Venezuelans protest Chavez's new socialist push

reply to post by StellarX


Stellar, Chavez has openly declared his love of Castro, do you need me to provide links? I shall if you so please.

So tell me, when did Cuba last have free and fair elections? Can't you see where this is going...

Oh and for your information, Germany and the UK primeminster/chancellor, aren't actually head of states like the president of Venezuela is, your aware of that right? My gripe isnt with the limit itself, it's with the intent to eventually erode Venezuela of elections. Egomaniacs like this don't come and go easily, he wants to cement absolute control. Surely your not that naive?

You claim that only the rich oppose his plans, heres a link to the referendum results for his "socialist revolution", if 51% of the public are "rich" then seems they dont need Chavez's help after all lol!
news.bbc.co.uk...

Chavez is popular in Venezuela, i dont doubt that for a second, there are many struggling families and poor in Venezuela and subsequently vulnerable to those who promise them the world. Hitler was popular in Germany after the first World War because of the economic strife that followed it, he drastically improved conditions there and was popular for it.

Loonys like Ahmadinejad won elections (albeit unfair) on the strength of a promise for the poor, these people aren't stupid, they clock on to peoples problems and use it as a context to gain power, support and to exploit. History tells us that these sentiments are often a roose in their masterplan.

reply to post by theblunttruth


He's not trying to erode elections. He's simply asking for the removal of term limits, which are not democratic in the slightest.

Castro is no saint, but if you look at the jokers he displaced, he's a step in the right direction. If the US treated Cuba as a normal country (instead of getting all upset), then Castro's time in office would have been severely curtailed.

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
Yeah damn those rich bastards providing jobs,

Providing? You do realise that they pay you less than your worth to them? Lets not pretend that they charitable?

creating business

That's mostly impossible as they mostly supply a demand which were previously met by less informal means. Either way 'we' ( by nationalization) can 'create' business too but making it in the public interest by protecting the environment, meeting living wage standards and providing services to the community at large.

and paying a large portion of the taxes in every country. Who do these people think they are?

Paying a large proportion where? I mean their using the resources in OUR ground so why the hell should they not pay US and why so little if they do so at all? Don't they use OUR infrastructure to move their goods around?

No Chavez used propaganda in order to get elected and now has wants to get rid of the democratic process that got him elected so he can be like his hero Castro and install a communist dictatorship.

I can respect opinions however flawed they may be. Please ensure that you state things as opinions if you wont or can't prove them as in this case. Chavez have held more elections and referendums that most western democracies so it's interesting that you would presume this to be the method of the common dictator! Why do you think the people of Venezuela would not vote for him when he is in fact giving them much of what they asked for?

quote]What does allowing foreign business investing in a country have anything to do with not being a democracy?

Everything. They were not investing in Venezuela as much as they were extracting vast profits by paying Venezuelans less than their labor was worth using infrastructure they did not create. They are completely dependent on our schools and our health care systems to create a labor force for them and they hate normally try to hang on to as much profit as they can arrange.

If they think they had no rights, no voice before, Comrade Chavez will make sure they have no voice ever again.

Thanks for sharing more of your esteemed opinions with us.

So now they have to be told what new "rights" they have?

They are being told what their rights were ( at least some of it was in place before but never enforced) and being informed as to how many of their demands have so far been met with new legislation. It's not that Chavez is giving them as much as they probably asked for but it does seem that he is doing far more than those who came before him.

This is classic communist dictatorship.

So now education is ignorance ? Right is wrong? War is peace? Slavery is freedom?

Promise the people education so that you can "educate" them on the new ideology.

He didn't promise them anything they didn't ask for and as you may or may not be aware ALL governments are in some way beholden to private corporate backers who do their best to sneak propaganda into the schooling so as to be best affect control in the long run. This is most certainly not unique to 'communism' or socialism as most of the world is run by corporate type capitalist who have done their utmost to subjugate the schooling system to pacify and misinform.

]Rewrite history and brainwash them into thinking their new ideology in the country is a good thing.

It's not THAT easy and this process only normally happens when a country has a ruling class with great influence over long periods. To indoctrinate a society in a new ideology is complex as you have to start with the parents ( twenty years) and then hope that their not so greatly indoctrinated parents wont greatly disrupt that process so that you may at least reach the third generation in the intended way. There is a HUGE difference between what the USSR attempted from 1917 onwards ( suppression by violent means; the majority isn't greatly propagandized but they know what they can and can't say) and what has happened in say the USA where people were by the 20's and thirties achieving real success in bettering their voting system and thus not as suspicious of all the backhanded ways in which corporations and powerful men were attempting to rectify their more formal loss of control over the society. If you can't terrorize them into silence very easily you have to refocus your efforts to misinformation and information management to slowly attempt to get them to think in the way you believe will yield most benefit to you.

He will make every one equally miserable by robbing the successful and keeping the poor where they are.

This has not happened in western Europe with the implementation of social democracies and as of yet all i say Chavez doing is struggling to find a balance between keeping foreign states from staging coups and misinformation campaigns against the aforementioned reforms and changing the country in ways the people demanded. I have a great deal of sympathy for the complexity of the task so i can still give people like Castro and Chavez a great deal 'sympathy' much as that doesn't help their causes.

That way everyone will be poor and equally living sh_tty lives.

As compared to the global system of corporate capitalism that has impoverished the majority of the worlds population?

Classic. Promise the people the world and use propaganda to tell the world you are doing good for your people when actually you give them the opposite.

Well even critical foreign governments are admitting that Chavez is spending a great deal of money to fulfill the wishes of Venezuelans which has led to a massive expansion in GDP as well as not rise of foreign debt. This has obviously been greatly facilitate by the oil boom but those profits could have easily disappeared in the same way as they used to.

The US was based on the ability to be as successful as you dare to be without the government getting in the way.

Nonsense. The US was until a century ago a third world nation with grinding poverty , cholera epidemics in major cities and not all that much say in economic affairs. It was the DEMOCRATIC struggle against corporate control that made Americans rich and thus their social activism and demand that the government ( that they tried to choose) get in the way and protect them from corporate abuse. With the advent of modern economic systems people have rarely cried for less government as less government normally results in less power to affect corporate excess.

These days it seems more and more people want the government in the way.

They have wanted that for a long time and that's why governments will grow and continue to grow as the people's wishes are acted upon.

And please do tell me how you get rid of poverty?

I have plenty of ideas about that but since there are in fact a good few applied models that 'got rid of poverty' in large measure you can just investigate them. To compare the remaining poverty in western Europe today with that of a century ago is very informative and that's why you should be informing yourself instead of trying to attack systems and information you do not have a good grasp of. It's not that it's surprising that you hold these sentiments ( propaganda is not reserved to South-America/Russia) but the example many of set here should serve as indication that it can be corrected and possibly even defeated in it's entirety.

Stellar

Originally posted by TKainZero
INsanity...
Not the Actions of The little Castro...
But the actions of the Socialist-loving-Americans...

The vast majority of Americans are socialist and have been voting that way for centuries. The fact that their wishes have been but slowly implemented by the corporate lackeys that normally gets into office speaks volumes about why Americans have grown rich in proportion to how much of their demands are met.

Venezuela is MUCH WORSE then it was a decade ago...

For a few corporate capitalist and their equally wealthy lackeys who were swinging the economic whips , so to speak.

At this point, i almost don't care... Let this socalist crap come ot america, see how we like it... just wait...

Well the people have been voting for it so one can only presume that it has been in the interest of the 1% to keep the other 99% from getiting what they want? Do you think that 1% resists the will of the 99% because they have their best interest at heart and if so why have they used violence and every means of corruption and worse to affect their continued control over so much of the US economy?

Why don't we just see if more social democracy somehow make Americans poor when it made Europeans richer?

Stellar

Under Chavez, the poor in Venezuela have access to free health care and education - something the previous administration never provided.

Venezuela has a much better literacy rate now - 93% overall and 100% in poorer communities. Poverty has been dramatically reduced too.

Originally posted by xmotex
Obama is Chavez?

Chavez is a left wing authoritarian.

In what way?

Obama is, policy wise, an average Democrat... I know you guys in the far-right peanut gallery like to pretend that these are the same thing, but they aren't.

Why not use the rather more sane and diverse European standard for right and left? In that sense when last did the US have a typical right wing ( far right or less far right) president that even came close to what would be called centrist in Europe?

One supports a market economy with a limited welfare state, like Canada, Australia, Europe, Japan, etc... you know, all our allies?
(Just the same as McCain does, by the way.)

It's not a market economy, there is much less welfare than there is in Europe, Canada and practically anywhere else in the civilized world and Obama may not even support that given his record.

Another supports a state run command economy like Cuba or the old Soviet Union.

Chavez have nationalized SOME industries and it's thus NOTHING like Cuba.

Those are two very different things, despite the hyperbole.

It might be but the people ( almost everywhere) supports nationalization of anything remotely in the national interest.

Chavez is a demagogue using the excesses of capitalism as a boogeyman to seize personal power.

By holding elections that are obviously democratic? Wouldn't it help if it can be proved that corporate capitalist doesn't have to be so very destructive and wouldn't it have been of some assistance of the corporate capitalist cause if the US national security state had not intervened to stage coups and invasions all over the world?

More and more, the Venezuelans are telling him to back off, I recall his recent referendum to pass sweeping economic changes got voted down.

Well that's the whole point of referendums and when proposed changes were rejected with a 51%/49% majority he didn't argue , attempt to fudge the numbers or do much anything but swear to try again! When last did the US hold a referendum on economic reforms? Why do you think that is?

It is funny that even some people who otherwise slander and lie should see the example for all governments in this.

www.nytimes.com...

Good for the Venezuelans, hopefully they will vote this clown out of office.

But they are in fact doing the opposite; should i suppose that that means they don't consider him all that clownish?

Then again as we've seen in Zimbabwe, once these guys get into office, they generally don't want to leave

Which must be why Chavez holds those elections that even obviously biased western foundations and agencies acknowledge are in fact fair representations of who the people voted for? As always i am very confident that there are far better leaders amongst Venezuelans ( As there are in every country) but in all fairness Americans would be lucky to get someone who 'buys' their votes by building hospitals and 'bribe' them in the same way Chavez seems to be doing.

Stellar

[edit on 14-8-2008 by StellarX]

Some of you make Chavez out to be a saint, it would be mildly amusing if it wasn't so dangerous.

I'm not making a comparrison between Chavez and Obama, they are like chalk and cheese. Obama himself has highlighted Chavez's desire for totalitarianism, this is a guy who was telling everyone not so long ago how they should drink and conduct their social lives. He is an ardent and self proclaimed catholic and ideologist, yet it doesn't stop him sleeping with the likes of Ahmadinejad who would no doubt find Chavezs way of life immoral and disgusting. This is because he is a politician who is intent on fooling and falsehood if it propells his desire of position and power.

Stellar, you seem like an intelligent guy and are entitled to your opinion, thats the beauty of debate, but surely we have to be more vigilant as to ensure that we prevent the likes of North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba like situations occuring before its too late. The signs are there and we cant afford to be naive.

Originally posted by theblunttruth
Stellar, Chavez has openly declared his love of Castro, do you need me to provide links? I shall if you so please.

I will presume that he sees Castro as a hero of the struggle for the liberation of many people's and that's not in my opinion a unfair analysis.

So tell me, when did Cuba last have free and fair elections? Can't you see where this is going...

Cuba have plenty of elections and just like everywhere else progress is slow.

[quote[ Oh and for your information, Germany and the UK primeminster/chancellor, aren't actually head of states like the president of Venezuela is, your aware of that right?

Yeah and who elected Queen Elizabeth II? You understand where i am coming from? Executive power in theory rests with the PM as that is who the British public votes for.

My gripe isnt with the limit itself, it's with the intent to eventually erode Venezuela of elections. Egomaniacs like this don't come and go easily, he wants to cement absolute control. Surely your not that naive?

You will have to decide about just how naive i am as i have not observed Chavez to be doing any more to erode civil liberties in Venezuela than i have Bush in the USA. In fact i think Bush anti civil liberties contest hands down.

You claim that only the rich oppose his plans, heres a link to the referendum results for his "socialist revolution", if 51% of the public are "rich" then seems they dont need Chavez's help after all lol!
news.bbc.co.uk...

You misunderstand. 51% of the voters were against the additional economic reforms that apparently included additional nationalization and the likes. That is not a wide margin but since i am not aware of what exactly the referendum contained i will for now simply assume that Venezuelans made a choice and it was respected. 51% of the public is most certainly not rich down there but you must take into account that the press is quite free and Hugo Chavez gets it from many sides on a daily basis. If i was a true autocrat he would have shut them down long ago and would have won these referendums quite a bit easier.

Chavez is popular in Venezuela, i dont doubt that for a second, there are many struggling families and poor in Venezuela and subsequently vulnerable to those who promise them the world.

Lol. He isn't promising them the world! HE is promising them the basics people should never have to dream about in the first place.

Hitler was popular in Germany after the first World War because of the economic strife that followed it, he drastically improved conditions there and was popular for it.

Hitler was not popular after the first world war and the German public picked a near senile Hindenburg ( sp?) over Hitler when they had the choice to. Fact is Germans were not fooled by Hitler and he only eventually got anywhere because of his private army and MASSIVE internal and external funding. When that was still not enough he used various pretexts to grab power; Hitler was no more the choice of Germans than George Bush was the Choice of Americans. As for him improving conditions Germans wages declined by 25-35% in the 30's and while unemployment were greatly reduced it was done so by conscription as well as by destroying labor unions that could ensure decent wages.

Loonys like Ahmadinejad won elections (albeit unfair) on the strength of a promise for the poor,

He won a election? Why do you think his crazy? He seems to be a far more reasonable , to say nothing of understandable, than the little Bush? Either way what options were left to Iranians when they are basically being corralled into voting for a religious ticket?

these people aren't stupid, they clock on to peoples problems and use it as a context to gain power, support and to exploit.

Sure and in most cases they are the same people who created the problems in the first place hence their knowledge of how to best use it to their own advantage.

History tells us that these sentiments are often a roose in their masterplan.

It's not paranoia if their really after you but in this case i think you confusing effect with cause.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX

Originally posted by StellarX
And where did you get the impression that he want to be president for life or that he is rigging the elections to ensure that he could or would be?

Ironically, we're coming up on the one year anniversary of that event...

Hugo Chavez to make himself president for life

Most socialist supporters tend to make escuses for Chavez...
I know they are just echoing the sentiments of thier Ivy League teacher... But... A moron repeating a moron is no justification...



I lived in Venezuela when Hugo was elected.
I have MANY friends there, and that moved away after he was elecetd.

I HAD contacts that went to a Anti-Chavez rally, and never reapeared again...
Chavez has shut down ALL opposetion TV, and PRESS...
Chaves and his party MANIPULATE THE VOTE, to either show him winning by a huge Margin, or to lose in a 51-49 desicion... LOOK IT UP!
Chavez also spent Much of the '90s in a Jail because of his involment in a Coup...
The Monetary infliation has gone up over %500, from about 500=$1, to about 2500=$1, and HE FROZE THE CURRENCIES VALUE OVER 5 YEARS AGO!!!! Because it was droping so fast...

There have been MASSIVE food shortages of the most basic supplies, Dipers, Milk, Bread...


Chavez is just absoulutly TERRIBLE in my eyes...
But if the above is what you want... You can vote for that in this upcoming US election...

Originally posted by StellarX

Cuba have plenty of elections and just like everywhere else progress is slow.

Cuba is a one-party republic, so how can argue that they have fair elections? The same with Iran, they hold "democratic elections" but the candidates are hand picked by the clerics with thousands barred for being either female or not aligned to the islamic system.

Yeah and who elected Queen Elizabeth II? You understand where i am coming from?

Yea absolutely, but you have to look at it objectively, it is a constitutional monarchy and Queen Elizabeth is a ceremonial rule at best, she doesn't dictate policies etc. The scary thing is Chavez ultimately does and will.

You will have to decide about just how naive i am as i have not observed Chavez to be doing any more to erode civil liberties in Venezuela than i have Bush in the USA. In fact i think Bush anti civil liberties contest hands down.

That is the whole purpose of his socialist push, once he has set these new rules in place and cemented his control, then the civil liberties erode, just like Cuba.

Lol. He isn't promising them the world! HE is promising them the basics people should never have to dream about in the first place.

You took my point out of context for those on the fringes of hunger, basics equate to their survival. it was a proportional statement.

Hitler was not popular after the first world war and the German public picked a near senile Hindenburg ( sp?) over Hitler when they had the choice to. Fact is Germans were not fooled by Hitler and he only eventually got anywhere because of his private army and MASSIVE internal and external funding. When that was still not enough he used various pretexts to grab power; Hitler was no more the choice of Germans than George Bush was the Choice of Americans. As for him improving conditions Germans wages declined by 25-35% in the 30's and while unemployment were greatly reduced it was done so by conscription as well as by destroying labor unions that could ensure decent wages.

Stellar, this isn't accurate, infact many historians including Ian Kershaw agree that Hitler was that popular during his first years in power that infact ordinary Germans were able to ignore his personal ideologies because of his huge economic and nationalistic success. Even his arch foes in the Weinmar and Communist camps applauded his success and acknowledged his popularity.

Originally posted by theblunttruth
Cuba is a one-party republic, so how can argue that they have fair elections? The same with Iran, they hold "democratic elections" but the candidates are hand picked by the clerics with thousands barred for being either female or not aligned to the islamic system.

The USA is a two party republic where they don't have fair elections either! The true difference between the countries is not that one has one less party ( big deal) but that Cubans DO have basic rights with respect to health care, food and employment. If and when the 'two party' system in the US can finally give Americans equally rights it would have become worth the effort.

I am not suggesting that two party states are not more conducive progressive change but that it's absolutely no guarantee and that many people throughout history have experienced more social progress during the times of dictatorships. A recent example of that would obviously be Iraq where disagreement were not allowed but social and developmental progress enforced and carried out on almost all levels.

Yea absolutely, but you have to look at it objectively, it is a constitutional monarchy and Queen Elizabeth is a ceremonial rule at best, she doesn't dictate policies etc. The scary thing is Chavez ultimately does and will.

I lack objectivity? So who does run the show in Britain other than the duly elected PM? Why do you on the one argue that the PM isn't the head of state and that later argue that the head of state in that country doesn't have power? I know that you want to disagree with me as much as you can but can't you be a little more reasonable? Chavez may very well have secret aspirations to hold on to power for as long as possible but he did not have to steal his last two elections like Bush Jnr did. Democracy has worked better in Venezuela and it's about time that this is recognized by the critics.

hat is the whole purpose of his socialist push, once he has set these new rules in place and cemented his control, then the civil liberties erode, just like Cuba.

So the people of the US ( who keeps voting for socialist policies) are part of the socialist conspiracy and thus wants to rob themselves of their power? Why can't the US leaders , who apparently wants socialism per your twisted logic, just give them more socialism as per their wishes? Bush knows best and that's why he had to steal two elections? Where's the logic in that and that on earth is so democratic about it? The whole premise that any leader has to 'push' socialism on the citizens ( who keep voting for it only to so often see their leaders privatise more and more of the public domain) is so fantastically deluded that i wonder where to start correcting all the misinformation you have have been fed.

You took my point out of context for those on the fringes of hunger, basics equate to their survival. it was a proportional statement.

Context! Another thing you should consider when attacking foreign leaders while your own blatantly steals elections.

Stellar, this isn't accurate, infact many historians including Ian Kershaw agree that Hitler was that popular during his first years in power that infact ordinary Germans were able to ignore his personal ideologies because of his huge economic and nationalistic success.

Well Ian Kershaw ( whoever the hell he is) is not correct in his views as the GDP and income numbers have been verified by many. Germans didn't support of vote Hitler into the highest public office and they were not rewarded with wealth for it. German income levels fell as is to be expected when you know how industrialist funded the NSDAP into power and then expected payment. You are obviously free to believe that people are easily fooled but it may help to remind you that Hitler had on a percentage basis less support than Bush had in either elections. Fact is you don't need much support when the system is not very democratic as both Hitler and Bush proved by stealing power despite the best wishes of their various citizens.

Even his arch foes in the Weinmar and Communist camps applauded his success and acknowledged his popularity.

Go read your history as the pretense to knowledge is as unsettling as it's false.

Stellar

Originally posted by theblunttruth
Some of you make Chavez out to be a saint, it would be mildly amusing if it wasn't so dangerous.

I have no reason to believe that saints often gets to become presidents of countries so i wont assume this to be some kind of first.

I'm not making a comparrison between Chavez and Obama, they are like chalk and cheese.

Yes they are and i think Chavez has done far more than Obama will if he manages to get elected despite massive GOP fraud.

Obama himself has highlighted Chavez's desire for totalitarianism, this is a guy who was telling everyone not so long ago how they should drink and conduct their social lives.

Well it's not much of a surprise to me if someone so far right of the spectrum calls a moderate leftist a 'totalitarian'? I mean what else are you going to do if your promised changes to the society falls so far short of what the people demands and you know your going to implement? Wouldn't you call those who are actually delivering the goods 'evil' so as to best destroy the competition and good example?

He is an ardent and self proclaimed catholic and ideologist, yet it doesn't stop him sleeping with the likes of Ahmadinejad who would no doubt find Chavezs way of life immoral and disgusting.

.As i understand their relationship is mostly to do with OPEC chairmanships and the like and i am not sure that the relationship extends much beyond that. What the not-so-religious-fundamentalist Ahmadinejad ( well done on spelling it correctly) would find do disturbing about Chavez i don't know but i am sure you have some twisted ideas about that as well .

This is because he is a politician who is intent on fooling and falsehood if it propells his desire of position and power.

I would say that's what most politicians are doing, especially those one's who seem to have the MSM on their side, and i am fairly confident that both these guys have some skeletons in their closets and motives of their own. That being said Chavez is doing plenty of the thing people demanded and legitimately won the elections that allows him to keep doing it.

Stellar, you seem like an intelligent guy and are entitled to your opinion, thats the beauty of debate,

I agree, i do seem like a intelligent guy and i am most certainly entitled to my opinion; it would be more 'beautifull' if some people would just accept the corrections i have to offer them

but surely we have to be more vigilant as to ensure that we prevent the likes of North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba like situations occuring before its too late.

In all of those instances the direct intervention of imperialist powers( US in Cuba and Korea and the British and then South-African control, backing as provided by by the US, of Zimbabwe) , which normally installed and supported brutal dictators that led to populations slowly organizing and taking up arms to overthrow these tyrants. The fact that many of these leaders turned out to be quite autocratic themselves is hardly surprising and their actions rendered somewhat acceptable because they are at least redistributing some of the wealth where former dictators did nothing of the sort.

If we really want things to get better everywhere it would be best if we could keep western ( and probably soon eastern) powers from intervening in the affairs of less well armed and organized nations.

The signs are there and we cant afford to be naive.

That i fully agree with and i wonder why you are are so interested in defending the corporate capitalist while slandering the few goods things liberation struggle leaders manages despite the overwhelming odds arrayed against them by the excesses of western corporate controlled governments.

Stellar

Originally posted by TKainZero
Most socialist supporters tend to make escuses for Chavez...

I support definite economic rights for all ( Much as you can eat, private property for individuals, means to income, health care other than cosmetic, and privately owned housing) and whatever democratic rights that enables it. Since i am fairly confident that economic rights will automatically lead to greater and greater democratization and demands related to freedom of action my basic views and aims are the same as those of people almost everywhere.

I know they are just echoing the sentiments of thier Ivy League teacher... But... A moron repeating a moron is no justification...

So you are one of the few that believes in the myth of ivy league leftist educations? That is funny....

I lived in Venezuela when Hugo was elected.
I have MANY friends there, and that moved away after he was elecetd.

I still live in South-Africa and i lived here when Nelson Mandela was elected.
I have friends here but i know that as many as one million white South-Africans ( one in five) have left in the last 15 years for one reason or another. The fact that white citizens in no way lost rights and that they have become wealthier than they were ten years ago in no way stopped these prevalent negative sentiments from spreading or people with the means to go from going.

The same thing happened in Venezuela when those who formerly held power either fled because they thought they were going to lose some of their wealth or because of the fear of governmental retribution. VEry little if it came to pass in either countries but you should not wait for the rich to admit something like that on any given day.

I HAD contacts that went to a Anti-Chavez rally, and never reapeared again...

Just your friends or are there more to these allegations? As i said i have no particular reason to like Chavez if it turns out that he makes people disappear. ...

Chavez has shut down ALL opposetion TV, and PRESS...

Four of five of the Tv networks are in opposition hands. The government refused to grant license extension to one network a few years ago. That may be shutting it down but it's also legal and especially so considering the slander directed at Chavez. The same is happening in South-Africa where the SABC is 'state owned' but somehow spends most of the headlines talking about things a state owned and controlled agency probably wouldn't.

Chaves and his party MANIPULATE THE VOTE, to either show him winning by a huge Margin, or to lose in a 51-49 desicion... LOOK IT UP!

You must have a link for that so just feel free to share. If you want to make accusations that's fine but you can do a minimum of work to attempt some proof of your point.

Chavez also spent Much of the '90s in a Jail because of his involment in a Coup...

I think he spent one year and jail and were released because he was too popular to keep in jail much longer...

The Monetary infliation has gone up over %500, from about 500=$1, to about 2500=$1, and HE FROZE THE CURRENCIES VALUE OVER 5 YEARS AGO!!!! Because it was droping so fast...

I am sure you have links for that too. As far as the sources i have available the inflation never went above 30% ( and has been declining ever since) and while that's a serious problem i just don't know where your getting your numbers from. As for the currencies there is difference between pegging to exchange to a stronger currency and 'freezing' it as you seem to suggest.

If you don't understand the difference maybe this will help:

Bolívar fuerte

The Venezuelan government announced on March 7, 2007 that the bolívar would be redenominated at a ratio of 1 to 1000 on January 1, 2008 and renamed the bolívar fuerte, in an effort to facilitate the ease of transaction and accounting.[7] The Central Bank of Venezuela is promoting the new currency with an ad campaign and the slogan: "Una economía fuerte, un bolivar fuerte, un país fuerte" (lit. "a strong economy, a strong bolívar, a strong country").[4]

Despite such campaigns, as of February 2008, the black market value of the bolívar fuerte hovers at around 5.2 to the U.S. dollar, less than half of the fixed exchange rate of 2.15.[1] This statistic is illegal to publish in Venezuela.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

As some believe the black market knows best and they don't seem to agree with you.

There have been MASSIVE food shortages of the most basic supplies, Dipers, Milk, Bread...

Food shortages of people too poor to afford buying it? As i understand the shortages have everything to do with unhappy wholesalers ( prices are set from some basic foodstuffs) who are stockpiling and nothing to do with actual shortages in supply. Apparently these guys are unhappy with the fact that they will now be making less profit and have in turn decided to hoard the product hoping to force the government to change it's mind. Does this to you look like the actions of private enterprise that is afraid of the government? It sure doesn't to me and the South-African government is doing even less to battle collusion in price rigging by large food retailers leading to very high food inflation levels.

Chavez is just absoulutly TERRIBLE in my eyes...

But the question is if you can see any better than the million white South Africans that fled this country for no good reason? Do you know how strong the South-African economy would have been if they stayed and how much prosperity they would have generated for everyone including themselves? Why do you think it would have been any different in Venezuela?

But if the above is what you want... You can vote for that in this upcoming US election...

I am not a Citizens of the US and if i were i would be voting Nader.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX


So your view is that we should just ignore humanitarian crisis'? Similar to Rwanda? Let hundreds of thousands of innocents die and do nothing about it but condemn it? Well label me right wing, a warmonger a "bush lover" or whatever your comfortable with but we should not and must not ignore it! Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, should we have ignored that? The tsunami, should we have witheld aid and ignored it as not our problem? The problem is the principle evaporates the pretext for intervention when necessary.

You seem intent on your anti-US stance, not even accomodating any sort of compromise and/or recognition to the contrary on key issues whilst having the odacity to label me as a pro-US puppet. I'm not even residing in the US and am extremely objective, as my background compels me to.

I'm not foolish enough to write off everything about people like Chavez, his determination to evenly distribute a countries wealth is admirable, its his desire for absolute rule which in my view is very contradictory, that i oppose. Also his staunch and aggressive anti-US policy shows an uncivil and inexperienced leader, that regardless will inevtiably not serve its people well.

The problem i have with you is your hatred for the US blinds your judgement and basically voids your credibility in debate.

Originally posted by theblunttruth
So your view is that we should just ignore humanitarian crisis'?
Similar to Rwanda? Let hundreds of thousands of innocents die and do nothing about it but condemn it?

If this situation were anything like the crisis in Rwanda, the civil war in the DRK ( that killed at least ten times as many people in less than a decade) or various otherwise diligently suppressed crisis's then i would not mind a truly internationalist force to intervene to prevent bloodshed. Since no such force exists today , or will apparently in the near future, it's best that everyone stays out and stops arming the various parties with the supplies they require to continue the aggression. If the US wants to save lives it can intervene in many continuing hot spots around the world where hundreds of thousands of lives are , unlike in Georgia, at risk.

Well label me right wing, a warmonger a "bush lover" or whatever your comfortable with but we should not and must not ignore it! Ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, should we have ignored that?

NATO's intervention in Yugoslavia had nothing to do with ethnic cleansing and if some wish to maintain the pretense they will have to explain why the US senate actually voted in favor of plans to break up the Southern Slav union ( otherwise called Yugoslavia) that were in so many ways a western European country in Eastern Europe.

The tsunami, should we have witheld aid and ignored it as not our problem? The problem is the principle evaporates the pretext for intervention when necessary.

They are still for the vast majority of the funding promised by the US and almost everyone else. Promises are easy to make but as always the US national security state only 'seals the deal' with speed when they can invade to 'solve' the problem.

You seem intent on your anti-US stance, not even accomodating any sort of compromise and/or recognition to the contrary on key issues whilst having the odacity to label me as a pro-US puppet. I'm not even residing in the US and am extremely objective, as my background compels me to.

I have a anti imperial stance but as always that can be construed by imperialist to mean that i am against their specific imperial ambitions. You may in fact be extremely objective but when the data you are employing to arrive at conclusions are patently false and created by imperialist for your consumption it's hardly surprising that you will arrive at the very conclusion they want you to. The beauty of modern propaganda methods are that you can get a good proportion of mostly free citizens to do exactly as you wish by getting them to believe that they are in fact 'objective'!

I'm not foolish enough to write off everything about people like Chavez, his determination to evenly distribute a countries wealth is admirable, its his desire for absolute rule which in my view is very contradictory, that i oppose.

And i can understand why you feel that way when you have been misled to believe that Chavez ( and most somewhat socialist leaders) are hell bent on autocratic rule. Once again this is what the corporate imperialist would like us to believe ( and why they spend hundreds of billions on advertising and creating the curriculum's our children are forced to adapt to) and why so many do.

Also his staunch and aggressive anti-US policy shows an uncivil and inexperienced leader, that regardless will inevtiably not serve its people well.

As opposed to the current US president that have already illegally invaded two countries and staged a few coups while going around threatening others? Chavez have basically said that the people of Venezuela will resist any US aggression but obviously this is not for him to say as he is but one man that wont have much capacity to control such a defense if it came to pass. I find it particularly sad when leaders makes these types of proclamations as if it's something that many citizens of any nation would actually like to discuss at length.

The problem i have with you is your hatred for the US blinds your judgement and basically voids your credibility in debate.

The problem i have with basically misinformed people is that they wish to defend entire nations ( as i have been accused of doing for the USSR, Cuba, Afghanistan,Vietnam, Korea and some others) as if they are monolithic structures that are on many occasions run by the citizens in the best interest of the citizens. When it seems to you that i am 'defending' other nations or 'attacking' the US please attempt to look past that and get to the data which might eventually enlighten you to the fact that things can be as simple, as the imperial agenda is, in aim as complex in execution.

In conclusion i am FOR the citizens of all countries and against self styled tyrants and politicians that abuse the power entrusted to them to further the imperial globalist agenda. If you find the fact that i very often mention the US national security state ( basically the higher echelons of the US government) so unfair you are free to send a request to the US state department requesting that the US further unilaterally disarms itself while continuing to export industry to SEA while giving less to education and hollowing out social spending and privatizing health care. In this way the US national security state might soon no longer have any more means than other continental powers thus reducing it's , in my opinion negative, role in world affairs and robbing me of the chance to spread by 'Anti-US' 'propaganda'.

This would suit me as well as my continued warnings about the US economic and strategic vulnerability to the Russian and China alliance seems to fall on the same deaf ears that would in my knowledge disappear altogether when the US national security state finally manages to drag the unwilling citizens of the United States of America into a full blown nuclear war with the Russian federation.

Stellar