what is wrong with Hugo Chaves?

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: 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:

Ah yes, your comment has precisely nothing to do with my comment... :roll:

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: MAW1082
Capitalism is a natural phenomenon. It describes the economic interaction between two or more subjects in a market without bounds.

That cannot be correct. Capitalism is obviously man-made, and therefore I wouldn't refer to it as a natural phenomenon (I'd leave that phase to describe the rocks and the trees). The market is clearly a man-made construct, and it obviously will always contains bounds or rules. At the most basic level, the rule that the economic interaction will be reciprocal and won't involve violence. i.e., you are trading for something, not taking it by force. There are other rules that appear in even the most rudimentrary markets - e.g., the rule that your product is as it is represented, that it is not fake or broken. Even the simplest market has a vast number of rules which are followed by the particpants in the market, hence it seems to me that talk of a "free market" (as in a market without restraint or rules) is non sensical.

 

[Genx87]

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.

Oh? This is the litmus test for throwing the free press under the hand of the govt?
I guess it is time for CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC to turn in their operating licenses and let the federal govt run them.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

Oh? This is the litmus test for throwing the free press under the hand of the govt?
I guess it is time for CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC to turn in their operating licenses and let the federal govt run them.

If the Privately held Media lie in order to undermine the Legitimate Government, something must be done.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

Oh? This is the litmus test for throwing the free press under the hand of the govt?
I guess it is time for CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC to turn in their operating licenses and let the federal govt run them.

If the Privately held Media lie in order to undermine the Legitimate Government, something must be done.

Very interesting. We know CBS has lied at least once to undermine the Bush administration. I guess it is time to shut them down.

And you guys think Bush's doctrine is infringing on civil liberties lmao.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

Oh? This is the litmus test for throwing the free press under the hand of the govt?
I guess it is time for CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC to turn in their operating licenses and let the federal govt run them.

If the Privately held Media lie in order to undermine the Legitimate Government, something must be done.

Very interesting. We know CBS has lied at least once to undermine the Bush administration. I guess it is time to shut them down.

And you guys think Bush's doctrine is infringing on civil liberties lmao.

:roll:

It was dealt with and was more of a mistake than a Lie. The difference between that situation and what occurred in Venezuela is night and day.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

Oh? This is the litmus test for throwing the free press under the hand of the govt?
I guess it is time for CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC to turn in their operating licenses and let the federal govt run them.

If the Privately held Media lie in order to undermine the Legitimate Government, something must be done.

Very interesting. We know CBS has lied at least once to undermine the Bush administration. I guess it is time to shut them down.

And you guys think Bush's doctrine is infringing on civil liberties lmao.

So, everything Bush has done hasn't infringed on civil liberites? Has he even infringed on civil liberties more than what would be considered normal?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

Oh? This is the litmus test for throwing the free press under the hand of the govt?
I guess it is time for CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC to turn in their operating licenses and let the federal govt run them.

If the Privately held Media lie in order to undermine the Legitimate Government, something must be done.

Very interesting. We know CBS has lied at least once to undermine the Bush administration. I guess it is time to shut them down.

And you guys think Bush's doctrine is infringing on civil liberties lmao.

:roll:

It was dealt with and was more of a mistake than a Lie. The difference between that situation and what occurred in Venezuela is night and day.

As much as I dislike our current adminstration, the fabricated documents that Dan Rathers presented were undeniably false - not to mention done extremely poorly - it was unraveled by conservative bloggers.

I don't like George Bush, but sinking to his own level to get rid of him isn't the right thing to do.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

Oh? This is the litmus test for throwing the free press under the hand of the govt?
I guess it is time for CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC to turn in their operating licenses and let the federal govt run them.

If the Privately held Media lie in order to undermine the Legitimate Government, something must be done.

Very interesting. We know CBS has lied at least once to undermine the Bush administration. I guess it is time to shut them down.

And you guys think Bush's doctrine is infringing on civil liberties lmao.

:roll:

It was dealt with and was more of a mistake than a Lie. The difference between that situation and what occurred in Venezuela is night and day.

As much as I dislike our current adminstration, the fabricated documents that Dan Rathers presented were undeniably false - not to mention done extremely poorly - it was unraveled by conservative bloggers.

I don't like George Bush, but sinking to his own level to get rid of him isn't the right thing to do.

True enough, but Dan Rathers involvement was shoddy Journalism and not a call for violence against the Administration.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: 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:

Ah yes, your comment has precisely nothing to do with my comment... :roll:

Actually, it had everything to do with your comment. You might want to read up on the environmental disasters that are post-socialist Russia and China.

 

[oldman420]

Originally posted by: 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.

it does say "his own liberty"

 

[AragornTK]

It's come up in this arguement that Chaves was elected, there for he couldn't be such a bad guy...?

Hitler was elected...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: AragornTK
It's come up in this arguement that Chaves was elected, there for he couldn't be such a bad guy...?

Hitler was elected...

That's not the point at all. He was Elected, therefor he's the Leader of Venezuela. The problem isn't that he's Bad or Good, it's that he was deemed Bad before he even had a chance to do anything.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Alchemize's link-

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3332

The editor of FP is Moises Naim, a rather prominent figure in the govt that the people of Venezuela voted out to install Chavez...

Which should clang a few alarm bells for anybody seeking unbiased sourcing on the issue....

Despite all the claims to the contrary, Chavez has not used the changes in govt to seize power. Which, it seems to me, indicates that he either isn't ready or has no intention of doing so, take your pick. He's sworn that he won't run for re-election, so I'll guess we get to see what happens, if the CIA doesn't stage another, more successful coup than last time...

There is no such thing as a unbiased source when it comes to political issues. Only idiots believe there is. Typically, these "idiots" use the claim of bias in order to discredit an educated, knowledgeable, and involved source in favor of an ignorant and ideological source. Facts that threaten an ideological power base are always condemned as heresy.

Chavez' changes in government have been HIGHLY questionable. The controversy surrounding his last election made the Diebold controversy pale in comparison. In short, if GW had done any of the same things that Chavez has done, you would be screaming bloody murder. That you don't reveals your own bias.

Little fascist liar! Venezuela uses open source software in its voting machines. Even better: successful random verification of 45% of the vote proved it was an honest election. On the other hand, US elections' voting machines use closed-source software, controlled by companies that are close to Bush. Almost nothing gets verified, and when verified it is done in such a way that verification itself is a fraud.
One more proof that Vic the self-branded libertarian is indeed merely a capitalist full of hatred for those democrats who prefer to share the wealth, instead of letting the corrupt authoritarian capitalists and their puppet politicians keep most of it for themselves.

Oh someone call the WAAAHHbumlance!! Did I step on your little toes by telling the truth? STFU, dumbass, you don't even know what a fascist (edit: or a democrat, for that matter) is... :roll:

In the 2005 Venezuelan parliamentary elections, significant controversy regarding the actual secrecy of the individual votes cast caused the major opposing parties to boycott the election, leading to a large victory for Chavez' 5th Reich.

edit: It should also be noted that Chavez controls the Venezuelan CNE or National Electoral Council. You just gotta love these fools who think that "democracy" occurs only when the public votes the way they want them to.

edit2: "democrats who prefer to share the wealth" -- I found this line to be particularly hilarious. Your definition of "sharing" is when it's done at government gunpoint with the bulk of the proceeds going to General El Presidente in his big mansion... Oh yeah, no corruption there... :roll:

Vic I am curious, how would you define a present-day democrat? Please do, dish out the harshness. :evil:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tab
Vic I am curious, how would you define a present-day democrat? Please do, dish out the harshness. :evil:

I really couldn't make that definition. Like the modern Republicans, the modern Democratic party is an amalgam of many political influences. And intentionally so... both parties are trying to appeal to as many people as possible. Conservative and liberal labels don't really apply IMO. The biggest difference between the 2 parties really these days is that Dems tend to be urbanites while Pubs tend to be more ruralites. This really holds true if you look at voting maps of the past 2 presidential elections.
I typically vote Democrat btw, and come from a very liberal Democrat-voting family.