Great Story on Hugo Chavez

I think that one has been posted here before.

How can donald rumsfield compare him to hitler? Thats very disturbing.

 

Considering that the present US administration connived its way to power twice (illegitimate voter disenfranchisement and SC circumvention of legitimate electoral process in 2000 and documented electronic vote rigging in 2004), this is simply a case of the true criminals (Rummy and co.) daring to smear those that see them and their warmongering agenda of globalist conquest for what it is and oppose it.

Considering that Chavez continues to tangibly demonstrate his committment to improve the lot of the far greater majority of Venezuelans over the small pampered and corrupt minority oligarchical interests, he puts Bush and co to shame for the tyrannical and subversive corporatist lackies that they are.

Old Don also needs a lesson in history since Hitler ever was "elected" to power but rather installed (much as he and his cabal have been) to power through backroom connivance. Bush and co merely have more sophisticated and widespread PR to mask the truth of their powergrab.

 

There is a certain deja vu here, given Latin America's long history of populist clowns running their countries into the ground. Even though Chavez essentially won oil lotto, there are people that are going to pretend that he somehow came up with the money through left wing economics and the goodness of his heart.

How many people here would consider circulating a list of government opponents and denying them access to social services to be "progressive"? Why are close relationships with Iran, Cuba, Zimbabwe helpful for Venezuelans? Do you wish Bush had a TV variety show running several hours a week extolling the accomplishments of the Republican party?

 

Like I pointed out on another thread, the two main Protestant TV networks, TBN and Daystar air a large amount of programming that is designed to extol the Republicans as the party that is doing "God's will." This really amounts to an enormous amount of free advertising for the Republicans that the Democrats can't hope to compete with. This programming is directed at conservative Evangelicals, who vote in large numbers. These networks and their affiliates are tax exempt, non-profit corporations. I complained a little while back to the FCC about this-I was told that as long as they didn't air advertising, they could say anything they wanted to. The night before the 2004 elections, TBN aired a big documentary called "The Faith of George W. Bush." WHAT faith? I almost lost my dinner when I saw that.

 

I'm not sure what Hoover has to do with anything. When was the last time you turned up to apply for a passport/drivers license/library card and they checked your name against a list of Democrats and said "sorry, no passport for you. Viva Bush!". No, it has never happened. But that's what has been happening in Venezuela.

I don't like Fox News, but if you are pretending that it is somehow akin to Cuban television, you're being a bit ridiculous. Most importantly, it is a private network. Do you know anyone who is FORCED to watch it, besides the Air Force 1 press pool?

Because in Venezuela, Chavez used state TV to broadcast several hour long propaganda sessions. On top of that, he forces all private broadcasters to carry the program. Just so you won't miss it. Can you imagine Bush creating a state owned television station and then using it as a soapbox to broadcast pro-Republican "advertorials"? Bush forcing all TV networks to carry programming produced by the Republican party?

It continues to amaze me how "progressives" haven't moved on from the old style leftism. All power to the state. All industry to be controlled by the state. State broadcasters to deliver the message. State, state, state. You are constantly worried about an oppressive government ("Bush=Hitler") yet you want to hand over as much power to it as possible.

 

Chavez is just another retard. and bully his way into power using the military he well knew.

 

It continues to amze me how "conservatives" continue to justify anything as oppressive as authoritarian socialism under the guise that it is private and therefore posesses some mystical "freedom" type property.

 

You've totally lost me. What was that supposed to mean?

 

Again there seems to be this either/or mentality when it comes to Chavez with some on the right making out he is the devil incarnate and some on the left treating him as if he was some type of socialist messiah. Neither position is very enlightening or helpful.

**

“There is a certain deja vu here, given Latin America's long history of populist clowns running their countries into the ground”

And what about Latin America’s long history of dictators, military junta’s and oligarchs that have exploited and ground down the people of their countries?

And you know what I’m going to point out don’t you Point, many of those regimes were set up, sponsored or supported by the US in their own economic and political interests.

But as we have discussed before and you have agreed a people should have the right to elect their own governments and make their own mistakes.

Or are you honestly saying that you think it would be better for the Venezuelan people if the US decided who ruled them?

**

The fact is that Chavez is setting up an education and welfare system that benefits the poor and is improving their lives and there prospects, is that a bad thing? Should that be stopped?

Is it sustainable, I don’t know?

Is Chevez the democratic he claims, I don’t know?

So should the interests of the poor be improved or should they be dashed?

**

The argument has to come down to who should benefit from a country’s wealth, all the people or a few? It is clear that for many years a few had been gaining from Venezuela’s ‘oil lotto’ but now that befit has widened, why is that wrong in the eyes of some people here?

For instance why does Point imply that Chevez will inevitably run his country into the ground?

Point argues that Chavez has “essentially won oil lotto”, but that people “are going to pretend that he somehow came up with the money through left wing economics”. I’d agree, since the UK also won the “oil lotto” in the 1980’s with North Sea oil, this was around the time of Margaret Thatcher’s government and many people pretended that she somehow came up with the money through right wing economics.

To me the education of the workforce seems like a good idea it would allow for a wider diversification of the economy. So why is he against it?

**

 

Q: Is Hugo Chavez good for Venezuela or not?


A: America is a bad country.

**

Add a few asterisks and a whole lot of blather, and you have a Balbus post.

Some of us are capable of having opinions. I never said he was the devil incarnate, I said he was a bad leader. I have even defended him against accusation that he was "Hitler". So the either/or mentality seems to be mostly your own problem.

I never said anything like this. Why did you make it up?

What a useless rhetorical question.

Is that the question, or are you just making that the question?

Please quote anybody here who has opposed benefits flowing to the poor. Nobody has.

Please, nobody is stupid enough to believe the UK is as dependent on oil as Venezuela. Good to see that Thatcher still has the museum piece left still in angry denial decades later.

Again, where did I speak out against education?

Why should I bother debating you? Half of your post was completely fabricated. Is this your standard of debate?

 

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200605120358.......A hemisphere begins to unite against Hugo Chavez

 

Quote:
Again there seems to be this either/or mentality when it comes to Chavez with some on the right making out he is the devil incarnate and some on the left treating him as if he was some type of socialist messiah. Neither position is very enlightening or helpful.
Some of us are capable of having opinions. I never said he was the devil incarnate, I said he was a bad leader. I have even defended him against accusation that he was "Hitler". So the either/or mentality seems to be mostly your own problem.

Thank you Point for backing me up, yes there are those people usually on the right that demonise Chavez, calling him things like ‘Hitler’.


Quote:
Or are you honestly saying that you think it would be better for the Venezuelan people if the US decided who ruled them?
I never said anything like this. Why did you make it up?

Well I’ve mentioned that the US has stepped in to change regimes, even democratically elected regimes, when they thought that in their opinion that the regime was ‘bad’. We have discussed this before in relation to Chile and you seemed to understand this even seemed to give it tacit approval to the US backed coup. Saying that Allende was a bad leader who was not good for Chile because he increased public spending and nationalised industries and had caused “falling foreign investment”, whereas Pinecetts, in your opinion, had been good for Chile.

Well many of the criticisms that have been levelled at Chevez are the same and you consider him a bad leader who is not good for his country.

So it seems legitimate to ask if you think it would be better, in your opinion, if the US helped in a coup against Chevez as it did against Allende?

But the fact is you didn’t reply to my question (again) you ducked it (again).


Quote:
So should the interests of the poor be improved or should they be dashed?

What a useless rhetorical question.

LOL, maybe, but a simple question that you have just tried to dodge.


Quote:
The argument has to come down to who should benefit from a country’s wealth, all the people or a few?

Is that the question, or are you just making that the question?

Even more laughs, it is a question and one you seem reluctant to answer.

(point you old kidder I love your post they always make me smile)


Quote:
It is clear that for many years a few had been gaining from Venezuela’s ‘oil lotto’ but now that befit has widened, why is that wrong in the eyes of some people here?
Please quote anybody here who has opposed benefits flowing to the poor. Nobody has.

So you agree that a country’s resources should be used to the best advantage of the indigenous people?

Fine. Just asking.

Quote:
Point argues that Chavez has “essentially won oil lotto”, but that people “are going to pretend that he somehow came up with the money through left wing economics”. I’d agree, since the UK also won the “oil lotto” in the 1980’s with North Sea oil, this was around the time of Margaret Thatcher’s government and many people pretended that she somehow came up with the money through right wing economics.
Please, nobody is stupid enough to believe the UK is as dependent on oil as Venezuela. Good to see that Thatcher still has the museum piece left still in angry denial decades later.

No the Uk wasn’t as dependent on the oil, but the oil does give the government that has it, to use it to it’s advantage, in my opinion Maggie wasted it on a failed economic experiment, I just hope Chevez can use it to revitalise Venezuela.

But my point was that your ‘oil lotto’ argument can be used in many instances not just for the left wing Chevez. I mean you could say that country’s like the US or China are suffering from a ‘oil habit’ because they need to import oil, but that doesn’t have anything to do with them being left or right.

Quote:
To me the education of the workforce seems like a good idea it would allow for a wider diversification of the economy. So why is he against it?
Again, where did I speak out against education?

But you seem to imply that Chevez’s policies are running his country into the ground and one of his major polices are the education programmes.

**

Why should I bother debating you? Half of your post was completely fabricated. Is this your standard of debate?

LOL Point, haven’t you noticed you are not debating with me you’ re doing everything you can to get out of debating. You make snide remakes, sneer and evade questions but that my dear friend is not debate. In fact you stopped debating some time ago because, if I remember right, you claimed to have a short attention span and got bored easily.

I’ll debate with you anytime you want but you really do have to get over this bad case of ennui first.

Yours with regards

Balbus

 

Back you up? You accuse people of an "either or mentality" and then say "The argument has to come down to who should benefit from a country’s wealth, all the people or a few?" Isn't this an "either you're for the poor, or you're against them type of question? Are you familiar with the concept of hypocrisy?

Again, where did I "honestly" say that it would be better if the US decided who ruled Venezuela? I didn't. You need to explain why you fabricate views on my behalf, becaus that is the question that is being dodged. Is this how you debate?

It is a useless rhetorical question. Don't waste my time.

What complete crap. What it comes down to is that you couldn't care less about Venezuelans and what happens to their country, so long as Chavez keeps bashing Bush.

So you admit it was a bad comparison? Why would you deliberately try to mislead us with a comparison you now admit is unsound?

Thank you for reminding me what a complete waste of time you are.