BREAKING: Hugo Chavez Is Dead

reply to post by conspiracy nut
no but it is some form of cancer, the latest news he is not doing well he is having troubles breathing. see if i can find that link

reply to post by conspiracy nut


Which Castro? The real one, or one of the doubles? He goes from deathbed to jogging often enough it seems. I know it sounds nutty, but having witnessed the use of diplomatic doubles in the Middle East, it is certainly plausible they aren't the only ones doing so.

Chavez is most likely to pose in the DEAD posture because it suits him best! Thank Chavez for being a good sport. That is for all the nay sayers. May he rest in peace.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Everyone have your "I love Hugo" celebration. Not everyone agrees....but that doesn't seem a right we have anymore. Disagreement is ignorance or stupidity or buying propaganda. Disagreement can't even be a lack of information... Nope.. it's outright stupidity or being a fool. So I've been told now...repeatedly.

This makes me feel bad, i'm sorry if you feel that way because of something i wrote. I blame it on the lack of information and a bunch of msm propaganda. We can agree to disagree if you want. I've seen you write (think) that most of us must hate America which is completely untrue. I don't think even Chavez hates America, he just hates the capitalist system.

Originally posted by Podius1

N Korea, Iran, Venzuela, & Cuba have one particular thing in common....they won't sell out their countries to the Banker Cabal who uses the U.S. to sacrafice their men and women

We should be extremely careful when comparing these countries. A lot of people aren't politically or socially aware and they just go by what they read in the papers. This is just a list of countries that aren't allies of UN&USA and that is the only thing they have in common.

N Korea is a totalitarian communist state while Venezuela is pretty much the opposite, being a socialist democracy. Cuba is somewhere in between with it's marxist-socialist semi presidential govern.

Iran doesn't fit in at all because of it's religious theocracy system. This is something that doesn't fit well with 3 secular countries above, but they 'get along' because of their outsider status.

Let's just not put them in the same sentence anymore, it's just not right mmkay

here is another link saying why we know so little about his health www.washingtonpost.com... from the link

Venezuelans still don’t know what kind of cancer Chavez has or what his prognosis is. And Chavez was too ill to attend his own inauguration on Jan. 10, leaving a leadership vacuum in his wake. In fact, the president’s most public appearances these days are on Twitter, where he sends messages like this one: “We have returned again to the Venezuelan homeland. Thank God!! Thank you beloved homeland!! Here we continue treatment.”

there is a direct tweeter er Twitter link in the article.

When in doubt refer to Wikipedia!

Tho not always accurate but its pretty accurate.

reply to post by luciddream
That might be true but i tend to find the real info ,a s close to a source as possible or at least track one down, as seen here www.cbsnews.com... from the link

AP/ February 28, 2013, 2:09 PM
Hugo Chavez fighting for his life, Venezuela's vice president says again.

and what do we know? not that much

Maduro also called for Venezuelans to keep praying for Chavez and to remain loyal to the president. He said Chavez's health had suffered because he had dedicated himself "body and soul" to his work as president.

Chavez himself has previously acknowledged that he was neglecting his health in recent years, often staying up late and drinking dozens of cups of coffee a day.

The president has undergone surgeries, chemotherapy and radiation treatments since June 2011, when he first announced his cancer diagnosis. He hasn't specified the type of cancer or the exact location in his pelvic region where his tumors have been removed.

He might be dying after all, but hes not dead yet.

So is it safe to post this yet?



wait, sorry - he really is dead ...

The reason there were food shortages was because the owners of the manufacturing facilities cut production of food as a protest against Chavez's price fixing.

You see, people were speculating with food and driving up the price so it was unaffordable for the poor. Chavez imposed price restrictions. The owners of the factories cut production because they didn't like it. Chavez sent in the army and forced the factories to manufacture food at full production.

Food shortages were the fault of the wealthy owners in the food industry. They would have starved their own people because Chavez cut into their profits.

reply to post by TheComte


this is the kind of thing people don't realize, when u take away the extreme greed and profits that make things like food and gasoline unaffordable to the common man, the wealthy scream COMMUNISM!!! whenever a leader tries to help his/her people, western civilization is there w the pitchforks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by SloAnPainful
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

He's a socialist.... president.

Hugo Chavez

ETA: I guess he's not a dictator...

-SAP-

the wiki link completely fauled to mentiom that He spearheaded the RePatriation of some +300 tonnes of Gold held in London Banks...

i suppose that is an offshoot of his personal anti-American Imperialism stance... or was that just refusing to be swindled by the power structure of the Anglo-American empire over global financial; systems



he is a least open on his 'socialist' foundation for policies...
whereas our Comrad-in-Chief is both a closet Muslim ans Communist aspiring to be the dictator in charge which Bush argued would have been preferable to his Bush-Cheney regime yhat he had to endure


nationalized gold miner might be reverted to a private business after the replacement is sworn in...
(dang i can't think of the gold miner outfits name...right now)

reply to post by Exitt

N Korea is a totalitarian communist state while Venezuela is pretty much the opposite, being a socialist democracy. Cuba is somewhere in between with it's marxist-socialist semi presidential govern.

The problem with this argument is that even though communists and socialists get mad and argue, they are essentially cut from the same leftist ideology, and socialism is a bridge to the more drastic communism. Fabian socialism, in particular, represents an incremental implementation toward communism. Even Karl Marx said socialism was just a bridge toward communism.

Antony Sutton explained Hegelianism and how TPTB use it today to achieve their goals, which is a One World Totalitarian govt, and yes socialism is part of that.
www.prisonplanet.com...

reply to post by St Udio

i suppose that is an offshoot of his personal anti-American Imperialism stance... or was that just refusing to be swindled by the power structure of the Anglo-American empire over global financial; systems

I would suggest that this ties in directly with Georgy Schwartz's activities in promoting the Euro and destroying the dollar. The GOP put restoring the Gold Standard in their party platform, but it did not get much media play.

The Globalists still want fiat money, but this type of tactic will be used to ruin the dollar and establish a One World Currency and cashless society.

I've read through this whole thread and I am surprised no one mentioned this great documentary by Oliver Stone - South of the Border.

Please take the time to watch this if you have not seen it.



Get a good glimpse of the U.S. media doing what they do best.

I also want to add that if the people did not like Chavez, he would not be riding though the streets in an open top jeep. I do believe another poster pointed that out, but no reply to it.

To see Chavez in public transit skip to 12:28 into the documentary. When will you see a US president doing this?
This says alot about Chavez character to me. Loved by the public, no need to fear the common man, no armor-plated vehicle and convoy escorting him through town.

Originally posted by TheComte
The reason there were food shortages was because the owners of the manufacturing facilities cut production of food as a protest against Chavez's price fixing.

You see, people were speculating with food and driving up the price so it was unaffordable for the poor. Chavez imposed price restrictions. The owners of the factories cut production because they didn't like it. Chavez sent in the army and forced the factories to manufacture food at full production.

Food shortages were the fault of the wealthy owners in the food industry. They would have starved their own people because Chavez cut into their profits.

edit on 28-2-2013 by TheComte because: (no reason given)

Govt price fixing through ceilings and floors don't really work because the govt really subsidizes industries to make up the difference. Instead of just buying the socialist line of thinking, you might open a textbook on economics.

Here I'll give you a crash course

A price ceiling set above the equilibrium market-clearing price is usually as irrelevant as a law limiting joggers to 65 miles per hour. But price ceilings below equilibrium create shortages and drive up opportunity costs–only the legal monetary price is kept from rising. Shortages waste resources because less efficient mechanisms prevail when prices cannot adjust. Price ceilings induced shortages of thousands of items (e.g., gasoline, auto parts, and some types of food and clothing) during World Wars I and II. Widespread shortages also followed President Nixon's 1971 wage/price freeze, which was phased out and then largely abandoned by 1976.[1]

www.unc.edu...

reply to post by IntrinsicMotivation


At 13:05 into the documentary I posted above you have former CIA director George Tenet who states,

“Obviously Venezuela is important because they are the third largest exporter of petroleum. I would say that Mr. Chavez, and the State Department may say this, probably doesn’t have the United States best interest at heart.”

And there you have it from the horse’s mouth.

OIL

reply to post by DJW001


Am sure you are correct but this occasion is false ,
sorry for late reply

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Exitt

 

N Korea is a totalitarian communist state while Venezuela is pretty much the opposite, being a socialist democracy. Cuba is somewhere in between with it's marxist-socialist semi presidential govern.

The problem with this argument is that even though communists and socialists get mad and argue, they are essentially cut from the same leftist ideology, and socialism is a bridge to the more drastic communism. Fabian socialism, in particular, represents an incremental implementation toward communism. Even Karl Marx said socialism was just a bridge toward communism.

Antony Sutton explained Hegelianism and how TPTB use it today to achieve their goals, which is a One World Totalitarian govt, and yes socialism is part of that.
www.prisonplanet.com...

Well, if you look at the current situation, wouldn't you say it is totally obvious, consumerist capitalism IS the one world totalitarian government of today, while all the other political models are slowly disappearing. I think their plan worked just fine.

Furthermore, socialism can be a bridge toward communism, they are similar in Marxist thought but by no means are they synonym for one another. To state that a country will surely transition to communism is preposterous. Plenty of socialist states in the world where things are going well and no signs of communist tendencies.

That is the bad kind of American indoctrination/paranoia, where i say SOC and you guys scream 'no, not the Ruski's' .. but the word i'm looking for is social media.

reply to post by Exitt

Well, if you look at the current situation, wouldn't you say it is totally obvious, consumerist capitalism IS the one world totalitarian government of today, while all the other political models are slowly disappearing. I think their plan worked just fine.

No, because the plan of Agenda 21(supported by the Elitist Club of Rome) is to control all the resources within the context of centralized One World bureaucracy. If you study Agenda 21, you will see that the primary goal is to stop consumerism and rewild all the land and stop private property ownership and put people into apartment housing, just like they did in the old Soviet Union. This is really just a renaming of the old communist plan with some pretty environmentalist green souding words and phrases to make people think they care about anything but massive control.

Plenty of socialist states in the world where things are going well and no signs of communist tendencies.

yah okay. Check Agenda 21 documents and then get back to me.

reply to post by Exitt


Some information for you my dear

Marxism–Leninism is a communist ideology, officially based upon the theories of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Vladimir Lenin, that promotes the development and creation of an international communist society through the leadership of a vanguard party presiding over a revolutionary socialist state that represents a dictatorship of the proletariat.[1]

A society organised through a vanguard party on Marxist-Leninist principles seeks to purge anything considered bourgeois, or idealist from it;[2] in addition, it seeks to implement universal atheism through the abolition of religion.[3][4] It supports the creation of a single-party state; it rejects political pluralism external to communism, claiming that the proletariat need a single, able and unifying political party through which to represent themselves and exercise political leadership.[5] Through the policy of democratic centralism, the communist party is the supreme political institution of the Marxist-Leninist state and is the prime legal force of societal organisation.[6]

The Marxist-Leninist state utilizes a state socialist economy, based on scientific planning and democratic consensus.[7] It supports public ownership and organisation of the economy through the abolition of private ownership of land and the means of production, which become common property utilised by the people through the state.[8] In the past, it typically replaced the role of market in the capitalist economy with centralized state management of the economy, which is known as a command economy.[8] However in recent decades an alternative Marxist-Leninist economy that exists is the Socialist market economy that has been used by the People's Republic of China and the socialist-oriented market economy in the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam

en.wikipedia.org...