• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Venezuela welcomes its new dictator.


  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#31 vortexentity

  • Guest
  • 243 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Florida

Posted 22 January 2007 - 09:11 PM

xanadu, I do not hold a position on their politics. I thing the redistribution of wealth play is used by all social democrats and communist alike. I do not think the policy wise or long term effective at anything but causing further ruin of their economy. I will submit that I have personally heard the words "redistribution of wealth" come out of the mouths of Chavez, as well as Obama, Kerry, and Gore at different times. Chavez out in public for all the world to see and in fund raisers hosted by the democrats out of the mouths of Obama, Kerry, and Gore, but they did not dare say these things in public speeches.

#32 AaronCW

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 183 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Chicago, IL.

Posted 23 January 2007 - 09:06 PM

xanadu, I do not hold a position on their politics. I thing the redistribution of wealth play is used by all social democrats and communist alike. I do not think the policy wise or long term effective at anything but causing further ruin of their economy. I will submit that I have personally heard the words "redistribution of wealth" come out of the mouths of Chavez, as well as Obama, Kerry, and Gore at different times. Chavez out in public for all the world to see and in fund raisers hosted by the democrats out of the mouths of Obama, Kerry, and Gore, but they did not dare say these things in public speeches.


I would not be surprised to see these democrats go down in history for having supported Chavez in his beginnings, and it may be quite a blackmark.

I see that you are not an advocate or apologist for Chavez' tactics/policies. I also concur that history will show very clearly that majority rule will prevail unless there are specific constitutional guards against it, and majority rule almost inevitably will rule against the 'unfairness' of wealth, and thus the first thing to go is property rights (without which no other rights can be protected). As I said before, so long as individual rights (which means protection against criminal and unwarranted government actions) are protected, no person, no matter how rich, can violate your rights.

Corporate media is often targeted as spewing propoganda; this is a false accusation in every case unless the government itself plays a role. In the US this accusation is often leveled against the Republican-biased FOX news corp. (which I don't watch) by competing MSNBC (which I watch on occasion). This accusation is absurd, and would be just as fairly leveled at the Democratic-biased MSNBC now that the Democrats control Congress. The point is, media that is privately owned cannot produce propoganda, and cannot violate the rights of anyone. Chavez may say anything he likes about private media, but if he silences them than he has directly violated their right of free speech (which is not a right granted by the government, rather it is an inalienable right necessary for life and freedom).

I do believe that Chavez can be ignored, and, he being an avowed enemy of the US, the US should immediately ban imports of all nationalized imports (notice that this does not violate the rights of anyone, as the government of a non-free country can only be considered as an outlaw), and reject his participation in the UN.

#33 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 23 January 2007 - 09:13 PM

Corporate media is often targeted as spewing propoganda; this is a false accusation in every case unless the government itself plays a role. In the US this accusation is often leveled against the Republican-biased FOX news corp. (which I don't watch) by competing MSNBC (which I watch on occasion). This accusation is absurd, and would be just as fairly leveled at the Democratic-biased MSNBC now that the Democrats control Congress. The point is, media that is privately owned cannot produce propoganda, and cannot violate the rights of anyone.


This is nonsense. How can you say that "media that is privately owned cannot produce propaganda and cannot violate the rights of anyone"? History is replete with just such examples of propaganda and attempts at violations of rights. What is advertising but propaganda? When it's presented as advertising then it's harmless, usually. When it's subtly indtroduced as spin on a so called news article then it becomes pernicious and this is something I see everyday. Hardly a single news story comes out without a ton of spin being put on it. The pro-israel bias of most of the western media is obvious to any fair minded person. Likewise, the pro-Bush spin on news in USA is very obvious.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#34 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,165 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 24 January 2007 - 01:04 AM

Oh poor Chavez! The media (maybe) spread lies about him. Those huge evil (semi-free for the time being) media conglomerates in Venezuela. They are so powerful and and Chavez is such a poor little misunderstood weakling. What is Chavez to do other than become a dictator and take over the country.

I think I am going to be ill.

When the streets of Caracas run red with the blood of political dissidents, I will be sure to bring this thread up and remind all of you Chavez sycophants and apologists where you stood in the beginning.

#35 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 24 January 2007 - 10:36 PM

Mind, I'm not sure anyone here is totally in favor of Chavez or his policies. What they are pointing out is that there are other factors involved. I pointed out that Bush has done far worse things than this guy. Others have pointed out the garbage done by the media and crimes done by greedy people. You say "so what" to the lies in the media but that is wrong also. It does not justify everything that Chavez has done. I happen to think nationalising industries is a mistake and a crime.

Who here is a Chavez sycophant and why do you say that? If he turns into a monster and kills more people than Bush or Hitler I will have no problem in having my words here brought back to me.

#36 vortexentity

  • Guest
  • 243 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Florida

Posted 26 January 2007 - 04:37 AM

mind, I do not think you have a clue about how things are on the ground in Venezuela. I do not pretend to be an expert but I am pretty sure if you have not been there you have no idea of the truth of the situation as is the case with most of us. I think this video is pretty well made and reveals a lot of details the news is not going to give you.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

#37 AaronCW

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 183 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Chicago, IL.

Posted 09 February 2007 - 07:38 AM

mind, I do not think you have a clue about how things are on the ground in Venezuela. I do not pretend to be an expert but I am pretty sure if you have not been there you have no idea of the truth of the situation as is the case with most of us. I think this video is pretty well made and reveals a lot of details the news is not going to give you.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised


This link has been removed. Please take the time to explain what the significance of the video was, and how it could be construed to justify mass theft by the state of Venezuela, and the destruction of any protections against a full blown slave society?

#38 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,086 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 09 February 2007 - 02:59 PM

These companies do not own the resources, the state does. Let's be clear about this Rasputin, even in the US the industry pumps oil in most cases under a *lease*, essentially a license with specifically assigned rights. The industry does not pump a product it *owns*, it is licensed to pump a product that is owned by the state. Essentially the industry profits from providing a service more efficiently than the state normally does but it is certainly a prerogative of the state to rescind the assignment of such rights and in fact that condition exists under the law even in this country.

If a corporation can be treated as an individual with comparable *rights* of property protection and ownership then it is not contradictory for a collective entity like the state to have similar right and legal protections for ownership. If most libertarians want to remove the rights of ownership from the state I would have no problem with it if they would also acknowledge the contradiction of then allowing corporations to possess to such rights. What is good for the gander is good for the goose.

#39 attis

  • Guest
  • 67 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Earth

Posted 15 February 2007 - 10:05 PM

I would like to point out that due to the fact that Chavez is nationalizing everything in his country, there have been food shortages, and probably soon to be other shortages as well. And to claim that Venezuela significantly contributes to the oil imports in the US is actually wrong, since Chavez has taken control of his country, and its state owned oil company, it has seen a 50% drop in production. In short, Chavez has a big mouth, but very little staying power in the management of markets. But to be technical, no market can be managed, only individual entities can know what they want and need, not some manager in the sky or a manager that wears a fine hat.

-- Bridget

#40 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 16 February 2007 - 04:17 AM

I just read this entire thread, and one thing that jumped out at me was the topic of "redistribution of wealth", and the notion that it is something that "Democrats and Communists" favor. We have redistribution of wealth in this country, from the middle class to the wealthy. It is supported primarily by Republicans, but also by Democrats. The tax code in America is skewed in favor of the wealthy like no developed nation on earth. Payroll taxes are incredibly regressive. Sales taxes are regressive. Most state and local taxes are flat at best. Capital gains taxes are ridiculously low and represent a huge giveaway to the wealthy, given that we are a nation "at war" and are running a huge long term deficit.

And the idea that Democrats are Communists is just wrong. Were you paying attention during the Clinton administration? Remember Welfare Reform? Clinton did that. What happened when the Republicans were in charge of all branches of government? The passage of the largest social welfare program in a generation, the passage of which was aided by lies and coverups regarding its true cost.

All the comfortable plattitudes about "liberals=communists=traitors=Democrats" that you hear from Rush and Fox News and Ann Coulter and Karl Rove are just lies. They are part of a package designed to get middle class people to vote against their own self interests. They want you to think that your problems are caused by Democrats who have given all your hard earned money to "welfare queens with Cadillacs", when the real welfare queens are running Exxon Mobil, ADM, Haliburton, Enron, etc. And those guys wouldn't be caught dead driving something as crappy as a Cadillac.

#41 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 16 February 2007 - 09:55 PM

So letting the wealthy keep some of their own money is "a huge giveaway to the wealthy"? That's what you are saying, isn't it? letting people keep their own hard earned money instead of the state taking it away and squandering it is like giving it to the wealthy. You wouldn't happen to be an extreme left winger, would you?

The tax code in America is skewed in favor of the wealthy like no developed nation on earth. Payroll taxes are incredibly regressive.


Income taxes are higher on high wage earners than on low wage earners. But you complain that they get to keep any at all. How about if govt just takes all our income since they know how to spend it better than we do? Sound like a good plan to you?

The repubs are crooked just like the dems. Both want all your money and they only differ on how they will spend it. Unlike you, I do not trust them with a used match and I want taxes lowered, not raised. If you think socialism is so great, go over to Cuba, Venezuela or some other nifty place and see how you like it.

#42 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,165 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 08 November 2007 - 09:45 PM

When the streets of Caracas run red with the blood of political dissidents, I will be sure to bring this thread up and remind all of you Chavez sycophants and apologists where you stood in the beginning.


Human rights watch has kept an eye on things

Peaceful student protesters shot.

Church and rights groups protest the suspension of term limits. Chavez wants to rule for life. Duh!

The guy loves to hang out with dictators (like Castro). He is close with the leaders of Iran. The writing is on the wall.

#43 Futurist1000

  • Guest
  • 438 posts
  • 1
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 09 November 2007 - 02:12 AM

Interestingly the nationalization of oil has actually brought in less money for the Venezuela government. The only thing that Chavez can be commended for is redistributing some of that oil money to the poor(Though he gives a ton of it away for free). The rest of his socialist programs are doing a good job of running the Venezuelan economy into the ground in spite of the vast oil riches. He's lucky that he has a lot of oil and it will probably keep his regime afloat for a while.
Venezuela

Paradoxically, nationalization brought the government less money and less control. When Venezuela's oil was still in private hands, the government collected 80 cents of every dollar of oil exported. With nationalization the figure dropped, and by the early 1990s, the government was collecting roughly half that amount.

[T]he percentage of those living without running water and living in inadequate housing, as well as the number of young children not attending school, has scarcely budged in the last 10 years. The percentage of babies born with low birth weights actually rose from 1999 to 2006. And this is according to government statistics. It is early, but these numbers may mean that the missions are mainly helping through the stipends.

Whatever success the missions have at helping the poor may be dwarfed by the grotesque distortions in the economy as a whole. Inflation is officially at 16 percent but is most likely higher, according to Orlando Ochoa, the economist, who is usually critical of Chávez. He says that in the basket of goods and services used to measure inflation, just under half the items are sold at government-controlled prices. Many goods simply can't be bought at those prices, and consumers must pay double the price in a street market. Or the goods can't be found at all, their producers forced out of business by price controls. Beans and sugar were hard to find cheaply when I visited Caracas in September; fresh milk and eggs hard to find at all. Recently, people had to line up for five hours to get a liter of milk. One proposal in Chávez's constitutional referendum could increase inflation much further by abolishing the autonomy of the Central Bank and giving the president power over Venezuela's international reserves. The proposal would also essentially allow Chávez to print money.

Land reform looks like it will result in a similar situation as the fiasco in Zimbabwe.
Land Reform

While Chavez's policies have created a utopia for some, with new farming cooperatives and villages set up for newly landed peasants, former owners view land reform as an assault on their livelihoods. "This is agrarian terrorism encouraged by the state," said Fhandor Quiroga, a landowner and head of commerce in northwestern Yaracuy State, in an interview with the New York Times. More than 160 peasants and eight landowners have been killed in violence stemming from recent seizures. The law has allowed squatters to take control of the land and burn crops, which has led landowners to hire outside protection.

Like in Zimbabwe, land reform in Venezuela has had a negative effect on food production. Both countries import most of their food. Since the initiation of land redistribution, sugar cane production in Venezuela has fallen 40 percent. Agriculture makes up only 6 percent of the economy in Venezuela, but demand for food has increased more than 30 percent over the last two years. While Venezuela has been spared the rampant inflation seen in Zimbabwe, a spike in fuel prices and government spending might be cause for concern. Venezuela's inflation rate is already 20 percent per year, the highest in the Western hemisphere.

The wealthy are fleeing the country.
Braijn Drain

Between the Tascón List and Chávez's infatuation with painting the middle classes as fascist parasites, Venezuela's educated professional classes found themselves doing something they'd never imagined doing before: leaving Venezuela. The numbers of people leaving, which had started as a trickle, is now turning into a torrent. A number estimated at more than 150,000 mostly middle class Venezuelans have fled to the United States alone, with many more applying for visas at the American embassy in Caracas, with hundreds of thousands of others reportedly heading to Europe, Canada and Brazil. The attitude of the Chávez government appears to be along the lines of "good riddance to bad rubbish", but there's certainly cause for concern. Not all of the same people who are fleeing Venezuela are idle plutocrats. Most of them are the trained professional specialists that a nation relies on to function, like the aforementioned doctors and engineers. So what is Venezuela doing to stop the brain drain?

Its funny, the country would probably done much better economically if he hadn't instituted all of these stupid socialist programs. If he had just redistributed the oil wealth and stuck with capitalism, the country would have been much better off. Price controls lead to inflation and shortages. His land redistribution programs have led to a decrease in the production of food. Stifling wealth redistribution programs lead to the wealthy fleeing the country. Almost nothing he has done makes any economic sense whatsoever. I do think that he has good intentions about helping his people. It just seems like so many of his policies are extremely misguided.

Edited by hrc579, 09 November 2007 - 02:34 AM.


#44 AaronCW

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 183 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Chicago, IL.

Posted 03 December 2007 - 12:47 AM

Today the referendum on Chavez' so-called constitutional reforms were held. I'm not aware that the results have been published.

I am eager to see whether the people of Venezuela give Chavez the satisfaction (political and egotistical) of a majority vote, or if he will have to force them to bow to their new king.

If anyone has further information on this please post.

#45 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,086 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 03 December 2007 - 12:53 AM

It is still close and both sides claim victory but the polls haven't closed yet either. It is one of the largest turnouts in their history, one way or another.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22066948/

Also the opposition is outspoken and crosses many demographics, including some of his closer supporters. It is interesting because despite claims to the contrary the debate on the subject has been open and vociferous.

#46 senseix

  • Guest
  • 250 posts
  • 1

Posted 03 December 2007 - 06:32 AM

Chavez has lost YAY!!!!

#47 AaronCW

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 183 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Chicago, IL.

Posted 03 December 2007 - 06:12 PM

Chavez has lost YAY!!!!


http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/7124313.stm

A bitter-sweet victory. Sweet to see Chavez humbled before his own people, yet bitter in the knowledge that there is anyone who feels that there is justice to be found in holding peoples lives up to majority vote.

Time will tell whether Chavez is really so good of a loser, and what remedy he might prescribe to restore his bruised machismo.

For the time being at least we might rename this thread "Venezuela welcomes its new dictator wanna-be".

Edited by rasputin, 03 December 2007 - 06:13 PM.


#48 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,165 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 03 December 2007 - 06:19 PM

From what I heard, university students were a major factor in defeating Chavez's dictatorial plans. They fanned out to all the polling places to make sure Chavez's goons weren't rigging the election.

#49 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 04 December 2007 - 05:36 AM

A bitter-sweet victory. Sweet to see Chavez humbled before his own people, yet bitter in the knowledge that there is anyone who feels that there is justice to be found in holding peoples lives up to majority vote.

I don't get what you mean here. Are they voting on whether someone should be killed?

#50 curious_sle

  • Guest
  • 463 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 06 December 2007 - 10:17 PM

From what I heard, university students were a major factor in defeating Chavez's dictatorial plans. They fanned out to all the polling places to make sure Chavez's goons weren't rigging the election.


Heh, and there i thought dictators couldn't loose elections.

Or as someone else put it
http://www.commondre...007/12/05/5624/ "Venezuela is not Florida" :wink:

Information and education over opinion. I wonder why so many value *opinion* over readily verifiable knowledge. Maybe because it is easier on one's convictions? Oh the above link is quite opinionated though.

#51 Futurist1000

  • Guest
  • 438 posts
  • 1
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 13 December 2007 - 06:00 PM

The majority of people in Latin America represent a far more disenfranchised poorer class thna we in the US have experienced since reconstruction and they are not sympathetic to *promises* that for them appear like more mythology rather than proven economic theory.

The vote for the election was pretty close. It is true that the poor have not been represented in the government. However one of the reasons is the simple fact that the poor don't vote as often as those who are wealthier and more educated. We have the same thing happening in the United States. Even though Chavez probably has support by a large majority of the population, voter apathy among the poor has likely contributed to his recent loss. This is one of the reasons that the wealthy tend to control the way a democracy functions. The wealthy vote at a higher rate than the poor. The wealthy are also more likely to run for office. That's probably why the elite was able to run Venezuela for such a long time.
No to socialism for the 21st century

The proposed reforms, to further what Chávez often calls “socialism for the 21st century”, were divided into two blocks. In the first block, which included Chávez's 33 proposed changes to the 1999 Constitution, the “no” vote won by 50.70 per cent to the “yes” vote's 49.29 per cent.

In the changes proposed by the National Assembly - which is dominated by Chavistas because of the opposition's abstention during the 2005 elections - the “no” vote won again with 51.05 per cent of voters voting against the reforms, 48.94 in favour and a surprising abstention rate of 44.39 per cent.

Political analyst and Chávez watcher Gregory Wilpert argued before the referendum that considerable confusion about the reforms had already translated itself into voter apathy with a "large segment of the population" unwilling to vote for or against the Constitutional amendments. "In the end," wrote Wilpert, "it all boils down to which side mobilises more supporters".

Given Chávez thrashed right-wing candidate Manuel Rosales in last year's presidential election - 62.9 per cent to 37.9 per cent - doubling their support for the President from 3.7 million votes in the 1998 elections, to 7.3 million in 2006, many Chavistas may have grown overconfident. A victory seemed assured and thus it was safe to give voting a miss.

I think that Chavez will attempt another vote in the future. Seeing as the vote was so close, he may get his way in the long run. I assume that the poor still like him, so all he has to do is mobilize enough of them to vote. Its kind of amazing that he failed even though he has control of the media. He probably assumed he would win. Having support from the population means nothing if you can't get them to go out and vote for you.
Chavez on Referendum

President Chávez said: “We were short 3 million people who did not vote [this time]. Why? We have to evaluate this. I am completely sure that the immense majority of those people are still with us. They did not vote for the Yes; they abstained—doubts, fears, we did not have enough time, capacity to explain. ... There are many political elements that we must consider in this battle.”


Edited by hrc579, 13 December 2007 - 06:19 PM.


#52 curious_sle

  • Guest
  • 463 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 13 December 2007 - 10:50 PM

I think that Chavez will attempt another vote in the future. Seeing as the vote was so close, he may get his way in the long run. I assume that the poor still like him, so all he has to do is mobilize enough of them to vote. Its kind of amazing that he failed even though he has control of the media. He probably assumed he would win. Having support from the population means nothing if you can't get them to go out and vote for you.


He doesn't have the control of the media. Most media is privately owned and busy all day attacking him with libel etc.

He does have the ability to show up on the national channels.

If you have ever seen the kind of relentless bashing every day in the media you would not call it having control of the media. Let's see what will happen when that private channel is closed down due to license revocation in about march or so...

#53 Futurist1000

  • Guest
  • 438 posts
  • 1
  • Location:U.S.A.

Posted 14 December 2007 - 02:53 AM

He doesn't have the control of the media.

Thanks for correcting me. Venezuela is definitely not a dictatorship (at least not yet). I definitely don't think Chavez is the worst leader on the planet. I do think he has better intentions for his people than a lot of leaders. I just don't agree with giving any single person too much power, no matter how much you might agree with their policies. The government does possess four state-owned TV stations, though.
Media representation of Hugo Chavez

With this addition, the Venezuelan government now possesses four state-owned television stations: Venezolana de Televisión (VTV), Asamblea Nacional TV (ANTV), ViVe, and TeleSUR.

Most media is privately owned and busy all day attacking him with libel etc.
He does have the ability to show up on the national channels.

If you have ever seen the kind of relentless bashing every day in the media you would not call it having control of the media. Let's see what will happen when that private channel is closed down due to license revocation in about march or so...

Private media’s most prominent political commentators have reported that, among other things, Chávez is mentally ill and that he harbors a “sexual obsession with Castro” [1].

Average Venezuelan Talking: The media said Chavez has a sexual obsession with Castro? Oh that must be true, I will never vote for Chavez again.
Well Bush gets bashed a lot in our media. I mean is there anyone in this country who doesn't believe that Bush is an idiot? (rightly or wrongly) I feel that in a free country, bashing the president on television is ok. If you don't like it, you don't have to watch that particular station. Chavez does have his own talk show, which is more than most presidents get. Come on, can't people tell biased news reporting when they see it. If a news channel is continually bashing somebody then I probably wouldn't watch it. No need to revoke its liscence. I suspect most of the poor don't even listen to the main media outlets on certain issues. They are probably aware that the stations are run by an elite who are protecting their own interests. That's just my own hunch about the situation.
Aló Presidente
Let's look at it from this perspective. What if Bush was shutting down a television station because he said it was bashing him, or was against the Iraq war. Who decides what is libel? You can call whatever you don't like libel. Its unfortunate that the wealthy control all the television stations in venezuela, but I don't see that as a reason to suppress free speech just because you don't like it. Hey if someone wants to create a TV station that bashes Bush 24/7 I'm all for it.

Edited by hrc579, 14 December 2007 - 03:12 AM.


#54 curious_sle

  • Guest
  • 463 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 15 December 2007 - 03:07 PM

Come on, can't people tell biased news reporting when they see it. If a news channel is continually bashing somebody then I probably wouldn't watch it. No need to revoke its liscence. I suspect most of the poor don't even listen to the main media outlets on certain issues. They are probably aware that the stations are run by an elite who are protecting their own interests. That's just my own hunch about the situation.
Aló Presidente
Let's look at it from this perspective. What if Bush was shutting down a television station because he said it was bashing him, or was against the Iraq war. Who decides what is libel? You can call whatever you don't like libel. Its unfortunate that the wealthy control all the television stations in venezuela, but I don't see that as a reason to suppress free speech just because you don't like it. Hey if someone wants to create a TV station that bashes Bush 24/7 I'm all for it.


Um to also quote the same wikipedia entry:

Coverage of the 2002 coup

Private media coverage of the 2002 coup only exacerbated these tensions. During the April 11th opposition demonstrations leading up to the coup, Chávez took over the airwaves shortly before gunfire broke out. The private TV stations defied the president by showing his address and the protest simultaneously, via a split-screen presentation. Chávez then ordered them to be taken off the air in a forced blackout which lasted until several stations started rerouting cable TV signals in order to continue covering the protest. On the first morning after the 2002 coup, many of the new Carmona government’s highest-ranking members appeared on-air to offer their appreciation to the private media for their support. Once the counter-coup was launched by Chavistas and loyalist elements of the Palace Guard, these five stations censored any reporting on the events. Private media owners and managers instead chose to broadcast classic films and sitcom reruns.


Actually the station in question is AFAIR the one that did the nice work of art of stitching together footage of the staged clash of pro Chavez and contra Chavez protesters where in the media reports it seemed that pro Chavez protesters shot on contra Chavez protesters whereas independent footage easily showed that there was quite a distance between the two groups and actually paid snipers shot on the contra Chavez protesters. If staging protests, killing people and lying and doctoring the video for political ends does not qualify for broadcast license revocation i don't know what qualifies... Tactical Nuke usage? Hum... *puzzled*.

Anyway, people do get manipulated by mass media, not everyone is capable of discriminating between propaganda an information and that i my view is why mass media is so critical to leveraging one's political opinion. I for one am more concerned with the situation in Bolivia which is totally underreported but there is actually a worse situation in the struggle between political movements (elected etc) pursuing an agenda of empowerment of disenfranchised (in that case like 500 years now) by the means of a new constitution and the powerfull where they use (very successfully) their leverage over mass media to ignite the population on fringe topics to divert attention and topple the government by by fostering racist and secessionists sentiments. Ah well. A thoroughly f***ed continent indeed. there is some hope though.

#55 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,165 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 18 November 2008 - 06:21 PM

When the streets of Caracas run red with the blood of political dissidents, I will be sure to bring this thread up and remind all of you Chavez sycophants and apologists where you stood in the beginning.


Chavez threatens military violence to "defend the revolution"

#56 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,165 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 02 February 2010 - 06:31 PM

When the streets of Caracas run red with the blood of political dissidents, I will be sure to bring this thread up and remind all of you Chavez sycophants and apologists where you stood in the beginning.


Venezuelan youth protest against Chavez.

Say yes to freedom!

#57 DukeNukem

  • Guest
  • 2,007 posts
  • 137
  • Location:Dallas, Texas

Posted 02 February 2010 - 06:33 PM

we can't boycot venezula, we are dependant on their oil

And this is why we paint him as a dictator. Any leader who does not want to bow down to the pressures of American corporations, is labeled a terrorist or dictator. This is the simple-minded, yet extremely effective tactic of an empire. The USA is the biggest empire the world has yet seen.

#58 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 02 February 2010 - 07:47 PM

we can't boycot venezula, we are dependant on their oil

And this is why we paint him as a dictator. Any leader who does not want to bow down to the pressures of American corporations, is labeled a terrorist or dictator. This is the simple-minded, yet extremely effective tactic of an empire. The USA is the biggest empire the world has yet seen.


Precisely. The history of Latin America is one of constant oppression by foreign powers, most recently by the United States. Hopefully the recent Earthquake in Haiti will cause people to examine what created the terrible conditions that truly led to the horrible death toll, but of course they don't tell you on the news how Haiti has been ravaged by French and US-led invasions, colonialism, environmental pillaging, economic terrorism, debt traps, and of course foreign-backed coups and dictators.

Chavez is seen as a champion of the people in Latin America only because of the constant tyranny from abroad. If that were not the case, Chavez wouldn't command anywhere near as much of a voice. That isn't to say the actions of people like Chavez are always justified, by any means, but the US has absolutely no legitimacy when claiming foreign regimes to be undemocratic when clearly it is the United States which is the biggest aggressor nation. Chavez, for whatever reasons, is not the one going around invading nations. That would be the US.

We have seen very little improvement on this with Obama and the Democrats, and they are so spineless and unprincipled that they'd be mostly worthless even without Republican obstructionism. Indeed, Glenn Greenwald has documented how on many issues, from domestic surveillance to the shredding of the due process of law, the Obama administration is actually continuing or expanding the practices of the Bush Administration. I fear things will only get worse if the state of our political discourse continues to degrade.

There is Hope™ though, but we aren't going to find it in Washington. First, we need to stop participating in the day-to-day actions which contribute to the phenomena that we oppose. We must stop giving our money to transnational banks and instead join community banks and credit unions. We must stop buying stuff we don't need. Participate in freecycling, skillsharing, and barter. Use open source tools. Plant a garden ....and that's just for starters.

This would reduce the money we pay in taxes, reduce our debt, and increase our leisure time. Work is slavery. Taxes are slavery. Debt is slavery. Free yourself and help others to be free.

Edited by progressive, 02 February 2010 - 08:13 PM.


#59 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 02 February 2010 - 08:31 PM

Venezuela is impressively bad even for socialist regime considering the resources available. First let us remember that Chavez has been in power for 11 years in a country with some of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world. So there is no lack of time or resources.

* Electricity rationing. In a country with one of largest oil and gas reserves in the world! No, it is not El Nino that is to blame, except as the final push on a deteriorating system, El Nino is actually less worse than usual this time around, although Chavez seems surprised that it exists. Actually threatening to cause full scale nationwide power collapse in a few months.

* Water rationing. In country with large freshwater resources.

* Deteriorating road infrastructure (and every other form of infrastructure).

* The usual socialist poor planning with lack of goods spiced up with occasional temporary overabundance of something in his socialist stores.

* Extremely high crime rates.

* Only Haiti has more corruption in the Americas according the to Transparency International. Which of course is what explains the other problems. Chavez may declare noble goals for the oil billions, but since there is absolutely no oversight bureaucrats at every level get a cut before something may or may not trickle down to the poor and to infrastructure. Chavez in his dreamworld is likely not even aware how bad the situation is.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#60 Blue

  • Guest
  • 1,104 posts
  • 11

Posted 02 February 2010 - 08:44 PM

we can't boycot venezula, we are dependant on their oil

And this is why we paint him as a dictator. Any leader who does not want to bow down to the pressures of American corporations, is labeled a terrorist or dictator. This is the simple-minded, yet extremely effective tactic of an empire. The USA is the biggest empire the world has yet seen.

Chavez is seen as a champion of the people in Latin America only because of the constant tyranny from abroad. If that were not the case, Chavez wouldn't command anywhere near as much of a voice. That isn't to say the actions of people like Chavez are always justified, by any means, but the US has absolutely no legitimacy when claiming foreign regimes to be undemocratic when clearly it is the United States which is the biggest aggressor nation. Chavez, for whatever reasons, is not the one going around invading nations. That would be the US.

Actually Chavez has quite low approval ratings in Latin America outside of Venezuela.

Regarding the democratic situation in Venezuela, it is currently between democracy and dictatorship:
http://www.freedomho...mp;country=7733

US Cold War sponsorship of anti-communist dictatorships does not justify Chavez becoming dictator.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users