Venezuelan troops use tear gas on Chavez protesters

[BoogyMan]

Why again is Hugo Chavez lauded by anyone?


Source: Link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/11/01/venezuela.protests.ap/index.html)

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Venezuelan troops used tear gas and water cannons Thursday disperse demonstrators who turned out by the tens of thousands to protest constitutional reforms that would permit President Hugo Chavez to run for re-election indefinitely.

Led by university students, demonstrators chanted, "Freedom! Freedom!" and warned that 69 amendments drafted by Venezuela's Chavista-dominated National Assembly would violate civil liberties and derail democracy.

Authorities broke up the protest outside the electoral agency's office.

There were no reports from authorities of arrests or serious injuries, but the local Globovision television channel showed footage of several students who suffered minor injuries.

Students also hurled rocks and bottles. A few lifted up sections of metal barricades and thrusted them against police holding riot shields. Students retreated later as police fired plastic bullets.

"Chavez wants to remain in power his entire life, and that's not democracy," said Gonzalo Rommer, a university student who joined protesters as they marched to the National Elections Council.
Don't Miss

Deputy Justice Minister Tarek El Aissami blamed students for the violence, saying they forced their way through police barricades. But Vicente Diaz, one of the National Election Council's five directors, criticized National Guardsmen and police for using excessive force to disperse protesters.

The amendments would give the government control over the Central Bank, create new types of cooperative property, allow authorities to detain citizens without charges during a state of emergency and extend presidential terms from six to seven years while allowing Chavez to run again in 2012.

Opposition parties, human rights groups and representatives of the Roman Catholic Church fear civil liberties would be severely weakened under the constitutional changes.

Chavez -- a close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro -- denies the reforms threaten civil liberties. He and his supporters say the changes will help move the country toward socialism, while giving neighborhood-based assemblies more decision-making power in using government funds for local projects such as paving streets and building public housing.

[ttriber]

According to Johnny Awake and another person in this forum he is like the second coming towards helping get Democracy in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez keep on ruining your country just like Castro has done for 50 years keep it going. I hope their is an uprising and they kill both of these Dictators just like what happend to Mussolini the people took things into their own hands and killed him.

[December]

It was proven already that MOST of the so-called Chavez protesters are paid CIA agents...

People of Venezuela support Hugo Chavez 100%.

Venezuela Pulling Out of IMF, World Bank

READ MORE -

http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=5706

[preservanation]

People of Venezuela support Hugo Chavez 100%.Or else!

[AlanC]

This is participatory democracy. Everyone has a greater chance to be involved in being gassed or beaten. Sorry I couldn't resist.

But really, this is surprising why?

It was proven already that MOST of the so-called Chavez protesters are paid CIA agents...

People of Venezuela support Hugo Chavez 100%.

Ahhh.. okay. Yeah, the CIA did it. That works.

[BoogyMan]

It was proven already that MOST of the so-called Chavez protesters are paid CIA agents...

People of Venezuela support Hugo Chavez 100%.

Venezuela Pulling Out of IMF, World Bank

READ MORE -

http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=5706


You might want to think a bit harder about that one December.


http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/WORLD/americas/11/01/venezuela.protests.ap/art.venezueal.jpg
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/WORLD/americas/11/01/venezuela.protests.ap/art.gas.ap.jpg
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/WORLD/americas/11/01/venezuela.protests.ap/art.ground.ap.jpg

[I Like Beer]

Perhaps you'd prefer Perez's (Chavez' predecessor) approach to demonstrations? He didn't tear gas the crowd, he killed hundreds of them. (Does anyone find it odd that after all this, and two terms in jail, Perez now lives comfortably in Miami? Just like Orlando Bosch, another terrorist darling of the Bushs').

He murdered his own citizens, embezzled foreign aid money, and was supported by Washington because he supported US policy. Now, he lives comfortably in Miami. Hmmmm... nope, I don't see any hypocrisy there. ;) But, of course, he was a capitalist so I guess it's all good, right?

After the Italians used tear gas to break up an anti-Bush protest, Dana Perino was quoted as saying...

"That's what democracy is all about," Perino said. "He understands not everybody is going to agree with him."

Do you agree with Bush on this one?

[Truth_and_Power]

It was proven already that MOST of the so-called Chavez protesters are paid CIA agents...

People of Venezuela support Hugo Chavez 100%.

Venezuela Pulling Out of IMF, World Bank

READ MORE -

http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=5706


That's funny the venezuelans I know don't support him at all. They dislike the guy so much they don't even want to talk about it.

[micfranklin]

Well it is Chavez' country.

[AlanC]

Well it is Chavez' country.

I think this statement probably is quite accurate when referring to Castro's cuba. But I don't think it applies to Venezuela... at least not yet. I'm sure its something that Chavez wants to make into a reality though.

[Labrocca]

Some great comments in this thread. Few seem to take this seriously. I realize our government doesn't always act in the best interest of OTHER COUNTRIES CITIZENS..probably because they are not US CITIZENS. However other countries governments DO AFFECT US. What's appauling is that even though Chavez is obviously a dictator that some American Citizens (not the government) think Chavez is a good guy.

It needs to be seperated how our government deals with Chavez and the truth of who Chavez is. He is a bad guy. It's just that simple. Are we bad guys too...maybe? I am a U.S. Citizen...my first priority is other U.S. Citzens but if you want my opinion of Chavez..the guy is a dictator and a national security threat simply because of his policies toward our government.

If I was a Venezuala citizen...I would be fleeing the country asap. Things will only get worse.

[December]

Let me ask you a question - WHY do you even care?

:)

Are all of you some sort of Mothers Teresas?

http://home.snu.edu/~dwilliam/f97projects/teresa/mter2.jpg

There are plenty of countries in Latin America and all over the world where you can find protesters...

But why Venezuela is discussed all the time? And why is US media keep pumping the Venezuela issue?

Answer - it is because the American OIL COMPANIES want this so that one day they will put their oil man in the White House who will invade oil-rich Venezuela in order to... liberate poor and freedom-loving Venezuelans from bloodthursty dictator...

:D

And let me say it again - it was proven already that MOST of the so-called Chavez protesters are paid CIA agents...

People of Venezuela support Hugo Chavez 100%.

Venezuela Pulling Out of IMF, World Bank

READ MORE -

http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=5706[hr]

You might want to think a bit harder about that one December.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/WORLD/americas/11/01/venezuela.protests.ap/art.venezueal.jpg
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/WORLD/americas/11/01/venezuela.protests.ap/art.gas.ap.jpg
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/WORLD/americas/11/01/venezuela.protests.ap/art.ground.ap.jpg


These pictures are from the CNN site! :D
CNN supports Bush and Co.

_____________________

Venezuela Pulling Out of IMF, World Bank

READ MORE -

http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=5706

[I Like Beer]

It needs to be seperated how our government deals with Chavez and the truth of who Chavez is. He is a bad guy. It's just that simple. Are we bad guys too...maybe? I am a U.S. Citizen...my first priority is other U.S. Citzens but if you want my opinion of Chavez..the guy is a dictator and a national security threat simply because of his policies toward our government.

But, if the interests of US citizens are always paramount, then isn't this kind of policy very short sighted? (I'm talking about giving care and comfort to terrorists and thugs who support US policy?)

Can't one make the case that the storming of the US embassy in Iran in the 70's relates back to Mossadeq and the CIAs role in overthrowing a democratically elected leader and reinstating a brutal dictator? How did that turn out to be in US interests? Isn't making a safer world MORE in the interests of the US? Maybe some of the chickens are coming home to roost.

Is the comfort and prosperity of US citizens worth the LIVES of foreigners? From an outside point-of-view, that would seem to be the case. Cheap oil controlled by Western companies is worth the lives and freedoms of foreigners. So, why does Bush always talk about bringing "freedom" to Iraq, when the history proves the exact opposite? The US (even you Labrocca) don't really seem to give a shit about freedom in other countries.

By the way, here's a link to Halliburton stock. It's gone up about 600% in five years. Not too bad. But, the war's really about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq, a policy which the US has supported so often in the past.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

Is Chavez a bad guy? I really don't know. He doesn't have the blood on his hands that Perez does. So on the body count alone - who's worse?

If you'd flee Venezuela, where would you go? Peru? Well, during unrest there in 2003, the police FIRED into the crowd killing at least one student and injuring dozens.

Based on this incident... where would you rather be a protestor?

[Scorpion]

I wonder what his pal Cindy Sheehan would say.

http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/sheehan-chavez-717580.jpg

I noticed that Chavez is wearing his usual red "I'm a big mouthed commie dictator" clothes.

[Trish]

Ahhhhhhhhhh....Now that's the way to institute a participatory democracy! Tear gas!:thumbsup:

[gemosological]

Why again is Hugo Chavez lauded by anyone?


Source: Link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/11/01/venezuela.protests.ap/index.html)

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Venezuelan troops used tear gas and water cannons Thursday disperse demonstrators who turned out by the tens of thousands to protest constitutional reforms that would permit President Hugo Chavez to run for re-election indefinitely.

Led by university students, demonstrators chanted, "Freedom! Freedom!" and warned that 69 amendments drafted by Venezuela's Chavista-dominated National Assembly would violate civil liberties and derail democracy.

Authorities broke up the protest outside the electoral agency's office.

There were no reports from authorities of arrests or serious injuries, but the local Globovision television channel showed footage of several students who suffered minor injuries.

Students also hurled rocks and bottles. A few lifted up sections of metal barricades and thrusted them against police holding riot shields. Students retreated later as police fired plastic bullets.

"Chavez wants to remain in power his entire life, and that's not democracy," said Gonzalo Rommer, a university student who joined protesters as they marched to the National Elections Council.
Don't Miss

Deputy Justice Minister Tarek El Aissami blamed students for the violence, saying they forced their way through police barricades. But Vicente Diaz, one of the National Election Council's five directors, criticized National Guardsmen and police for using excessive force to disperse protesters.

The amendments would give the government control over the Central Bank, create new types of cooperative property, allow authorities to detain citizens without charges during a state of emergency and extend presidential terms from six to seven years while allowing Chavez to run again in 2012.

Opposition parties, human rights groups and representatives of the Roman Catholic Church fear civil liberties would be severely weakened under the constitutional changes.

Chavez -- a close ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro -- denies the reforms threaten civil liberties. He and his supporters say the changes will help move the country toward socialism, while giving neighborhood-based assemblies more decision-making power in using government funds for local projects such as paving streets and building public housing.


I recall our own nation's police and National Guard troops using teargas- and sometimes real and lethal bullets- against American protestors too. So I have to ask you what is your point in starting this thread, Boogyman? Is it OK for our government to teargas and sometimes kill unarmed student protesters but not OK when the governments of other nations engage in the same kinds of actions? That's just another blatant manifestation of the conservatives' hypocricies as far as I am concerned.

RRD
:rolleyes:

[Labrocca]

But, if the interests of US citizens are always paramount, then isn't this kind of policy very short sighted? (I'm talking about giving care and comfort to terrorists and thugs who support US policy?)

I agree. I don't make policy though and the best I can do...is try and vote for a politician that might do something but it's still a crap shoot.

By the way, here's a link to Halliburton stock. It's gone up about 600% in five years.

Google has gone up 700% in the past 2 years too..what of it? Make a new thread if you want to discuss that further.

The US (even you Labrocca) don't really seem to give a sh1t about freedom in other countries.

I am torn on this one. On one hand I have emotions...on the other I have my own family and lifestyle to consider. Then there is the problem of really caring...if I do...well I can't change anything by just caring. So it's frustrating. I tend to fold under pressure and take a laissez-faire attitude. Shameful probably I know but at least I am aware of it.

[ttriber]

The problem with these liberals in this thread is that they fail to see the truth. The truth is you ask anybody from Venezuela that comes to immigrate to America now why they left. It is simple because of the growing hatred towards the Chavez Regime. It is real simple the Man is becoming another Communist why does he go to cuba to see how Castro is doing why does he give a shit about Castro if he is doing a participatory democracy wouldn't he by trieng to not want to be Castro's friend or does that not fit into your logic.

The clown who believes that the anti-chavez people are all paid by the CIA operatives what makes you think that their are people all over the US who believe the US did their own 9/11 are they authentic absolutely not your rhetoric is one of those who is lead astray by the conspiracy nut jobs that are here.

Let me go and get my Venezuelen buddy to speak to you fellas about what is happening over their if he can answer because maybe he got arrested for protesting Chavez's actions.

[Scorpion]

What's especially interesting to me is that Chevez was elected because of his stated fervor for Latin American nationalism and accountability to the public. Since his election he has spouted anti-American rhetoric which has already begun to limit US business interest in Venezuala, he he espouses a Cuban-like socialist government for all of Latin America, he's changed the constitution to set himself up as Venezuala's dictator for life and now he begins aggressively suppressing those citizens in opposition to his government. What next? This is beginning to remind me of the repression in Argentina in the 70's and early 80's.

[December]

Can someone explain WHY do you care about some crazy CIA-sponsored protesters? :)

Why do you call him a dictator if the man was elected TWICE? Are you just repeating the words of a CNN guy/girl who simply reads from the paper?...

Hugo Chavez is GREAT GUY he cares about his people.
And this is the REAL reason why Hugo Chavez is under attack -

Venezuela Pulling Out of IMF, World Bank
READ MORE -
http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=5706

[Scorpion]

Why do you call him a dictator if the man was elected TWICE? Are you just repeating the words of a CNN guy/girl who simply reads from the paper?...[/b]



If he gets elected again it's because he's engaging in the quaint old Latin American custom of election fraud.

Frankly, I think that he'll eventually have himself appointed president for life then proceed to rape the Venezualan economy to pad his retirement.

[ttriber]

What's especially interesting to me is that Chevez was elected because of his stated fervor for Latin American nationalism and accountability to the public. Since his election he has spouted anti-American rhetoric which has already begun to limit US business interest in Venezuala, he he espouses a Cuban-like socialist government for all of Latin America, he's changed the constitution to set himself up as Venezuala's dictator for life and now he begins aggressively suppressing those citizens in opposition to his government. What next? This is beginning to remind me of the repression in Argentina in the 70's and early 80's.


Whats next? Look down 90 miles south from Florida and that is exactly what is next for the Venezuelean people if they don't put some pressure on their military and get rid of this bozo.

[Scorpion]

What's especially interesting to me is that Chevez was elected because of his stated fervor for Latin American nationalism and accountability to the public. Since his election he has spouted anti-American rhetoric which has already begun to limit US business interest in Venezuala, he he espouses a Cuban-like socialist government for all of Latin America, he's changed the constitution to set himself up as Venezuala's dictator for life and now he begins aggressively suppressing those citizens in opposition to his government. What next? This is beginning to remind me of the repression in Argentina in the 70's and early 80's.


Whats next? Look down 90 miles south from Florida and that is exactly what is next for the Venezuelean people if they don't put some pressure on their military and get rid of this bozo.


If he keeps this up he's tempting someone with long range shooting skills and the right equipment to put an end to his dictatorship.

[December]

If he gets elected again it's because he's engaging in the quaint old Latin American custom of election fraud.

Frankly, I think that he'll eventually have himself appointed president for life then proceed to rape the Venezualan economy to pad his retirement.


OK. Let's assume that it is all true...
But why do you care about it? :D
___________________________

This is the REAL reason why Hugo Chavez is under attack -

Venezuela Pulling Out of IMF, World Bank
READ MORE -
http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=5706

[gemosological]

Quoting Scorpion, post #19:

he's changed the constitution to set himself up as Venezuala's dictator for life

Chavez hasn't demanded being President- or dictator- for life, Scorpion. These are the kinds of statements you and a lot of other conservatives make that I am prone to "uncivily" challenge you and other conservatives on. In the article and link that Boogyman used to begin this thread it was stated that Chavez wanted to extend each elected presidential term by a year, and to allow a Venezuelan President to run for election in every subsequent Presidential election. Chavez didn't order those changes- he requested the Venezuelan Congress to consider those proposals and vote on them, and the Venezuelan Congress has apparently voted in favor of those changes. That is not the same as desiring to become dictator for life, and when it comes to detaining citizens without charge during a national emergency that isn’t much different than what Bush&Co have demanded be allowed in our own nation under similar circumstances as a part of the “Patriot Act�.

RRD
:-)

[Scorpion]

Quoting Scorpion, post #19:

he's changed the constitution to set himself up as Venezuala's dictator for life

Chavez hasn't demanded being President- or dictator- for life, Scorpion. These are the kinds of statements you and a lot of other conservatives make that I am prone to "uncivily" challenge you and other conservatives on. In the article and link that Boogyman used to begin this thread it was stated that Chavez wanted to extend each elected presidential term by a year, and to allow a Venezuelan President to run for election in every subsequent Presidential election. That is not the same as desiring to become dictator for life, and when it comes to detaining citizens without charge during a national emergency that isn’t much different than what Bush&Co have demanded be allowed in our own nation under similar circumstances as a part of the “Patriot Act�.

RRD
:-)


Chavez changed the Venezualan constitution to allow for the possibility of his re-election ad infinidum. I never said that Chavez "demanded to be president or dictator for life." But he certainly has taken the first steps in that direction. What I did say is that re-election won't be a problem for him. It's an easy matter to maniulate election results. Latin America is the birthplace of election fraud.

Comparing to Chavez's repression and detention of protestors to the Bush administrations use of the Patriot Act isn't worthy of serious discussion outside the conspiracy thread.

[gemosological]

Why do you call him a dictator if the man was elected TWICE? Are you just repeating the words of a CNN guy/girl who simply reads from the paper?...[/b]



If he gets elected again it's because he's engaging in the quaint old Latin American custom of election fraud.

Frankly, I think that he'll eventually have himself appointed president for life then proceed to rape the Venezualan economy to pad his retirement.


What makes you think election fraud is only a quaint Latin American custom, Scorpion? Latin America isn't the only place on the planet where such things have been known to occur. The late Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago could be cited as a good example, as could the machinations of Tammany Hall during the late 1800 and early 1900's, and I'm sure there are others who, in one fashion or another, did the same- and they were American politicians. Corruption and desires for power and control are not restricted to national or continental boundaries you know.

RRD
:D[hr]

Quoting Scorpion, post #19:

he's changed the constitution to set himself up as Venezuala's dictator for life

Chavez hasn't demanded being President- or dictator- for life, Scorpion. These are the kinds of statements you and a lot of other conservatives make that I am prone to "uncivily" challenge you and other conservatives on. In the article and link that Boogyman used to begin this thread it was stated that Chavez wanted to extend each elected presidential term by a year, and to allow a Venezuelan President to run for election in every subsequent Presidential election. That is not the same as desiring to become dictator for life, and when it comes to detaining citizens without charge during a national emergency that isn’t much different than what Bush&Co have demanded be allowed in our own nation under similar circumstances as a part of the “Patriot Act�.

RRD
:-)


Chavez changed the Venezualan constitution to allow for the possibility of his re-election ad infinidum. I never said that Chavez "demanded to be president or dictator for life." But he certainly has taken the first steps in that direction. What I did say is that re-election won't be a problem for him. It's an easy matter to maniulate election results. Latin America is the birthplace of election fraud.

Comparing to Chavez's repression and detention of protestors to the Bush administrations use of the Patriot Act isn't worthy of serious discussion outside the conspiracy thread.


(1) Chavez changed the Venezualan constitution to allow for the possibility of his re-election ad infinidum.

Chavez didn't change the Venezuelan Constitution- the Venezuelan Congress did. And the congress didn't vote in favor of that solely for Chavez's benefit- it voted for that to be a benefit to any future Venezuelan President, not just Chavez.

(2) What I did say is that re-election won't be a problem for him.

Could the reason re-election won't be a problem for Chavez be the same as why re- election for him wasn't a problem in the last two elections- i.e. because he's popular with the majority of the Venezuelan people?

(3) It's an easy matter to maniulate election results

Yep, it sure is.

(4) Latin America is the birthplace of election fraud.

I seriously doubt that is true. I think election fraud goes back in time, and in other nations, a lot further than that, lol!

(5) Comparing to Chavez's repression and detention of protestors to the Bush administrations use of the Patriot Act isn't worthy of serious discussion outside the conspiracy thread.

To the contrary it is quite worthy of discussion- especially when it concerns your own government desiring to have policies in place that your own government negatively judges other leaders of wanting in the event of national emergencies or foreign attacks against them. Remember the Japanese internment camps?

RRD
:)

[Scorpion]

Sounds like somebody has this photo as a poster on their wall...

http://civilizer.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/hugo-chavez-mahmoud-ahmadinejad.jpg

[gemosological]

Sounds like somebody has this photo as a poster on their wall...

http://civilizer.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/hugo-chavez-mahmoud-ahmadinejad.jpg


Damn! I want one of those! It would go great with the poster I have of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand. Who's got one or can tell me where to find one?

Aside from that care to address the points I made in my last response to you?

RRD
:madlaugh:

[Labrocca]

Man that picture needs a caption.

Good thread so far.

One thing that's more worrisome of course is that unlike Cuba...Venezuala has oil and plenty of it. It can make Chavez very rich Hussein style or he can do good with that money and create social programs. However upon his current path he seems happy just gaining power and thumbing his nose at the US Government. Let's see how the next administration deals with him.

[Scorpion]

Man that picture needs a caption.



http://civilizer.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/hugo-chavez-mahmoud-ahmadinejad.jpg

"Condoms, man we don't use no stinking condoms. We bareback it."

[I Like Beer]

The problem with these liberals in this thread is that they fail to see the truth. The truth is you ask anybody from Venezuela that comes to immigrate to America now why they left.

I'm sure many of the people who leave hate Chavez, what about the overwhelming majority who stay?

Many Americans are immigrating to Canada, many because they dislike Bush. Is that reason to get rid of him?

[Scorpion]

The problem with these liberals in this thread is that they fail to see the truth. The truth is you ask anybody from Venezuela that comes to immigrate to America now why they left.

I'm sure many of the people who leave hate Chavez, what about the overwhelming majority who stay?



Perhaps there are circumstances that don't permit others to leave. Family ties, poverty, illness or age to name but a few. They may also prefer to be in Venezuela because an emotional attachment to the country. Because someone stays in a repressive country doesn't necessarily mean that they like or approve of the political leadership.

[gemosological]

The problem with these liberals in this thread is that they fail to see the truth. The truth is you ask anybody from Venezuela that comes to immigrate to America now why they left.

I'm sure many of the people who leave hate Chavez, what about the overwhelming majority who stay?



Perhaps there are circumstances that don't permit others to leave. Family ties, poverty, illness or age to name but a few. They may also prefer to be in Venezuela because an emotional attachment to the country. Because someone stays in a repressive country doesn't necessarily mean that they like or approve of the political leadership.


What you say could be true, and probably is in some cases, but the uncomfortable fact remains that those that have chosen to remain in Venezuela have voted Chavez into office two elections in a row- which kind of puts a damper on your assertion.

I also notice you haven't responded to the second part of Beer's post where he asked if those Americans who have left for Canada are reason enough to justify removing Bush from office. I would say no to that, but I think the reasons why they dislike Bush and are leaving for Canada might be a good justification for removing Bush from office..

RRD
:P

[Scorpion]

The problem with these liberals in this thread is that they fail to see the truth. The truth is you ask anybody from Venezuela that comes to immigrate to America now why they left.

I'm sure many of the people who leave hate Chavez, what about the overwhelming majority who stay?



Perhaps there are circumstances that don't permit others to leave. Family ties, poverty, illness or age to name but a few. They may also prefer to be in Venezuela because an emotional attachment to the country. Because someone stays in a repressive country doesn't necessarily mean that they like or approve of the political leadership.


What you say could be true, and probably is in some cases, but the uncomfortable fact remains that those that have chosen to remain in Venezuela have voted Chavez into office two elections in a row- which kind of puts a damper on your assertion.

I also notice you haven't responded to the second part of Beer's post where he asked if those Americans who have left for Canada are reason enough to justify removing Bush from office. I would say no to that, but I think the reasons why they dislike Bush and are leaving for Canada might be a good justification for removing Bush from office..

RRD
:P


There is strong evidence that Chavez engaged in election fraud so your "uncomfortable fact" is uncomfortably inaccurate. Indeed, Venezuelans are not pleased with Chavez and his heavy handed behavior.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm
http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200409080559
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4208-2004Aug16.html

I doubt that there is any statistical evidence showing that US citizens are migrating to Canada because of the current adminstration. If there is I'd certainly be interested in seeing a link. The unsupported suggestion that such is true is, at best, speculative. If indeed it were true, so what? If you don't like the US then leave if you wish.

[I Like Beer]

There is strong evidence that Chavez engaged in election fraud so your "uncomfortable fact" is uncomfortably inaccurate. Indeed, Venezuelans are not pleased with Chavez and his heavy handed behavior.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm
http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200409080559
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4208-2004Aug16.html

I doubt that there is any statistical evidence showing that US citizens are migrating to Canada because of the current adminstration. If there is I'd certainly be interested in seeing a link. The unsupported suggestion that such is true is, at best, speculative. If indeed it were true, so what? If you don't like the US then leave if you wish.


From one of the articles you posted...

His partner Mark Penn points out that the firm conducted two previous exit polls in Venezuela, both of which were on the mark.

In Venezuela, Schoen's firm was hired by businessmen who were almost surely opponents of Chavez. The Chavez regime intimidated local interviewing firms, who refused to provide interviewers for Penn Schoen at the polls. As a result, the firm trained volunteers. Critics of the firm might argue that these volunteers, undoubtedly mostly anti-Chavez, may have tried to present a false result.

Jimmy Carter ... pronounced the election fair and the result accurate.

I didn't read the other two, but this one is so full of innuendo that's it hardly an unbiased account.

As for Americans immigrating to Canada, the numbers are the highest they've been since the heyday of the Vietnam war when draft dodgers came here in droves.

WASHINGTON–It was a popular vow of apprehensive Democrats in 2004, a pledge made in the heat of battle to move to Canada if George W. Bush was re-elected.

Turns out, some of them did.

An analysis of immigration statistics done by the Montreal-based Association for Canadian Studies showed the number of Americans who moved to Canada in 2006 hit a 30-year high, almost double the number who moved north in 2000 when Bush was elected for a first term as U.S. president.

The day after Bush was re-elected president, there were 191,000 hits on Canada's immigration website, six times its average traffic, most of it from the U.S.

... said Jack Jedwab, the executive director of the association that analyzed the statistics. "Given that most of these immigrants are university-educated or better, you can assume they can find work in the U.S., so the move must be based on other reasons,'' Jedwab said.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada reported that 49.5 per cent of the Americans who migrated to Canada in 2006 had at least a bachelor's degree.

Jedwab said anecdotal information points to politics, health care, social issues, possibly even the strengthening Canadian dollar as lures northward, he said.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/243555[hr]The unsupported suggestion that such is true is, at best, speculative. If indeed it were true, so what? If you don't like the US then leave if you wish.

It's just that someone made the point that immigrants to the US from Venezuela hated Chavez - the implication being that that was more evidence Chavez was a bad guy and had to go.

I asked that if many Americans immigrating to Canada hated Bush, was that reason to get rid of him?

I'm just trying to find out if people truly support and backup their statements.

[Scorpion]

There is strong evidence that Chavez engaged in election fraud so your "uncomfortable fact" is uncomfortably inaccurate. Indeed, Venezuelans are not pleased with Chavez and his heavy handed behavior.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040820.htm
http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200409080559
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4208-2004Aug16.html

I doubt that there is any statistical evidence showing that US citizens are migrating to Canada because of the current adminstration. If there is I'd certainly be interested in seeing a link. The unsupported suggestion that such is true is, at best, speculative. If indeed it were true, so what? If you don't like the US then leave if you wish.


From one of the articles you posted...

His partner Mark Penn points out that the firm conducted two previous exit polls in Venezuela, both of which were on the mark.

In Venezuela, Schoen's firm was hired by businessmen who were almost surely opponents of Chavez. The Chavez regime intimidated local interviewing firms, who refused to provide interviewers for Penn Schoen at the polls. As a result, the firm trained volunteers. Critics of the firm might argue that these volunteers, undoubtedly mostly anti-Chavez, may have tried to present a false result.

Jimmy Carter ... pronounced the election fair and the result accurate.

I didn't read the other two, but this one is so full of innuendo that's it hardly an unbiased account.

As for Americans immigrating to Canada, the numbers are the highest they've been since the heyday of the Vietnam war when draft dodgers came here in droves.

WASHINGTON–It was a popular vow of apprehensive Democrats in 2004, a pledge made in the heat of battle to move to Canada if George W. Bush was re-elected.

Turns out, some of them did.

An analysis of immigration statistics done by the Montreal-based Association for Canadian Studies showed the number of Americans who moved to Canada in 2006 hit a 30-year high, almost double the number who moved north in 2000 when Bush was elected for a first term as U.S. president.

The day after Bush was re-elected president, there were 191,000 hits on Canada's immigration website, six times its average traffic, most of it from the U.S.

... said Jack Jedwab, the executive director of the association that analyzed the statistics. "Given that most of these immigrants are university-educated or better, you can assume they can find work in the U.S., so the move must be based on other reasons,'' Jedwab said.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada reported that 49.5 per cent of the Americans who migrated to Canada in 2006 had at least a bachelor's degree.

Jedwab said anecdotal information points to politics, health care, social issues, possibly even the strengthening Canadian dollar as lures northward, he said.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/243555[hr]The unsupported suggestion that such is true is, at best, speculative. If indeed it were true, so what? If you don't like the US then leave if you wish.

It's just that someone made the point that immigrants to the US from Venezuela hated Chavez - the implication being that that was more evidence Chavez was a bad guy and had to go.

I asked that if many Americans immigrating to Canada hated Bush, was that reason to get rid of him?

I'm just trying to find out if people truly support and backup their statements.


The articles clearly indicate evidnce of election fraud. The segments that you picked from the articles are loaded with conjecture and supposition.

As for Americans immigrating to Canada, again I have serious doubts that the majority moved because of Bush. It is, however an interesting theory.

[I Like Beer]

The articles clearly indicate evidnce of election fraud. The segments that you picked from the articles are loaded with conjecture and supposition.

As for Americans immigrating to Canada, again I have serious doubts that the majority moved because of Bush. It is, however an interesting theory.

Well, the one I read basically said that in one of three elections they looked at, they found evidence of fraud. Even the company that ran the exit polls admitted they were hired by people antagonistic towards Chavez.

Jimmy Carter said this particular election was fair and honest.

Why would Carter lie? What's his motivation? Does he love Chavez?

Exit polls can be wrong. Look at your 2004 presidential election, in which Kerry was the projected winner based on exit polls. Did Bush steal that election?

As for why more Americans are coming to Canada? The evidence is anecdotal, so who can say for certain. It is rather interesting, however.

[PatrickHenry]

USA has had fraudulent elections for the past two presidential cycles.

Bush made himself the ProTem Dictator and went into a full-on aggression mode.

Why don't US protestors emerge in the millions and drive him from office? Because they are gutless and have a faulty understanding of democracy.

Chavez' nation has more oil than Saudi Arabia.

It seems he doesn't need the IMF and the World Bank and is helping the others in South America ditch those monsters, too.

I am pleased to see that there were no mass arrests or firing live ammunition into the crowd. Democracy is alive and well in Venezuela. I can't say the same for the USA

[Scorpion]

I am pleased to see that there were no mass arrests or firing live ammunition into the crowd. Democracy is alive and well in Venezuela. I can't say the same for the USA


This time they used tear gas, water cannon and rubber bullets. Real ammunition is next. Just wait for it.

How can you possibly compare democracy in the US to Chavez's Bolivarian socialist dictatorship and his cavalier behavior regarding human rights?

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu

[I Like Beer]

This time they used tear gas, water cannon and rubber bullets. Real ammunition is next. Just wait for it.


You mean like Perez, Chavez' predecessor used? Perez killed hundreds of people and now lives comfortably in Miami.

The US loved him because he supported US policy -the fact he murdered his citizens was never a problem.

Perhaps you'd like to see Perez back in power?

[Scorpion]

This time they used tear gas, water cannon and rubber bullets. Real ammunition is next. Just wait for it.


You mean like Perez, Chavez' predecessor used? Perez killed hundreds of people and now lives comfortably in Miami.

The US loved him because he supported US policy -the fact he murdered his citizens was never a problem.

Perhaps you'd like to see Perez back in power?


Yes, just like Perez used. Perez was a self serving criminal. Chavez is working on being a self serving socialist criminal, just like his menor Fidel.

But this thread is about Chavez, not a history lesson in Latin American dictatorships.

[Trish]

USA has had fraudulent elections for the past two presidential cycles.

Bush made himself the ProTem Dictator and went into a full-on aggression mode.

Why don't US protestors emerge in the millions and drive him from office? Because they are gutless and have a faulty understanding of democracy.

Chavez' nation has more oil than Saudi Arabia.

It seems he doesn't need the IMF and the World Bank and is helping the others in South America ditch those monsters, too.

I am pleased to see that there were no mass arrests or firing live ammunition into the crowd. Democracy is alive and well in Venezuela. I can't say the same for the USA



Your opinions are certainly passionate, but they remain opinion - not fact. While you may not agree with the election results, or how they were obtained, they were not fraudulent. The US Supreme Court's ruling on the recount rules and procedures negate claims of fraud or illegality. You may not agree with the ruling, may think the ruling was arrived at along party lines, may believe the majority opinion erred, or debate the decision on any number of other points, the fact remains that the Court's decision validated the election results - there was no fraud, no illegality in the election. The election results were not only legal - but lawful under election laws at the time as determined by the US Supreme Court. As long as the laws remain unchanged, the Supreme Court ruling will govern. (Bush v. Gore http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html)

Bush did not "make" himself anything and certainly not protem dictator. All anarchist hyperbole aside, asserting election fraud and unlawful acts against factual evidence to the contrary is irresponsible at best. Disagreement with a law, or the results of law, does not make make that law illegal or unlawful. An argument can certainly be made that in view of the 2000 presidential election results, election laws should be changed (an idea which I support btw). However, that issue is not legally relevant to the 2000 election results. They were what they were based on the Supreme Court's ruling on the law at the time - they were legal and lawful.

[I Like Beer]

Yes, just like Perez used. Perez was a self serving criminal. Chavez is working on being a self serving socialist criminal, just like his menor Fidel.

But this thread is about Chavez, not a history lesson in Latin American dictatorships.


Yep, the thread is about Chavez. However, I think it's helpful to provide some context.

On the surface, shooting tear gas into a crowd of protesters is a terrible act, however when you compare it to what his predecessor did, you may conclude it was a more measured response.

Especially given the fact that tear gas has been used to disperse protesters in many first-world democracies.

[PatrickHenry]

Your opinions are certainly passionate, but they remain opinion - not fact. While you may not agree with the election results, or how they were obtained, they were not fraudulent....

Bush did not "make" himself anything and certainly not protem dictator
You are mistaken on both counts, Trish.

Both elections were beset with fraudulent practices, which while not being acknowledged by a 5-4 split court decision, were nonetheless clear fraud...manipulation of election results. Not fair elections. The Republicans need to be prosecuted for their frauds, but many powerful overlords get away with crimes because of their positions.

Likely as a partisan Republican, you would squirm away from the evidence, but it is certainly enough to prove intent to defraud the election process. I won't present the evidence here (off topic) but I am capable of marshaling it for you if you want to see how to cheat on elections. It is a well understood process, and very capably handled by the politicians and the courts in collusion with private companies and the press.

And here is the evidence for Bush's dictatorship status. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070912-2.html

You may not understand SoE, Trish. I don't expect that you would, since it is not taught in civics class and seldom spoken of in the popular press. But it makes the President the Ruler of America.

[gemosological]

Quoting I Like Beer, post #44:

Especially given the fact that tear gas has been used to disperse protesters in many first-world democracies.

With the United States being a notable one, as we saw, with not only teargas but lethal bullets being fired at unarmed student protesters at Kent State, at the protests in Denver in response to the killings at Kent State and where I myself had been tear-gassed and personally flung the teargas cannisters back at the riot police, and of course the infamous Chicago Police Riot of 1968 where even 70yo men carrying groceries home from the store were brutally beaten by Chicago police.

Why look to Venezuela or President Chavez to find fault for such actions on the part of foreign governmental authorities when we can find such exemplary examples of the same kinds of "oppression" right here in the history of our own country? Or, from what I read in the news a few minutes ago- from our ally in the war on terror President Musharraf and Pakistan- or Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Peru etc, etc for that matter.

Why (I address this to Scorpion) should you go pointing fingers at others when there are plenty of fingers pointing- quite legitimately- at our own nation for engaging in precisely the same kinds of "oppressive" actions against our own citizens in the not-so-distant past? Scorpion, you mentioned that you had served in a unit in 'Nam. If you did not raise any concerns about the oppressive nature of our own Federal and local police policies against the war protesters back then what right would you have to denounce another nations' leaders for doing precisely the same things in their countries that our own government has done to our own fellow citizens in our own country that you probably felt you were trying to protect by fighting in "Nam?

THAT, to me, is where your hypocrisy- and that of many other conservatives- resides.

RRD
:rolleyes:

[ttriber]

Patrick if you consider Bush's 8 years a dictatorship then why hasn't he implemented the laws that Chavez has done so that he can be Dictator for life? Because the stuff your referring to is hatred towards Bush why don't you just have the guts to admit you hate Bush. You will say anything unrealistic to support your idea.

Bush won the election whether you agree with it or not. As far as Chavez goes his goals are to get the country into a socialist state which he has already done and to implement the laws that he can survive with for the rest of his Dictatorship. He is an on-going problem in South America and he will either start wars or he will end up getting in one to implement more Dictatorships in that part of the world. Their is nothing good about Dictatorships they will take away your land and make you a servent to the government.

[gemosological]

Patrick if you consider Bush's 8 years a dictatorship then why hasn't he implemented the laws that Chavez has done so that he can be Dictator for life? Because the stuff your referring to is hatred towards Bush why don't you just have the guts to admit you hate Bush. You will say anything unrealistic to support your idea.

Bush won the election whether you agree with it or not. As far as Chavez goes his goals are to get the country into a socialist state which he has already done and to implement the laws that he can survive with for the rest of his Dictatorship. He is an on-going problem in South America and he will either start wars or he will end up getting in one to implement more Dictatorships in that part of the world. Their is nothing good about Dictatorships they will take away your land and make you a servent to the government.


Once again. ttriber, having your Congress passing legislation extending presidential terms by one year and allowing a President to run for election as often as he wants and having your Congress pass such legislation is not- I repeat- not the same as demanding to be dictator for life. I think you need to start recognizing that simple fact, ttriber. I also think you need to recognize that the changes Chavez requested and was provided by the Venezuelan Congress- not to mention his "Socialist" policies- were done in a manner a lot more above board than a lot of the policies Bush&Co have instituted with such things as the Patriot Act and the warrantless surveillance programs that this Administration has underhandedly tried to slip by the American Public- which is reason enough for this American to hate Bush&Co, and at least intensely dislike the attitudes of all those that are still foolish enough to back them.


RRD
;)

[Trish]

You are mistaken on both counts, Trish.

Both elections were beset with fraudulent practices, which while not being acknowledged by a 5-4 split court decision, were nonetheless clear fraud...manipulation of election results. Not fair elections. The Republicans need to be prosecuted for their frauds, but many powerful overlords get away with crimes because of their positions.

Likely as a partisan Republican, you would squirm away from the evidence, but it is certainly enough to prove intent to defraud the election process. I won't present the evidence here (off topic) but I am capable of marshaling it for you if you want to see how to cheat on elections. It is a well understood process, and very capably handled by the politicians and the courts in collusion with private companies and the press.

And here is the evidence for Bush's dictatorship status. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070912-2.html

You may not understand SoE, Trish. I don't expect that you would, since it is not taught in civics class and seldom spoken of in the popular press. But it makes the President the Ruler of America.


Obviously the Supreme Court did not agree with your analysis. While certainly there was a split vote, the majority ruled - as it does on all matters it chooses to rule upon. The dissenting opinions did raise relevant issues, that should be considered for future elections. However, for THAT election, according to majority vote, the Supreme Court ruled and therefore the election results were legal and lawful. Disagreeing with it doesn't change the fact the highest court in the land made a decision and by that decision George Bush became the lawful President of the United States. And that fact alone invalidates your claim that Bush "made himself" a dictator.

The link you provided affirms that the President is acting within the scope of his powers as President of the United States. He is following the law in publishing the continuation notice. ALL Presidents have the same power regarding national emergencies which Bush has used. He is not unique in that respect. I understand that you do not believe that such an emergency exists. However, that is not relevant. What is relevant is that Bush is acting within the scope of his responsibilities and powers as President and is doing so in a lawful manner.

I am not now, nor have I ever been a Republican, partisan or otherwise. I am, and have long been a Democrat. I wasn't pleased with the 2000 election results. My candidate didn't win and all the controversy surrounding the election was at the very least stressful. However, my disappointment did not make the results illegal or unlawful.

You'll have to be more clear on SoE. That acronym covers a lot of ground, and I certainly wouldn't want to make any unfounded assumptions. I am familiar with several definitions of SoE - whether one of them matches your references I can't know until you are a bit more forthcoming.

[gemosological]

Trish, I think there's one important and relevant fact that you're missing here, and that is that just because something is legal and lawful doesn't necessarily make it right.

Remember all the demonstrators that the Republican Party transported- at Republican Party expense- to Dade County to disrupt the recount in 2000? I was watching the news one evening during that time and watched how a woman, being asked by a reporter whether she had come there of her own accord and desire or whether her presence had been requested by officials of the Republican Party, was led away by a Republican protest organizer before she had a chance to answer and watched as this guy looked back over his shoulder towards the reporter and cameraman and said "She has no comment". Now I don't know what that may have told you if you had seen that but I sure as Hell know what that told me.

You might also want to remember that it was Sandra Day O'Connor who was the tie-breaker in that Supreme court vote, and also the fact that she has since expressed some regrets about voting the way she did- and I know what that tells me too.

I have to go along with Patrick Henry- mostly because I believe more in following and doing what is morally and ethically right than I do what is considered legal or lawful.

RRD
:-)

[BoogyMan]

It was proven already that MOST of the so-called Chavez protesters are paid CIA agents...

I am certain you will show this to be a truthful statement that can be verified without doubt as you have made the statement so forcefully.

[Trish]

Trish, I think there's one important and relevant fact that you're missing here, and that is that just because something is legal and lawful doesn't necessarily make it right.



I have to go along with Patrick Henry- mostly because I believe more in following and doing what is morally and ethically right than I do what is considered legal or lawful.

RRD
:-)


I certainly believe in acting in a moral and ethical manner. I have a question for you, however. Whose morals dictate? Whose ethics will be the standard? Mine or yours? Are ours the same? Does the majority of the country share our morals and ethics? If not, how do we determine whose ethics and moral are the best? What about those individuals who have no morals or ethics, or whose moral and ethical views are far outside the mainstream? Doing the right thing simply because it IS the right thing is a wonderful way to live - the only problem comes when what "I" perceive to be the right thing differs from what "you" perceive the right thing to be - and that's why we have laws.

[I Like Beer]

With the United States being a notable one, as we saw, with not only teargas but lethal bullets being fired at unarmed student protesters at Kent State, at the protests in Denver in response to the killings at Kent State and where I myself had been tear-gassed and personally flung the teargas cannisters back at the riot police, and of course the infamous Chicago Police Riot of 1968 where even 70yo men carrying groceries home from the store were brutally beaten by Chicago police.

Why look to Venezuela or President Chavez to find fault for such actions on the part of foreign governmental authorities when we can find such exemplary examples of the same kinds of "oppression" right here in the history of our own country? Or, from what I read in the news a few minutes ago- from our ally in the war on terror President Musharraf and Pakistan- or Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Peru etc, etc for that matter.


Excellent post!

[PatrickHenry]

...that fact alone invalidates your claim that Bush "made himself" a dictator.
I won't sidetrack the thread with more about Bush. Maybe on another thread...

This one is about Chavez, who I like for a couple of reasons.

First, he sees no reason to lick Uncle Sam's culo. That's refreshing in a world where many leaders are so misguided as to think the US stands for something besides tyranny.

Second, Chavez is willing to subvert the globalization manure that proceeds from the IMF and the World Bank. He lends money to nations that the Economic Hitmen are targeting. And his efforts at land reform and other humanistic operations are ongoing. Bravo, Hugo!

[gemosological]

Trish, I think there's one important and relevant fact that you're missing here, and that is that just because something is legal and lawful doesn't necessarily make it right.



I have to go along with Patrick Henry- mostly because I believe more in following and doing what is morally and ethically right than I do what is considered legal or lawful.

RRD
:-)


I certainly believe in acting in a moral and ethical manner. I have a question for you, however. Whose morals dictate? Whose ethics will be the standard? Mine or yours? Are ours the same? Does the majority of the country share our morals and ethics? If not, how do we determine whose ethics and moral are the best? What about those individuals who have no morals or ethics, or whose moral and ethical views are far outside the mainstream? Doing the right thing simply because it IS the right thing is a wonderful way to live - the only problem comes when what "I" perceive to be the right thing differs from what "you" perceive the right thing to be - and that's why we have laws.


"A" question? That was 7 questions, lol! :dizzy:

(1) Whose morals dictate?

I don't think it is so much a question of whose morals dictate as it is what morals will provide and serve the best interests of the greatest number of people in a given society. The morality that best serves the needs and desires of the greatest number of citizens of that society should be the morality that dictates.
That would be my answer to your first three questions.

(2) Are ours the same?

On the personal and individual level they need not be, as long as those morals do not, in general, conflict with the overall agreed upon moral compass of a society.

That would be my answer to questions 4 and 5.

(3) If not, how do we determine whose ethics and moral are the best?

Refer to my answer to your first three questions above.

(4) What about those individuals who have no morals or ethics,...

Those who have no morals or ethics are generally so self centered and self-absorbed that they will eventually engage in actions and behaviors that will exceed "normal" social bounds and will cause harm to others or become a real and present danger to those around them and the society in which they live. That is one of the reasons we have laws- to deal with these kinds of individuals.

(5) ...or whose moral and ethical views are far outside the mainstream?

Morals and ethical views as practiced in a private or personal manner that do not harm or destroy the lives of others around them or the society in which they live are totally appropriate, even if they are far out of the mainstream. The key here is whether or not those morals and ethics have a negative or destructive impact on those around them or the societies in which they live.

(6) Doing the right thing simply because it IS the right thing is a wonderful way to live - the only problem comes when what "I" perceive to be the right thing differs from what "you" perceive the right thing to be - and that's why we have laws.

In way of response to this statement I refer back to the instance of the young woman being led away from the reporter and camera man during the Republican protest of the recount in 2000. In our culture it is generally recognized that such an action is considered a pretty clear indicator that someone doesn't want somebody else to know something, which, in turn, strongly suggests that person has something they want or feel the need to hide. You mentioned that you believe in acting in an ethical and moral manner. We are on the same page in that regard so you will probably understand why, when I see something like I saw on that newscast in 2000 and watched the subsequent legal challenges to that recount brought before the Supreme Court by representatives of the same organization that the gentleman who escorted the lady away was a part of then it does bring some very serious and disturbing questions-and doubts- to my mind. That, in turn, has led to some very serious reservations on my part about the level of justice and the correctness of the Supreme Courts' decision in that case. And that is where- and why- I differentiate between a "legal" decision and a morally and ethically correct one.
In the Bible it is stated that we should obey just authority. And "just" is the operative word in that biblical injunction- and it's not "just" as in 'just any authority' but "just" as in the sense of honorable, ethical, equitable and honest authority.

There is another biblical phrase I remember from the Bible that directly relates to this conversation as well- "...damned are those that say "It is the Law""- basically because those that tend to look at things from only a legalistic standpoint without regards to the rightness or wrongness of what is being addressed and judged- in a case like that at least- cannot possibly come to a fair, viable and honest conclusion or judgment that relates to the real and actual issues at hand.

RRD
:)

[Scorpion]

...that fact alone invalidates your claim that Bush "made himself" a dictator.
I won't sidetrack the thread with more about Bush. Maybe on another thread...

This one is about Chavez, who I like for a couple of reasons.

First, he sees no reason to lick Uncle Sam's culo. That's refreshing in a world where many leaders are so misguided as to think the US stands for something besides tyranny.

Second, Chavez is willing to subvert the globalization manure that proceeds from the IMF and the World Bank. He lends money to nations that the Economic Hitmen are targeting. And his efforts at land reform and other humanistic operations are ongoing. Bravo, Hugo!


Hello PH:

Do you dislike Chavez for any reason?

[preservanation]

PH
First, he sees no reason to lick Uncle Sam's culo. That's refreshing in a world where many leaders are so misguided as to think the US stands for something besides tyranny.Tyranny is all you think the US stands for?
This is ignorant and incredibly misguided.

Tyranny is something you must not be familiar with and cannot accurately identify, or you would not make such an egregious and sophomoric statement.
Either that or you are just trying to be contemptible.
If that was your aim, congrats, you succeeded.

[Interrested]

Disgusting. This man absolutely sickens me, the sooner his country holds a revolution the better, heh.

[gemosological]

Disgusting. This man absolutely sickens me, the sooner his country holds a revolution the better, heh.


Thank you for sharing your opinion with us. Care to tell us exactly why President Chavez sickens you?
Know what I'd be Interrested in seeing? I'd be Interrested- and am looking forward to- seeing what the thoughts and responses are to the ideas and concepts I brought up in posts 46, 48, 50 and 55 from Scorpion, ttriber, Preservanation, Trish, Labrocca, and yourself of course. It doesn't take any great level or depth of thought to say someone sickens you. What does take a deeper level of thought and awareness is the ability to be able to tell us why Chavez sickens you.

Tell me this- did you, or any of the other members of this forum that are participating in this thread I mentioned, like Perez (aka CAP) of Venezuela or Batista, the de facto military leader of Cuba, any better? And if so, why?

RRD
:question: :question: :question:

[preservanation]

Well, since I've never been to Venezuela I'll let Fushar tell you WHY Chavez sickens Fushar.
Please read this, it may change your mind.
I hope so.
I remember a few months ago i made a few threads about the venezuelan situation and explained very well what this was all about. Then someone asked what I thought about the funding or the help chavez is giving to the poor people in the USA, England, and other countries. I was gonna answer that, but i said "f_ck it" and left. But ill answer it now.

That is one of the things that pisses people off here in Venezuela. For example: Why are you helping you neirboughs kids when your own kids are starving and living in poor conditions?. See my point?. Do you really think the poor people in Venezuela is happy to see that chavez is sending money to other countries but DOES NOTHING to help anyone here in Venezuela?. I Tell you what, walk in the poor zones of Venezuela (los Barrios) and you will see chavez IS NOT LOVED. He does have a small percentage of people supporting him, but MOST of the poor do not like him anymore. They have realized that chavez doesnt care about them. Crime, lack of food (ill explain this below), corruption, housing problems, more dirty corruption, threats (support me and go to my meetings or ill fire you from your job), etc. I have to add that some of the people who are actually in chavez´s party HATE HIM. Oh yes, if you are a venezuelan you would know this. People who in the past used to be radical chavez supporters have turned against him. Most show their hatred towards him openly, but there are some who only do it in their houses and in family meetings and such. In other words, a good percentage of people who in public appear as chavists, in reality are not chavists and trully hate him. They just dont want to lose their jobs.

Its easy to realize that chavez wins his elections by fraud, it doesnt matter if Manuel Rosales (who has pacts with the government) admitted that he lost the election last year. People here hate Manuel Rosales too because he has sold Venezuela only to protect his own agenda. The Venezuelan people do not trust the leaders of the opposition either because they are bad too, not as bad as chavez, but they are the type of politicians that would sell their mothers to the devil just for money and to keep their privilegies. What i mean is that the REAL OPPOSITION are the students, the workers and the venezuelan people (poor and middle class, because most of the rich support chavez because he is making them richer). Its shameless how these new-rich-chavez-supporters spend millions buying expensive and luxury cars and at the same time talk about socialism and how being rich is bad. Bulls*it. The honest and hard working poor people hate how they suffer working hard in the sun, breaking their backs, just to get a misery of wage, being exploited by the new-rich chavists, while these dirty new-rich bastards do nothing and get rich in 1 day stealing the money, and show their expensive luxury cars just to show off how rich they are without working.

Hence the reason why the big majority of the poor zones (los barrios) have turned against chavez. Theres nothing wrong in buying expensive-luxury cars and being rich, as long as you actually earned that money fair. But these shameless people STEAL it. Venezuela is the most corrupt country in the western hemisphere, now more than ever. Chavez´s regime is the summay, the bodification, the final expression of all that is perverted, corrupted, evil, etc. In the 40 years before chavez, there was corruption and poverty, but these 8 (almost 9) years have left the previous 40 years in baby steps (in other words, these 8-9 years with chavez have been worst than the previous 40).

So to add humiliation and pain to the injury, now there is lack of basic food (milk, sugar, eggs, etc). People have to spend hours and hours (in large rows) in the stores waiting to get 1 box of milk (leche en polvo), not the liquid milk, but the other one (sorry my english is not 100% perfect, so i dont know the correct word). Yes you can only take 1 per person, and they mark you (some sort of a less obvious rationing list they have in cuba), to prevent you from getting more than 1. The lack of milk make the baby-children cry and the mothers get frustrated and curse chavez, this is common in Venezuela. And these are the excuses government high ranking officials, ministries (ministros, dont know the english word), you know the members of the high gabinet. These are some of the excuses they say:
-"Theres worldwide shortage".
-"Theres shortage because adults are also taking milk, and milk should only be provided for the children. It was capitalism that created that stupidity that adults should drink milk. The reality is that it should only be provided to the children".
- "The opposition is provoking the shortage by buying more milk than they should". Some of them even said: "I saw an old lady carrying 40 kilos of milk, thats why theres no milk for everyone". Wtf? how can an old lady carry 40 kilos (like 110 pounds or something) by herself. Its a lie because you are only allowed 1 kilo (almost like 3 pounds) per person, and in a real country where everything works fine, theres nothing wrong if a person buys whatever ammount of milk they want.

They are making these excuses to hide the truth.

The same is happening with eggs, sugar, etc.

2 main reasons why these shortages are happening:
-Chavez fixed the prices. I mean, the market doesnt work like that. You can put the price you want. Its quantity (how much is in the market) and demand (how much is bought) what puts the price on a product. But since chavez wants to ruin and f_ck everyone up so he can be the only LORD, RICH, EMPLOYER, then its good for him. So the owners of the farms (i dont remember the correct word right now, but the ones who own the cows and produce the milk, the ones who own the chickens and produce the eggs, etc) are going bankrupt and they are selling their lands. These prices only give them losses. For example: Why would you want to invest 100 $ in a business if you only win like 20 $ because the government dictatorially decided the price of the product?.
-Chavez taking over of the productive lands and making a disaster out of them.

Another thing I have to add, is that everytime chavez makes a meeting (and rally) in Caracas, he orders that everyone should go, even people living in another states. He provides the buses to transport the people from another cities to Caracas. Why does he do that?, because HE HAS NO SUPPORT. They make lists there in Caracas, if you dont go you get fired from you job, they threat you like that. Having no job here in Venezuela is hell. Imagine, you get paid a misery for your work, imagine being unemployed. So people go to his meetings forced and threatened. The ironic thing is that HE DOESNT FILL THE AVENUE, HIGHWAY, etc COMPLETELY. Instead the opposition everytime a meeting is called fills any street, avenue, highway, etc, IN ANY CITY of Venezuela. See my point?. Chavez has lost a lot of support.

People dont want their children to belong to the state. 50% of the custody of your children belongs to the state. So i suppose in the future (a few years from now), if you want to leave Venezuela with your children you will have to ask for permission of the state, and if they state (chavez) says no (like he will) then you are f*cked up.

Chavez insults the church, and everyone who is against them.

Now in these lasts days the students have risen and protested hard against the government in many cities of the country (remember the students protests in June after RCTV was taken out?), well its starting to happen once again, this time to reject chavez new reform, which is actually a new communist constitution, similar to the cuban one (private property is not like it used to be, the armed forces are no longer in service of the people but of chavez political party, in other words, in his service and they must be anti-imperialistic. The indoctrination in schools, etc etc etc, i could go on, its a lot of b*llshit). So the students have taken the streets and the sad thing is that the international media doesnt cover it. They dont cover how 2 students were killed and some more wounded by chavists thugs 2 days ago in Maracaibo, the international media have not covered the hard confrontations that are happening in Tachira, where the students got attacked by the chavist police and the students bravely replied back injuring many of these dirty chavist criminal police, and so on so on. The media doesnt care about the truth apparently.

The media only cries about how Bush is Hitler (what a ridiculous comparation) and all that ridiculous b*llshit. But they dont show the real evil that chavez is, nor do they care. Their business is to attack the USA and how "fascist" and "evil" the USA government is, but blind their eyes to the disaster and crimes chavez is doing here in Venezuela.

Another thing that pisses people off here in Venezuela is that chavez and his communist propaganda machinery are saying only the rich are against him and the students protesting are the sons of the rich oligarchy. You cant imagine how that pisses people off, especially in the poor zones, because its them who are getting insulted. Chavez wants to make the people outside venezuela think its the rich who are against him, when in reality it is not that way. Most of the rich support him and the middle (which is dissapearing and becoming poor) and poor class do not (yes a small percentage of poor people support him because they are being manipulated by the government propaganda, but the vast majority dont).

Want to know the truth? Come to Venezuela and find out by yourself.http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=9056&pid=110685#pid110685

[Interrested]

I would've responded, but it seems another thread has replaced that need.

[preservanation]

Some need all the help they can get.

Have a good one Interrested.
Hope to talk at you later.

[Interrested]

I'm sure he just made it up off the top of his head

/sarcasm

In reference to the thread, Fushar's. But I can see you've already attempted to tear that to shreds.

[gemosological]

Quoting Interrested, post # 64:

I'm sure he just made it up off the top of his head

/sarcasm

In reference to the thread, Fushar's. But I can see you've already attempted to tear that to shreds.

Took me all of 90 seconds to accomplish that too, lol!

Am awaiting Preservanation's response.

Read Fushar's opening post in the other thread too. Seems Fushar makes a lot of unsubstantiated statements with no links to back up his/her position. Fushar would do well to provide reputable links and sources to back up those statements and assertions- it would lend Fushar a helluva lot more credence to his/her position if he/she did.

RRD
:-)

[lily]

Fushar is giving his opinion of a country that he lived in. Why on earth would he need links?[hr]

[ttriber]

Quoting Interrested, post # 64:

I'm sure he just made it up off the top of his head

/sarcasm

In reference to the thread, Fushar's. But I can see you've already attempted to tear that to shreds.

Took me all of 90 seconds to accomplish that too, lol!

Am awaiting Preservanation's response.

Read Fushar's opening post in the other thread too. Seems Fushar makes a lot of unsubstantiated statements with no links to back up his/her position. Fushar would do well to provide reputable links and sources to back up those statements and assertions- it would lend Fushar a helluva lot more credence to his/her position if he/she did.

RRD
:-)


Fushar is living in Venezuela as we speak and he is a fellow friend of mine I have sent him a message to see if he can respond to the bold statements you have conspired to believe RRD.

[gemosological]

Quoting Interrested, post # 64:

I'm sure he just made it up off the top of his head

/sarcasm

In reference to the thread, Fushar's. But I can see you've already attempted to tear that to shreds.

Took me all of 90 seconds to accomplish that too, lol!

Am awaiting Preservanation's response.

Read Fushar's opening post in the other thread too. Seems Fushar makes a lot of unsubstantiated statements with no links to back up his/her position. Fushar would do well to provide reputable links and sources to back up those statements and assertions- it would lend Fushar a helluva lot more credence to his/her position if he/she did.

RRD
:-)


Fushar is living in Venezuela as we speak and he is a fellow friend of mine I have sent him a message to see if he can respond to the bold statements you have conspired to believe RRD.


I'm just asking for links from Fushar to substantiate Fushar's stances and views concerning the country he lives in for the same reasons a lot of conservatives demand links from me to back up my assertions about the government and the realities of the country I live in. That's all.

RRD.
:)

[tony mitra]

I wish I knew why a thread on Venezuela should have over sixty passionate posts from folks, presumably most of whom have never been to Venezuela, and have not read the history of that place going back a hundred years or two.

Hugo Chavez is an elected president, same as his predecessor Carlos Andres Perez. It was Perez who came to power just as the OPEC oil shock hit the world and the oil price shot through the roof, catapulting venezuelan economy temporarily through the stratosphere. At that time, most of its oil industry was controlled by western private oil corporations. It was Perez that first stated the process of Nationalization of its iron ore and petroleum industry.

Chavez, if anything, wishes to take that form of Democratic socialism one step further, in an attempt to improve the lot of the poor Venezuelans. While Perez came from a long line of wealthy aristocrats who could probably trace their lineage all the way back to Spain, Chavez traces his lineage more with the locals, and has indigenous afro-local blood in him, and his childhood was dirt poor, lived in mud huts.

During my repeat visits to Venezuela from 1982 for the next twenty years, I have come to believe that there are two Venezuelas. One is in the coastal oil rich cities. This is predominantly white people of European ancestry. And then there is the other Venezuela that starts fifty miles from the towns and goes all the way into the deep interior of the Amazon rain forest and the flooded plains.

I used to comment when I was in Caracas, or along the multiple “oil towns� around the Maracaibo lake area, that if I was only to be watching the Venezuelan private TV channels, I would have guessed that Venezuela was predominantly a “white� nation of all European settlers, and was a rich westernized nation.


But if I step outdoors and go to the local flea market, or better still move fifty miles off the big towns or head into the interior, I would find the other Venezuela. Outnumbering the “white� Venezuela by several fold, this is the silent Venezuela that one would not know existed. These folks are definitely not white, but a mix of indigenous folks and a long chain of mixed blood from around the world. They are dirt poor and live on fringe agriculture and fishing using techniques centuries old. Most of them have never travelled outside their areas and do not even know that the urban Venezuela is incredibly richer than them.

In a democratic society, this is a recipe for political upheavals. I have seen it happen in India, where in the last election three years ago, the ruling party lost the election along with its shirt, although the economy was racing ahead at 9 percent annually and everyone (i.e. the urban, educated, middle class) were busy singing “shining India’ slogans. But this �shine� was not reaching the poorer heartland, which comprised of a whopping 70 percent of the population, a population that was very aware of the inequality, and took their democratic voting rights very seriously, much more seriously than the middle class. The result was an unexpected catastrophe for the “shining India� slogan.

Venezuela, I felt through the nineties, was a political upheaval waiting to happen.

It happened with Chavez at the helm. Whether he is able to deliver the goods or not, he has started to use the oil wealth differently, and relying more on state enterprise than private.

With all due regards to the private wealth in improving infrastructure, Venezuela is extremely poorly connected with its interior. The only exception has been wherever there is natural resource to be found. If there is gold in the Amazon basin, that particular spot gets a lot of investiment, major deforestation and land degradation, and huge terminals churning out ores onto gigantic conveyor belts dumping them on ships to be hauled off somewhere far away. If one talks a look at it from a flying plane, it looks like an angry dusty and muddy scar in the middle of a pristine Amazon basin virgin forest.

Down on the ground, you can see that the laborers come from villages only ten miles from the mine, and yet those villages have practically no modern amenities, no proper school, no road, no hospital, no local TV, no newspaper, no nothing.

In comparison India, another country I have visited often, is where transportation, even if archaic, literally connect all corners through a dense cobweb of interlinked roads and rail system. Dirt poor people can and do leave the heartland in their thousands and flock the rich cities, choking them and taking up local low paying jobs which are still a lot more rewarding than living on the fringes in the interior.

But in Venezuela, there is no way anybody from the interior can easily reach a coastal boom town. No roads, no trains, no nothing. The best way to get to the interior used to be to charter small planes (6 or 8 seaters) that can hop from place to place on dirt tracks that go for air strips into the Amazon belt. Alternately, take a boat and navigate through the myriad of rivers and channels.

Chavez has been spending massive amounts of the oil wealth on infrastructure projects that will not being immediate return for the dollar, but on something that a democratic nation must do, irrespective of short term prospect of return for dollar. It must spend on road and water transport link connecting the country's poor rural heartland with the coast, bring education to the masses. It must learn extend medical care to the jungle interior and mass inoculate the rural kids. He must allow the poorer blocks to begin to take up positions higher up in the rung of the social order. And most of all, he must let democracy reach the interior.


Whether he succeeds or not time will tell. Meanwhile, he remains electorally popular enough to retain power, even if some of the more affluent class might loath him because whenever such social changes do occur, there will be a sense of loss, where the old colonial style of life simply will not come back.

Depending on which side of the divide you are on, you might like or dislike Chavez, and you might help or hinder his efforts. Either way, this probably goes back into grassroot efforts that spans a kind of rich-poor and urban-rural divide that Americans simply cannot fathom easily because such a divide does not exist in the US in quite the same sense. There is in fact no real "remote rural" left anywhere in the US where folks do not know about and cannot go to the rich coastal towns. There is no way one can easily describe Venezuela, or most similar third world nations, with an American perspective.

Meanwhile, all this discussion on capitalism against socialism is, at least to me - a nice academic debate that would probably look good in an Urban town in the west, conducted perhaps in a Saturday club along with some drinks at a snack bar, with a suitable music in the background and large screen TV on the wall showing the latest baseball game.

No disrespect to anyone - this is just my view.

Cheers and have a nice one.
::)

[gemosological]

I wish I knew why a thread on Venezuela should have over sixty passionate posts from folks, presumably most of whom have never been to Venezuela, and have not read the history of that place going back a hundred years or two.

Hugo Chavez is an elected president, same as his predecessor Carlos Andres Perez. It was Perez who came to power just as the OPEC oil shock hit the world and the oil price shot through the roof, catapulting venezuelan economy temporarily through the stratosphere. At that time, most of its oil industry was controlled by western private oil corporations. It was Perez that first stated the process of Nationalization of its iron ore and petroleum industry.

Chavez, if anything, wishes to take that form of Democratic socialism one step further, in an attempt to improve the lot of the poor Venezuelans. While Perez came from a long line of wealthy aristocrats who could probably trace their lineage all the way back to Spain, Chavez traces his lineage more with the locals, and has indigenous afro-local blood in him, and his childhood was dirt poor, lived in mud huts.

During my repeat visits to Venezuela from 1982 for the next twenty years, I have come to believe that there are two Venezuelas. One is in the coastal oil rich cities. This is predominantly white people of European ancestry. And then there is the other Venezuela that starts fifty miles from the towns and goes all the way into the deep interior of the Amazon rain forest and the flooded plains.

I used to comment when I was in Caracas, or along the multiple “oil towns� around the Maracaibo lake area, that if I was only to be watching the Venezuelan private TV channels, I would have guessed that Venezuela was predominantly a “white� nation of all European settlers, and was a rich westernized nation.


But if I step outdoors and go to the local flea market, or better still move fifty miles off the big towns or head into the interior, I would find the other Venezuela. Outnumbering the “white� Venezuela by several fold, this is the silent Venezuela that one would not know existed. These folks are definitely not white, but a mix of indigenous folks and a long chain of mixed blood from around the world. They are dirt poor and live on fringe agriculture and fishing using techniques centuries old. Most of them have never travelled outside their areas and do not even know that the urban Venezuela is incredibly richer than them.

In a democratic society, this is a recipe for political upheavals. I have seen it happen in India, where in the last election three years ago, the ruling party lost the election along with its shirt, although the economy was racing ahead at 9 percent annually and everyone (i.e. the urban, educated, middle class) were busy singing “shining India’ slogans. But this �shine� was not reaching the poorer heartland, which comprised of a whopping 70 percent of the population, a population that was very aware of the inequality, and took their democratic voting rights very seriously, much more seriously than the middle class. The result was an unexpected catastrophe for the “shining India� slogan.

Venezuela, I felt through the nineties, was a political upheaval waiting to happen.

It happened with Chavez at the helm. Whether he is able to deliver the goods or not, he has started to use the oil wealth differently, and relying more on state enterprise than private.

With all due regards to the private wealth in improving infrastructure, Venezuela is extremely poorly connected with its interior. The only exception has been wherever there is natural resource to be found. If there is gold in the Amazon basin, that particular spot gets a lot of investiment, major deforestation and land degradation, and huge terminals churning out ores onto gigantic conveyor belts dumping them on ships to be hauled off somewhere far away. If one talks a look at it from a flying plane, it looks like an angry dusty and muddy scar in the middle of a pristine Amazon basin virgin forest.

Down on the ground, you can see that the laborers come from villages only ten miles from the mine, and yet those villages have practically no modern amenities, no proper school, no road, no hospital, no local TV, no newspaper, no nothing.

In comparison India, another country I have visited often, is where transportation, even if archaic, literally connect all corners through a dense cobweb of interlinked roads and rail system. Dirt poor people can and do leave the heartland in their thousands and flock the rich cities, choking them and taking up local low paying jobs which are still a lot more rewarding than living on the fringes in the interior.

But in Venezuela, there is no way anybody from the interior can easily reach a coastal boom town. No roads, no trains, no nothing. The best way to get to the interior used to be to charter small planes (6 or 8 seaters) that can hop from place to place on dirt tracks that go for air strips into the Amazon belt. Alternately, take a boat and navigate through the myriad of rivers and channels.

Chavez has been spending massive amounts of the oil wealth on infrastructure projects that will not being immediate return for the dollar, but on something that a democratic nation must do, irrespective of short term prospect of return for dollar. It must spend on road and water transport link connecting the country's poor rural heartland with the coast, bring education to the masses. It must learn extend medical care to the jungle interior and mass inoculate the rural kids. He must allow the poorer blocks to begin to take up positions higher up in the rung of the social order. And most of all, he must let democracy reach the interior.


Whether he succeeds or not time will tell. Meanwhile, he remains electorally popular enough to retain power, even if some of the more affluent class might loath him because whenever such social changes do occur, there will be a sense of loss, where the old colonial style of life simply will not come back.

Depending on which side of the divide you are on, you might like or dislike Chavez, and you might help or hinder his efforts. Either way, this probably goes back into grassroot efforts that spans a kind of rich-poor and urban-rural divide that Americans simply cannot fathom easily because such a divide does not exist in the US in quite the same sense. There is in fact no real "remote rural" left anywhere in the US where folks do not know about and cannot go to the rich coastal towns. There is no way one can easily describe Venezuela, or most similar third world nations, with an American perspective.

Meanwhile, all this discussion on capitalism against socialism is, at least to me - a nice academic debate that would probably look good in an Urban town in the west, conducted perhaps in a Saturday club along with some drinks at a snack bar, with a suitable music in the background and large screen TV on the wall showing the latest baseball game.

No disrespect to anyone - this is just my view.

Cheers and have a nice one.
::)


Thank you, Tony Mitra, for relating to us from actual experience what many of us not fortunate enough to have traveled as widely as you have suspected or known about from other sources for many years.

RRD
:thumbsup: :)

[Fushar]

Links? What links? Do you want me to go to the streets and video tape people talking about it?, do you think I have nothing better to do with my life?. Im 23 years old and im a student, about to graduate, I dont have time for that. Sorry if im being rude, i know you americans are too polite and diplomatic but if you lived here like I am, you wouldnt be so polite and diplomatic about this subject. The hatred is at 100% right now. I have to add that as a student it pisses me off that those idiots from the government say we are from the CIA everytime we go to the streets to protest against him. What a bunch of lies. CIA my ass. Sorry for the bad words, but it pisses me off.

Like i said before, wanna know the truth? just come to Venezuela pure and simple.

Now concerning Redsrdead post, you are not really clear man, and i respect your view, but like i said, you are not really clear. You said you came to Venezuela few times and such, thats fine, before chavez Venezuela was not good, but now its even worst, 10 times worst. You seem to be decent so im gonna be decent with you, because at least you take your time to provide information from your experience. About the project chavez is making, he has failed in so many. Why? Because the people he put in charge of those projects TAKES, STEALS, ROBS, whatever you want to spell it, the money. What does chavez do about it? Nothing. Its not good for him, but he simply does NOTHING about it. Theres more corruption than ever, and most of the projects fail because the money invested on them is stolen by those corrupt people he put in charge.

He planned and announced that he was going to make a second brigde on the Maracaibo Lake, he even put the first stone (piedra fundacional), that means, the first stone that begins the works. Wanna know the progress of the work? It was abandoned. There were pictures, but i didnt save them. I didnt know i was going to talk about this. If i knew i would have saved it on my computer and post them here. My point is that 99% of what chavez announces never happen for 2 reasons:
-Corruption.
-Incompetence.

Like i always say, if you want to know the truth, then come to Venezuela and TALK to the poor people in the poor zones (en los barrios y los cerros, im sure you know spanish and know what i mean).

For those who want to believe chavez is some sort of revolutionary hero who helps the poor, you would be very dissapointed if you actually came to Venezuela and realizes he does ALL the opposite. Even the group/people from "Bandera Roja" (Red Flag) who are socialists have turned against Chavez. Why would that be?. Maybe because he is acting like an Emperor and has created the new oligarchy who are the new rich (the chavists who became rich stealing from the people and now rule the country at the expenses of the suffering of the poor).[hr]
Quoting Interrested, post # 64:

I'm sure he just made it up off the top of his head

/sarcasm

In reference to the thread, Fushar's. But I can see you've already attempted to tear that to shreds.

Took me all of 90 seconds to accomplish that too, lol!

Am awaiting Preservanation's response.

Read Fushar's opening post in the other thread too. Seems Fushar makes a lot of unsubstantiated statements with no links to back up his/her position. Fushar would do well to provide reputable links and sources to back up those statements and assertions- it would lend Fushar a helluva lot more credence to his/her position if he/she did.

RRD
:-)


You have visited Venezuela. You have visited India. You can easily travel around the world. Why would you want links? Just come to Venezuela, thats more than what links and pictures would tell you. Just come and talk to the people, not to government officials and rich people, come and talk to the poor in the streets and while you are at it, try visiting a store or a market and try getting milk, eggs, sugar. Lets see how well you do it. Hey btw, i got a video you for about the lack of food. Im pretty sure you know spanish so here it goes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3HcYY5hU2M [hr]Check this out btw:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLYRLw67rfQ

The BBC reporter asked Chavez:

"With so much money in Venezuela, why are you helping other countries and not the people in Venezuela?"

Chavez replied:
Its a stupid question, why would i want to answer a stupid question?, if i answered that stupid question I would be stupid. So theres no answer to that stupid question.

See my point? He doesnt give a darn about the people and when he is asked about it he just doesnt asnwer it and insults the guy with that type of answer.

Well, now that you ask for links and stuff im gonna post in my other thread, some videos about the student protests. Try checking it out.

I apologize for the triple post.

[tony mitra]

Very interesting post, Fusar. I have no doubt your comments are very heartfelt. I did see the U tube link provided and could understand everything the woman was saying. However, I also noted that it was a city scene.

To put that in perspective, I would have liked to also see comments from the interior, where, I believe, Chavez draws his strength. If life there is indeed worse than before, I would say Chavez’s days might be numbered.

Having said that, I have also a few other comments. But first, let us see what a third party, such as The Economist of Londong, says about Venezuela’s economy. The boldface was done by me.

Background:
From 1958 until the mid-1990s, two parties, Accion Democratica (AD) and the Comite de Organizacion Politica Electoral Independiente (COPEI), alternated in power in Venezuela. Frequent economic crises and endemic corruption eventually led to a collapse in their support, culminating in the 1998 election of a former lieutenant-colonel and leader of a failed coup in 1992, Hugo Chavez, with a mandate for radical political reform. MrÂ*Chavez’s policy programme has exacerbated political polarisation, but his hold on power is secure. He survived an attempted coup in 2002 and a revocatory referendum in 2004, and was comfortably re-elected to a third term in December 2006. In the wake of an opposition boycott of the 2005 legislative election, the president has total control of the 167-seat unicameral National Assembly.
Political structure:
Political alienation is widespread and state institutions lack credibility. The 1999 constitution permits one consecutive presidential re-election, and all elected officials can be subjected to revocatory referendums half-way through their terms. The executive, elected by direct vote, dominates the other branches of government: the National Assembly, the judiciary, the Republican Moral Council (an ombudsman) and the National Electoral Council. Constitutional reform (currently before Congress) could further concentrate power in the executive.
Policy issues:
Political radicalisation has been reflected in increasingly heterodox economic policymaking in recent years, for example through the imposition of exchange and price controls in 2003 to arrest capital flight and control inflationary pressures. Both have been maintained since then, but consumer price inflation remains at double-digit levels, owing mainly to the expansionary fiscal stance, which is facilitated by high oil prices. The public finances remain over-reliant on oil revenue, which entrenches cycles of economic boom and bust. High oil prices have increased the disincentives to undertake structural reforms, and facilitated the government’s policy goal of expanding the state-led development model. Policy radicalisation heightens business concerns over contract and property rights.
Taxation: The top corporate tax rate is 34% for non-oil companies and 50% for oil companies. A maximum royalty rate of 30% applies to oil extraction. Following cuts in 2007, from 14%, the value-added tax (VAT) rate currently stands at 9%. A financial transactions tax, originally introduced in 2002 for a one-year period, was eliminated in 2006.
Foreign trade: Exports of US$65bn and imports of US$32bn led to a goods trade surplus of US$33bn in 2006. The current-account surplus reached US$27.2bn (14.9% of GDP).

A few points of note in the above section. First, the corruption. It has been noted that corruption was endemic even before and Chavez inherited a system entrenched into it. If you are only 23, perhaps you have not had first hand experience of it in the past. Nonetheless, Chavez, if he has the vision and the goal, should be able to tackle it for the simple reason that he enjoys high popularity and is perhaps able to rid himself of some corrupt cronies, one at a time, even if each of them are politically important allies. This is where a great politician can differ from an average one - how not to lose power while gradually getting rid of the free loaders.

I shall say something more here about corruption. It is my firm belief that corruption exists in equal measure in political life everywhere, in all countries rich and poor, socialist or capitalist or whateverist. It is there in Canada, USA, all of South America, all of Europe, Australia, Africa, middle east and Asia.

Show me a person that says his/her country has no corruption in politics and I shall show you a liar.

However, the issue of corruption is especially hard on poor countries for a couple of reasons. Whenever a dollar is spent on welfare or infrastructure of whatever that is supposed to benefit the masses, over fifty, sixty or even eighty cents get siphoned off either directly or indirectly, in all nations. But in richer nations, they can spend a lot many more dollars, and hence there is a perception that things are being done. In poorer countries, a lot less dollars get allocated to start with.

The second problem for the poor nations are that they are starting from a low base, and hence it takes that much more time to catch up with the rest. And in todays globally connected world, the poor have a better chance of comparing their lot with others of the same nations, and also for everyone to compare their lot with other nations. Hence this is a major source of friction.

So, there is a greater need for officials in poorer nations to be less corrupt, but their very poverty (in relative terms) proves a greater incentive for corruption.

To me, a greater problem is Chavez's attempts to concentrate power into the executive. He would be better off spreading the power across the system, but in an unstable situation with great divide in economic, and social structures in a country such as Venezuela, I do not know what must come first - the social stability or the economic upliftment. This is where the question becomes difficult.

Giving an example of Asia for the last sixty years, you can draw your own conclusion. There is one nation - Japan, that remained democratic without concentration of power into the hand of any one party, or even the Emperor. It got a lot of US help in reconstruction. Japan was the first to grow rapidly in economy and soon became a giant.

Then came the little tigers - Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong. Three out of four had no democracy, and were ruled by smart people. Out of these three, Hong Kong was a British Colony. The only "Democracy" of sorts, was Singapore - which was in essence a single party rule, with no opposition. This is as close to dictatorship as a democracy can get, in my book.

All these had phenomenal economic growth and hence the name - little tiger economies of Asia.

Then came the giants - China and India. China is a single party communist rule. India has been entrenched in Democracy.

Out of these seven, India was the only one that was Democracy from the start, started from a very low base, and had no economic benefactor or helper, and had to do it on its own and through a Democratic process.

It is no surprise, they say, that India took the longest.

Going by those examples, one could argue that it is better to be a smart strong man first, and chart a path of economic growth first, and individual freedom of speech and democracy later, unless you start from a high base like Japan, or unless you have an US to help you out.

India had no option - it was not geared to be a dictatorship. Any authoritarian rule would have splintered the nation into fragments. Only a disorganized rambanction democracy could keep the disparate sections together.

Meanwhile, Taiwan and South Korea has made belated but successful transition to democracy. Hong Kong has changed hands but is still not a true democracy, and Singapore remains a one party rule in the guise of democracy.

Japan, meanwhile, is running out of steam, and is also fraught with corruption of all sorts. But its individual discipline and technical acumen keeps the country afloat for now, but with gradual lowering of status in the world.

Going by all above, what is right for Venezuela at this point of time is a good question. Should Chavez consolidate power and concentrate on the economy first, or should he try to establish deep rooted democratic systems first and think about the economy later? For sure, a true democracy will be fraught with more corruption at start rather than less. No Government official usually gets fired or goes to jail for corruption in a disjointed democracy still trying to find its feet.

My opinion is that Chavez's greatest challenge is something he has not yet politically acknowledged - that he needs to ween Venezuela off high dependence on oil.

It is my firm belief that any nations that excessively depends on oil, either as an exporter or a consumer, is doomed to get into serious trouble in near future as oil starts getting harder to find. Venezuela is already past its peak production. it has little time to shift gear and find another way of economic stability without depending on oil revenues. This, to me, is the greatest challenge Chavez or anyone else faces for Venezuela.

I shall end here with a graph, this time from latin-focus, on Venezuela's economy in the last 8 or 9 years, with respect to investment, consumption and GDP.
http://www.latin-focus.com/content/countries/ven_gifs/vengdptype.gif

The graph does not tell much except that Venezuela had a topsy turvy time in this decade, dependent on fluctuating oil pricing and supply. What it does not say, for instance, is how the rural folks have done as against the urban folks.

Anyhow, I am keen to hear from others who can throw more light on the issues of Venezuela and indeed the rest of Latin America.

[Fushar]

Ok tony mitra, I read it all and will answer you tomorrow. Its late now. But its good to know at least you know what you say and at the same time trying to be objective and neutral. Ill reply tomorrow. See you.

[gemosological]

Links? What links? Do you want me to go to the streets and video tape people talking about it?, do you think I have nothing better to do with my life?. Im 23 years old and im a student, about to graduate, I dont have time for that. Sorry if im being rude, i know you americans are too polite and diplomatic but if you lived here like I am, you wouldnt be so polite and diplomatic about this subject. The hatred is at 100% right now. I have to add that as a student it pisses me off that those idiots from the government say we are from the CIA everytime we go to the streets to protest against him. What a bunch of lies. CIA my ass. Sorry for the bad words, but it pisses me off.

Like i said before, wanna know the truth? just come to Venezuela pure and simple.

Now concerning Redsrdead post, you are not really clear man, and i respect your view, but like i said, you are not really clear. You said you came to Venezuela few times and such, thats fine, before chavez Venezuela was not good, but now its even worst, 10 times worst. You seem to be decent so im gonna be decent with you, because at least you take your time to provide information from your experience. About the project chavez is making, he has failed in so many. Why? Because the people he put in charge of those projects TAKES, STEALS, ROBS, whatever you want to spell it, the money. What does chavez do about it? Nothing. Its not good for him, but he simply does NOTHING about it. Theres more corruption than ever, and most of the projects fail because the money invested on them is stolen by those corrupt people he put in charge.

He planned and announced that he was going to make a second brigde on the Maracaibo Lake, he even put the first stone (piedra fundacional), that means, the first stone that begins the works. Wanna know the progress of the work? It was abandoned. There were pictures, but i didnt save them. I didnt know i was going to talk about this. If i knew i would have saved it on my computer and post them here. My point is that 99% of what chavez announces never happen for 2 reasons:
-Corruption.
-Incompetence.

Like i always say, if you want to know the truth, then come to Venezuela and TALK to the poor people in the poor zones (en los barrios y los cerros, im sure you know spanish and know what i mean).

For those who want to believe chavez is some sort of revolutionary hero who helps the poor, you would be very dissapointed if you actually came to Venezuela and realizes he does ALL the opposite. Even the group/people from "Bandera Roja" (Red Flag) who are socialists have turned against Chavez. Why would that be?. Maybe because he is acting like an Emperor and has created the new oligarchy who are the new rich (the chavists who became rich stealing from the people and now rule the country at the expenses of the suffering of the poor).[hr]
Quoting Interrested, post # 64:

I'm sure he just made it up off the top of his head

/sarcasm

In reference to the thread, Fushar's. But I can see you've already attempted to tear that to shreds.

Took me all of 90 seconds to accomplish that too, lol!

Am awaiting Preservanation's response.

Read Fushar's opening post in the other thread too. Seems Fushar makes a lot of unsubstantiated statements with no links to back up his/her position. Fushar would do well to provide reputable links and sources to back up those statements and assertions- it would lend Fushar a helluva lot more credence to his/her