Period.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Now I know you, Gen, and others have a problem with People choosing Socialism Democratically, but if that's what the People choose, regardless of the reason, then that's what the People should get. There is no Freedom if what the People choose is denied simply because of what it is or a Foreigners opinion of what it is.

I have no problem with what you or anyone choose. Nor would I deny anyone's choice. Choice is not the issue. If people choose to be swindled by a con man, that is their decision. But that doesn't mean I have to like the con man, now does it?

Of course not, but the discussion is not on the merits of Chavez's beliefs, for the most part. It usually devolves into the Legitimacy of his Election. Whether one agrees with his view(s) is immaterial to him being the Legitimate Leader of Venezuela.

That said, my previous post had more to do with the assertion that he was merely following a pattern leading towards Communism and Totalitarianism. It is clear that there are more problems in Venezuela than just Chavez. Manipulating the Media whether by Government or Private means is unacceptable.

Democracy is not an end-all-be-all to legitimacy. Sometimes quite the contrary. After all, if 50 million people decided that 6 million of their number needed to die horrible deaths, that still wouldn't be legitimate no matter how democratic, now would it? I think we agree to a point.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: MAW1082

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: rahvin
I find the funniest claiming that to have freedom he must control the press! Or maybe it was when someone with FAMILY in venezuala mentions that his FAMILY told him that people oppossed to Chavez are starting to disappear and there is denial in the streets. Chavez went to the school of Castro's communism, a communism that routinely tortured and killed in the name of politics.

Ask yourself this while Chavez redistributes the wealth (thereby destroying all the wealth generating capacity in the country, outside the oil which if oil prices stay high through the end of the decade will become much less valuable as America's energy initiatives finally grow legs as a result of being funded by high oil prices), why does he have more money than he is distributing? Why is it in the best interests of the Venezualen people to give Oil to Castro for free? He'll be popular for a bit long while he still handing out tokens to the poor, but when they grow tired of the tokens and want the meat he will remove the democracy and declare himself permanent leader.

Bingo. Chavez is a populist. No more. That means he gains and holds power by bribing the poor with other people's money, while making himself rich and fat in the process. He's just another Huey Long, as I said in my first post in this thread. That is all.

I watched a Documentary concerning the Venezuelan portrayal of the shooting Maw was talking about. If the Documentary is accurate, and it appeared to be, the Privately owned Media in Venezuala certainly twisted events against Chavez. I have a feeling there's more to this then we know and in such a light it seems that doing something regarding the Media is not unwarranted. That's not to defend Government control of the Media, but when something is clearly operating to undermine the Democratically elected Government of the People by encouraging Military Control and/or Armed Insurrection against the legitimate Government through Lies and twisting of the Facts something must be done.

Now I know you, Gen, and others have a problem with People choosing Socialism Democratically, but if that's what the People choose, regardless of the reason, then that's what the People should get. There is no Freedom if what the People choose is denied simply because of what it is or a Foreigners opinion of what it is.

Whoa . . . I'm not lying.

To add another piece to the puzzle. When Chavez came back to power a short time later, he informed the public via the state owned television channel what had happened. Thie individual citizens, not the military, protested outside these private media companies for days and demanded that they leave the country or cease toheir current anti-democratic activities.

The idea of the corporate elite owning and controlling a large majority of the media outlets in the world is quite possibly one of the most concerning issues of our time. Noam Chomsky has written a lot on this subject (Manufacturing Consent). The fact of the matter is that the media companies in Venezuela are owned by corporations whose mere existence is tied to international capitalism. Like any institution facing dissolution, it is fighting back with all the power it has, and it will continue to do so. Period.

Didn't say you were lying. I just take all sources of information with agrain of salt. IOW, I don't know the situation well enough to say with 100% certainty what is true. However, I'm not a partisan hack that automatically assumes the worst of a contrary political position(Socialism in this case) as being Evil, unlike some others. To put it more clearly, a Capitalist can be as Evil as a Socialist and I am never surprised to see it come true.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Now I know you, Gen, and others have a problem with People choosing Socialism Democratically, but if that's what the People choose, regardless of the reason, then that's what the People should get. There is no Freedom if what the People choose is denied simply because of what it is or a Foreigners opinion of what it is.

I have no problem with what you or anyone choose. Nor would I deny anyone's choice. Choice is not the issue. If people choose to be swindled by a con man, that is their decision. But that doesn't mean I have to like the con man, now does it?

Of course not, but the discussion is not on the merits of Chavez's beliefs, for the most part. It usually devolves into the Legitimacy of his Election. Whether one agrees with his view(s) is immaterial to him being the Legitimate Leader of Venezuela.

That said, my previous post had more to do with the assertion that he was merely following a pattern leading towards Communism and Totalitarianism. It is clear that there are more problems in Venezuela than just Chavez. Manipulating the Media whether by Government or Private means is unacceptable.

Democracy is not an end-all-be-all to legitimacy. Sometimes quite the contrary. After all, if 50 million people decided that 6 million of their number needed to die horrible deaths, that still wouldn't be legitimate no matter how democratic, now would it? I think we agree to a point.

There certainly needs to be protection for Minorities, but as far as who is the legitimate Leader is concerned, Majority Rules.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
Enough with the antagonistic rhetoric: "Go educate yourself!"

I have an education.

I think you'd be a lot more influential if you refrained from insulting people. Oh yeah, and actually support your comments with quality arguments . . .

blah blah blah . . .

Yes, I recall a previous thread where you showed yourself to be quite insecure about making sure everyone knew you had an education. Maybe I recalled that and couldn't resist the jab. Or maybe it was because I had already addressed your previous libel and you continued to compound it? Let's try again.
"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert Heinlein
Where in "are never basic criteria" did you derive "black and white" and a lack of multidimensionalism? Out of your ass, I would say. But that scatological material gave you the ammo you wanted to fling insults at me, so what the hell, eh?
I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but you insult me, I'll insult back. Good times, fun and games, welcome to the internet...

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Jmman

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
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?

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.?

Unfettered capitalism, without restraint, would be savagry. Think child labor, pollution of the water we drink and the air we breathe, etc.

You can probably make an argument that recent dramatic weather events are to some extent due to the climate changes brought about by man's industrial activities on the planet.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Now I know you, Gen, and others have a problem with People choosing Socialism Democratically, but if that's what the People choose, regardless of the reason, then that's what the People should get. There is no Freedom if what the People choose is denied simply because of what it is or a Foreigners opinion of what it is.

I have no problem with what you or anyone choose. Nor would I deny anyone's choice. Choice is not the issue. If people choose to be swindled by a con man, that is their decision. But that doesn't mean I have to like the con man, now does it?

Of course not, but the discussion is not on the merits of Chavez's beliefs, for the most part. It usually devolves into the Legitimacy of his Election. Whether one agrees with his view(s) is immaterial to him being the Legitimate Leader of Venezuela.

That said, my previous post had more to do with the assertion that he was merely following a pattern leading towards Communism and Totalitarianism. It is clear that there are more problems in Venezuela than just Chavez. Manipulating the Media whether by Government or Private means is unacceptable.

Democracy is not an end-all-be-all to legitimacy. Sometimes quite the contrary. After all, if 50 million people decided that 6 million of their number needed to die horrible deaths, that still wouldn't be legitimate no matter how democratic, now would it? I think we agree to a point.

There certainly needs to be protection for Minorities, but as far as who is the legitimate Leader is concerned, Majority Rules.

So I can assume that you are happy with Bush, then?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Jmman

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
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?

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.?

Unfettered capitalism, without restraint, would be savagry. Think child labor, pollution of the water we drink and the air we breathe, etc.

You can probably make an argument that recent dramatic weather events are to some extent due to the climate changes brought about by man's industrial activities on the planet.

Ah yes, because socialism NEVER uses child labor or pollutes the environment... :roll:

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: MAW1082

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: rahvin
I find the funniest claiming that to have freedom he must control the press! Or maybe it was when someone with FAMILY in venezuala mentions that his FAMILY told him that people oppossed to Chavez are starting to disappear and there is denial in the streets. Chavez went to the school of Castro's communism, a communism that routinely tortured and killed in the name of politics.

Ask yourself this while Chavez redistributes the wealth (thereby destroying all the wealth generating capacity in the country, outside the oil which if oil prices stay high through the end of the decade will become much less valuable as America's energy initiatives finally grow legs as a result of being funded by high oil prices), why does he have more money than he is distributing? Why is it in the best interests of the Venezualen people to give Oil to Castro for free? He'll be popular for a bit long while he still handing out tokens to the poor, but when they grow tired of the tokens and want the meat he will remove the democracy and declare himself permanent leader.

Bingo. Chavez is a populist. No more. That means he gains and holds power by bribing the poor with other people's money, while making himself rich and fat in the process. He's just another Huey Long, as I said in my first post in this thread. That is all.

I watched a Documentary concerning the Venezuelan portrayal of the shooting Maw was talking about. If the Documentary is accurate, and it appeared to be, the Privately owned Media in Venezuala certainly twisted events against Chavez. I have a feeling there's more to this then we know and in such a light it seems that doing something regarding the Media is not unwarranted. That's not to defend Government control of the Media, but when something is clearly operating to undermine the Democratically elected Government of the People by encouraging Military Control and/or Armed Insurrection against the legitimate Government through Lies and twisting of the Facts something must be done.

Now I know you, Gen, and others have a problem with People choosing Socialism Democratically, but if that's what the People choose, regardless of the reason, then that's what the People should get. There is no Freedom if what the People choose is denied simply because of what it is or a Foreigners opinion of what it is.

Whoa . . . I'm not lying.

To add another piece to the puzzle. When Chavez came back to power a short time later, he informed the public via the state owned television channel what had happened. Thie individual citizens, not the military, protested outside these private media companies for days and demanded that they leave the country or cease toheir current anti-democratic activities.

The idea of the corporate elite owning and controlling a large majority of the media outlets in the world is quite possibly one of the most concerning issues of our time. Noam Chomsky has written a lot on this subject (Manufacturing Consent). The fact of the matter is that the media companies in Venezuela are owned by corporations whose mere existence is tied to international capitalism. Like any institution facing dissolution, it is fighting back with all the power it has, and it will continue to do so. Period.

Didn't say you were lying. I just take all sources of information with agrain of salt. IOW, I don't know the situation well enough to say with 100% certainty what is true. However, I'm not a partisan hack that automatically assumes the worst of a contrary political position(Socialism in this case) as being Evil, unlike some others. To put it more clearly, a Capitalist can be as Evil as a Socialist and I am never surprised to see it come true.

Capitalism is a natural phenomenon. It describes the economic interaction between two or more subjects in a market without bounds. I don't think it's really an idealogy or anything political unless you associate it with classical liberalism.

I don't think Capitalism is 'evil' by any means; however, I do believe that the phenomenon obeys a set of mathematical laws which can adequately describe it. I also believe these laws have been described in detail in the nineteenth century. Capitalism is not 'good,' 'evil,' 'freedom,' 'slavery,' or 'peace.'

Back to Chavez . . .

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Vic
"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert Heinlein
Where in "are never basic criteria" did you derive "black and white" and a lack of multidimensionalism? Out of your ass, I would say. But that scatological material gave you the ammo you wanted to fling insults at me, so what the hell, eh?
I know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but you insult me, I'll insult back. Good times, fun and games, welcome to the internet...

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

That's BLACK AND WHITE friend. "you're with us or against us." "good and evil."

It's a polar statement.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Now I know you, Gen, and others have a problem with People choosing Socialism Democratically, but if that's what the People choose, regardless of the reason, then that's what the People should get. There is no Freedom if what the People choose is denied simply because of what it is or a Foreigners opinion of what it is.

I have no problem with what you or anyone choose. Nor would I deny anyone's choice. Choice is not the issue. If people choose to be swindled by a con man, that is their decision. But that doesn't mean I have to like the con man, now does it?

Of course not, but the discussion is not on the merits of Chavez's beliefs, for the most part. It usually devolves into the Legitimacy of his Election. Whether one agrees with his view(s) is immaterial to him being the Legitimate Leader of Venezuela.

That said, my previous post had more to do with the assertion that he was merely following a pattern leading towards Communism and Totalitarianism. It is clear that there are more problems in Venezuela than just Chavez. Manipulating the Media whether by Government or Private means is unacceptable.

Democracy is not an end-all-be-all to legitimacy. Sometimes quite the contrary. After all, if 50 million people decided that 6 million of their number needed to die horrible deaths, that still wouldn't be legitimate no matter how democratic, now would it? I think we agree to a point.

There certainly needs to be protection for Minorities, but as far as who is the legitimate Leader is concerned, Majority Rules.

So I can assume that you are happy with Bush, then?

Happy? No. I don't contest that he was chosen, but being chosen does not negate the fact that he's a poor leader.