Hugo Chavez. You gotta love him....

[Postman]

"Walters asks Chavez about Bush's just concluded five-nation trip through Latin America, asking how he'd rate it on a scale of one to 10. "One," says Chavez. "One, because I am generous. Because it could be minus five."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2953838&page=2


Chavez refuses to endorse an American presidential candidate for 2008, saying that his support would be a burden for the candidate. He does, however, express great confidence that if he could run for president in the United States, he would have no trouble winning and that he could win over any right wing candidate within six months.



Asked about his governing methods, Chavez dismisses the idea that he rules by decree, saying instead that he leads a society that is both socialist and democratic. He calls himself "an enemy of an empire who wants to dominate the world" but a "friend of equality and freedom."

When Walters asks Chavez about the name-calling, he explains it by saying that he wanted his strong words to bring attention to the facts. "Yes, I call him a devil in the United Nations," says Chavez. "That's true. Another time, I said that he was a donkey just because I think that he is very ignorant … about the things that are actually happening in Latin America and the world. If that is an excess on my side, I accept. And I might apologize. But who is causing more harm? He burns people, villages and he … invades nations."

[Kikosexy2]

1. That Hugo-..

a-go-go! You go-go!

[Raskolnik]

2. Yeah, that's some high-level thought from a world leader. n/t

[SpiralHawk]

3. "Who cares what you think?" - Commander AWOL Bush

MORE MORE MORE high level thought from yet another world leader.

[Raskolnik]

14. And what does Bush's (lack of) intelligence have to do with the banal rhetoric from Chavez?

?

[Dave From Canada]

148. You musn't have recieved the memo, if you dislike Hugo Chavez in any way, it

automatically means you're a Bush supporter. I don't know why or how, but that's apparently what it means. Amazing logic on the part of some people. Hasn't history already proven that the enemy of my enemy is my friend isn't exactly the most successful strategy???

[Gabi Hayes]

7. as opposed to, oh, I dunno, say.......THIS guy?

"I believe that man and fish can coexist peacefully"

BRAVO, Mr. President.

Bravo!

[Raskolnik]

17. Was the OP attempting to compare/contrast Bush with Chavez?

Or are you under the mistaken impression that every criticism of Chavez is implicitly a compliment to Bush?

[Gabi Hayes]

31. are you under the mistaken impression that your lame dismissal of

of a rare progressive head of state doesn't IMMEDIATELY bring to mind the most obvious case of an incompetent, deranged puppet playing the role of world leader?

if that's the case, you have no imagination whatsoever, as your hackneyed, boilerplate, obvious response to the OP clearly demonstrates

[Raskolnik]

48. I'll thank you not to apply your limitations to me.

The world I live in has room enough (unfortunately) for a lot more than one head of state I dislike.

I am perfectly capable of both loathing Bush and thinking that Chavez is a jackass. If you are unable to discuss the merits of Chavez' words without making it a contest about which one of us dislikes Bush more, then we're probably done here.

[Gabi Hayes]

54. WOW! you sure are smart to be able to multi-task so swell!

and don't tell me what to think, or how to respond to your scary, multi-tasking intellect.

and the STORIES that you TELL! I want to party with you and your imagination!

while you're forging on into your new intellectual horizons, do yourself a favor and try taking your self more seriously.

try to pontifcate more. it works so very well

[Raskolnik]

67. Thanks.

I appreciate the kind words.

[Dave From Canada]

165. my biggest problem with Chavez is that I'd like to see him conduct himself as more of a

Statesman. He can still get his message out, without resorting to almost child-like antics.

[EFerrari]

32. LOL

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

10. Not from a world leader but from the most progressive leader

in the Western Hemisphere.

Read it and weep.

[malaise]

22. Couldn't say it better

Viva Chavez!

[Raskolnik]

23. I weep if you really think this is the best a progressive leader can do.

His rhetoric is a bit knee-jerk, in my opinion.

[EFerrari]

26. Yes, that is the best any progressive leader is doing in this hemisphere.

He's uniting his region and innoculating it against the predations of these United States.

He's put in literacy programs, neighborhood medical clinics, home ownership programs, school hot meal programs that don't count catsup as a vegetable . . .

He's wresting back his country's resources from the economic hitmen. And, he's survived a CIA backed coup attempt.

And you object to his RHETORIC? Myself, I love that he baits Junior every single day.

::

[Raskolnik]

40. "I love that he baits Junior every single day"

Yes, I certainly understand that is a great source of his popularity.

In my opinion, he's a very astute politician taking advantage of Bush's unpopularity. He's flush with oil cash, which has protected him from making unpopular economic decisions. He usually sticks to this rather simple-minded rhetoric that I detest whenever I hear come from any leader's mouth, whether it be Bush or Chavez.

[Gabi Hayes]

50. Guess what? he doesn't care what you think when he speaks the way he does.

His audience, like the mouth breathers in the US who are appalled by Chavez, yet, at the same time LOVE everything the US does to alienate the rest of the world (because it's all about US, isn't it?) is comprised of those in Latin America who, with very good reason, HATE what US policy has done to them ever since we decided that our destiny was manifest.

the funny thing is that Chavez has done more for more Americans than Bush has ever done

his simple actions speak volumes, as opposed to Bush's less than empty rhetoric, which belies his every action

"Venezuela has fantastic meats...er, uh, Uruguay has fantastic meats!"

[Raskolnik]

62. Again, I am not interested in whether Chavez is combarably better or worse than Bush

I don't care one whit whether you rank one above or below the other. If you really are unable to discuss the merits of Chavez without resorting to a comparison to Bush, I don't really have a lot of interest in taking part.

the mouth breathers in the US who are appalled by Chavez, yet, at the same time LOVE everything the US does to alienate the rest of the world (because it's all about US, isn't it?)

Are you trying to say that a person who dislikes Chavez is a "mouth breather" who must, by definition, "LOVE" every facet of U.S. policy?

[Gabi Hayes]

70. what are you talking about,?

that's not what I said

try reading it again, this time for comprehension

I understand that you have trouble juggling two thoughts in your mind at once

but, please try to compartmentalize

walk

chew gum

breathe

walk

chew gum

breathe

read

type



see how easy?

[Raskolnik]

75. I'm talking about your inablity to discuss Chavez without resorting to a comparison to Bush

Your post(s) feature multiple examples of direct comparisons between the two leaders. I'm not interested in those comparisons. I'm more interested in whether Chavez is objectively desirable as a world leader, not whether he's better than the worse president in U.S. history.

And really, enough with the attempted insults. You're not good enough at it to make it worth it, so let's just discuss things without the silliness.

edit spelling

[pampango]

109. Is this another example of a DU discussion of different viewpoints

degenerating into name calling and denigration of the mental capabilities of those with whom we disagree? I prefer to read a discussion of issues and people here from varying points of view rather than those threads that have multiple "Me, too" or "I hate (or love) him more than you do. No, you don't. Yes, I do." responses.

[ronnie624]

121. You and your ilk

have no interest in discussing the merits of Chavez, which is why you ignored this, from the post above:

He's uniting his region and innoculating it against the predations of these United States.

He's put in literacy programs, neighborhood medical clinics, home ownership programs, school hot meal programs that don't count catsup as a vegetable . . .

He's wresting back his country's resources from the economic hitmen. And, he's survived a CIA backed coup attempt.

These points and many others have been raised in posts too numerous to count, yet you and others like you, dismiss them without comment on a regular basis, and proceed with personal attacks against President Chavez. Some of us find the practice rather irritating.

[EFerrari]

60. I invite you to contrast his speeches last week with Junior's.

There is no comparison.

[Raskolnik]

69. Is that the only way you can discuss Chavez?

By making it a choice between him and Bush?

[EFerrari]

78. Not at all. I'm happy to discuss Chavez any way you can handle

without resorting to red herrings or strawmen.

:)

[SammyWinstonJack]

119. "A great source of his popularity" as you put it, might well be all of the aforementioned

social programs he has put into place for the people he leads. Just a thought. His baiting of george likely has nothing too do at all with his popularity for most admirers here. That's pretty simplistic, don't you think?

[muntrv]

28. And shrub's rhetoric is not knee-jerk? Chavez does a lot more for his

people than shrub does for his.

[Raskolnik]

49. I wasn't aware this was an either/or situation.

I didn't realize we had to admire either Bush or Chavez.

My mistake.

[EFerrari]

83. It's not "either or" but a "mote and beam" situation.

:rofl:

[Raskolnik]

87. And why is that a productive way of discussing things?

In my opinion, discussing things in that manner is pretty much a dead end.

Which brings us to where we are currently.

[EFerrari]

88. It's only a dead end if you don't utilize it as a reality check. n/t

[druidity33]

129. good one! nt

[happydreams]

130. Oh boy, here come the etiquette cops.

:eyes:

[BlackHawk706867]

4. I have been reading these forms for along time, and finally decided ...

to come post!

I love Mr. Chavez, and the way that he thinks about the Venezuelan people...

mw

[Gabi Hayes]

5. welcome! you might be in need of this, as you'll be accused of being a Chavez-idolizing

comsymp!

[pampango]

110. I do feel sorry for those few posters who express support for Chavez.

No, wait. After counting posts and posters on the thread, I am not so sure that posters supporting Chavez are the ones in need of flame proofing.

[ronnie624]

125. Bullshit.

Chavez supporters always source their claims with solid evidence.

It is the detractors who flame with idiotic memes and ad hominem attacks.

[EFerrari]

12. Welcome to DU, BlackHawk706867

:)

[VP505]

20. I don't know

how it is to live under Mr Chavez's government, but anyone who sees Bu$h for what he is and isn't shy to express it, is way out ahead IMO, of some of our own who spend their time being a Bu$h apologist and sliming anyone calling for accountability from bu$hCo.

[immoderate]

30. Welcome to DU, Blackhawk706867!

I occasionally meet people from Venezuela. In my own private poll, they seem to be about 50-50 on Chavez. It's not scientific, most of them are tourists and upscale, business types. That sample should be heavily weighted against Chavez. I think a representative sample would be positive on Chavez, like the elections.

He seems OK to me. I haven't heard of any evil deeds.

--IMM

[rebel with a cause]

149. I knew a young woman from Trinidad/Tobago

which is off the shore of Venezuela, and part of the it's territory I believe. Anyway, she seemed pretty fond of Chavez and the fact that he would not take any BS off of bush. She went home in terror in 2002 because she was afraid bush and the bushettes would go after her country (Venezuela) for its oil. She did not seem afraid of him except for the threat of bush getting mad at him. Now I see what she meant and all I can say is - Viva Chavez! and I hope you are not a d*ck like our VP. ;-)

[NoPasaran]

33. Lucky us!

Lucky Chavez!

[Vidar]

41. Great first post. Welcome to DU.

[donheld]

115. BlackHawk706867 about time you chimed in. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[ncrainbowgrrl]

137. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Judi Lynn]

156. Glad you took the plunge, BlackHawk706867! You'll be at home here, usually.

Your point of view will be appreciated. Welcome.

[Bucky]

6. It's probably a lot easier to love him since it's not your country he's destroying

When Bush is gone, we'll stand a better than even chance of putting the US Constitution back together. I doubt Chavez's successor will find it quite so easy.

[Gabi Hayes]

9. yeah...right

you are kidding, aren't you?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Right.

Because Venezuela's going down hill so fast.

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

18. LOL!

Right! That's why he put in all those literacy programs so people could READ their Constitution.

:rofl:

[Postman]

29. Get real.

Are you from Venezuela?

I wonder why, since he's "destroying the country" (your words), that the Venezuelan people (most of them poor) voted to put him into office (at least twice) and thwarted a rightwing coup attempt in 2002 in a popular uprising.

Yeah, He must be really destroying that country soo much that the people are gluttons for punishment in Venezuela.

Oh, btw, Chavez has been selling oil to poor families in the US for under-market prices so they don't go without heat IN THE UNITED STATES.

Something that A-Hole GWB should be doing.

[Richard Steele]

45. You got a link to back up that opinion? Or just more opinion?

[Selatius]

46. Venezuela's voters don't lie. They like him.

Everybody loves to cite that he has been given "near dictatorial" powers now, but nobody loves to cite the fact quite a few presidents in Venezuelan history have, for a period, exercised power by decree under both the old constitution and the new one. Go back 40 years, and there's a bunch of examples of the legislature giving the power of decree to the executive branch as written in the constitution. This is not something new and unprecedented. This is old-hat in Venezuela, but the nay-sayers would have us think Chavez is doing something new and radical when it's really more mundane in Venezuela.

[gravity]

72. Just like American voters love Bush

Fig. 1. k as a function of the total number of votes on equal scales at each center for manual (left) and automated (right) centers. (Open circles are centers abroad)

What this plot does is to show k as a function of the number of total votes for voting centers of equal sizes, so that no distortions are introduced by the absolute number of voters. What can be seen is that the manual centers show a lot of fluctuations or scatterat smaller centers, which is what you expect. as the number of voters becomes small. This is because k in some sense measures how good a predictor the signatures were of the actual Si vote to recall Chavez, but as centers become smaller, the accuracy will diminish because the statitistics are "worse" since the number of voters is smaller. That is why you see scatter for small number of votes on the manual centers.

The problem is, that since the size of these centers are the same, one should see the same whether the centers are automated or not. But this simply does not happen as seen on the plot on the right for automated centers. In fact, for smaller centers the automated case curiousl seems to show even less fluctuations, which is absolutely counterintuitive. This is further evidence that the automated vote was manipulated at the recall referendum.

Some people have argued that the problem is that manual centers tend to occurr in more rural or sparsely populated areas, so that the data above simply reflect socioeconomic or socio cultural differences between the manual and automated centers.

What Delfino and Salas did the, is to select centers which are classified by the CNE as "Mixed Townships" and "hamlets" and plot the data for these two specifica cases separately. This is shown below in Fig. 2:

More: http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/categories/rrModels/

[EFerrari]

84. You're going to have to translate this for people.

[Selatius]

93. The Carter Center found no discrepancy between the machine count and the paper ballots.

The machines left a paper receipt, and those were compared with the electronic results.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1260

[roody]

102. What has Hugo done to destroy Venezuela?

[Bluedogvoter]

103. I agree.

He may make jokes at the Presidents expense, but he is not a good man.

[Cha]

104. First of all bush is not

the fucking president. And Chavez can call bush on his bullshit anytime he wants since our corporatemediawhores won't do the job.

[Bluedogvoter]

118. He may not have won the election, but he is President

You may be pissed off, but its the reality of the day.

I also have no problem with Chavez making fun of Bush. Even though he is witty, that doesn't change the fact he is a bad person and if you think he is a good guy because he belittles the President you are wrong.

[ronnie624]

151. No Chavez defender

has ever said that they support President Chavez, simply because he criticizes the Bush administration. That refrain is nothing more than a simpleton's meme, designed to belittle those who acknowledge the accomplishments of Venezuela, under the leadership of Hugo Chavez.

The benefits of these accomplishments, to the people of Venezuela, have been discussed here at length over the years, by myriad posters. Such benefits include the opening of many new schools and health clinics, the institution of national nutrition programs, and the funding of literacy programs, which have taught millions of adults to read (obviously, education is very important to the success of a populist revolution, and very frightening to the corporate elites). The Bolivarian Revolution has resulted in almost everyone having access to health care, less poverty and hunger, a lower infant mortality rate, and a dramatic increase in literacy. The economy is one of the fastest growing in the world, and the nation is, over all, much healthier under the leadership of Chavez, than it ever has been in its history.

There are many reasons to think of Chavez as a "good guy". His amusing criticism of George Bush is just icing on the cake.

[rman]

107. nothing but unsubstantiated accusations,

as usual.

[arikara]

127. LOL!

That's too funny!

Sure the dems will rescind the patriot act. You do have a point about a Chavez successor, the people might not like their oil revenue going back to the corporations now that they're used to having some benefit from it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. No Ya Don't. In Fact, I Find It Quite Easy To Think Of Him As A Typical Political Piece Of Shit.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Yeah, that fuckface needs to lighten up.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

21. I Don't Care If The Fuckface Lightens Up Or Not. I Still Consider Him To Be A POS.

But feel free to think of him however you like. You have your opinion and I have mine.

[happydreams]

131. We must be rational Crime of the Mind. You said it. nt

[happydreams]

155. Your reasons? Remember: be "rational".

[happydreams]

166. Goddamnit Mindcrime!! Give us a wittle reason eh!

[Cha]

105. Yeh, too fucking heavy on the

jokes at pissybush's expense.

[EFerrari]

16. Despite all the facts to the contrary? That's real strength of character.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. There Are Always Facts To The Contrary. Every POS Generally Has Some Good.

But it's the facts not to the contrary that makes him a typical political piece of shit in my opinion.

To each their own opinion.

[EFerrari]

24. I'm going to be very sorry I asked this, lol, but what facts to the

contrary do you have?

lol

(Time to start that reconciliation thread. :rofl: )

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. Between His Childish Rhetoric, Ruling By Decree, Closing Down Media,

close relationship with the psycho from Iran, close relationship with the other piece of shit in Cuba, and a whole lot of other things that have soured my views on him.

Now I respect and understand his generosity in giving away the heating oil to the poor here. That is honorable and I'm quite pleased he does it. But overall, he's just another run of the mill power hungry and childish piece of shit political leader who can't be trusted. Sure, he has his good, but so do most pieces of shit.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Hmm.

1. "childish rhetoric" You mean you don't like him criticizing Bush? Because I know you're fond of childish rhetoric, e.g. "lighten up, Fuckface".

2. "Rules by decree" Which particular decrees he's made have you taken objection to?

3. "Closing down the media" you mean the ones that blatantly violate Venezuelan law?

4. "close relationship with the psycho from Iran... piece of shit from Cuba"



Do you think they're this close?

5. Could you, OMC, identify Venezuela an unmarked map of the world without cheating? How about South America?

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Postman]

56. Touche.

n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. So Weak.

1. "childish rhetoric" You mean you don't like him criticizing Bush? Because I know you're fond of childish rhetoric, e.g. "lighten up, Fuckface".

Like his blatantly childish and provocative rhetoric. It's quite pathetic to see from a world leader.

2. "Rules by decree" Which particular decrees he's made have you taken objection to?

Listing actual decrees I do or don't disagree with is irrelevant. It is the concept itself that is the problem. I'm amazed you couldn't understand that.

3. "Closing down the media" you mean the ones that blatantly violate Venezuelan law?

Bzzzzzzztttt. Wrong, nice try. How bout the ones he disagreed with.

4. "close relationship with the psycho from Iran... piece of shit from Cuba." Do you think they're this close?

Yet another irrelevant argument from you. One has nothing to do with the other. Again I find myself amazed you would think an ignorant premise that shrub being a piece of shit somehow minimizes the capability for Hugo to be one as well. Pretty weak debate tactic there.

5. Could you, OMC, identify Venezuela an unmarked map of the world without cheating? How about South America?

Absolutely to both. But nice attempt at a personal attack there bub. Not surprising, it's all I've generally ever seen from you. Why should you stop the childishness now?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. ...

1. "childish rhetoric" You mean you don't like him criticizing Bush? Because I know you're fond of childish rhetoric, e.g. "lighten up, Fuckface".

Like his blatantly childish and provocative rhetoric. It's quite pathetic to see from a world leader.

It's pathetic seeing somebody complain about it, when they're guilty of it themselves

2. "Rules by decree" Which particular decrees he's made have you taken objection to?

Listing actual decrees I do or don't disagree with is irrelevant. It is the concept itself that is the problem. I'm amazed you couldn't understand that.

I might believe you here, if you complained also about the Venezuelan Constitution which allows it, the other Venezuelan presidents who've used it, or all the other democracies in the world with similar systems. But you don't, so I think it's a phony complaint. I'm not surprised you don't understand that.

3. "Closing down the media" you mean the ones that blatantly violate Venezuelan law?

Bzzzzzzztttt. Wrong, nice try. How bout the ones he disagreed with.

He hasn't shut down the ones he disagrees with. Just the ones that broke the laws.

4. "close relationship with the psycho from Iran... piece of shit from Cuba." Do you think they're this close?

Yet another irrelevant argument from you. One has nothing to do with the other. Again I find myself amazed you would think an ignorant premise that shrub being a piece of shit somehow minimizes the capability for Hugo to be one as well. Pretty weak debate tactic there.

Actually, what's the weak tactic is the argument that because he has diplomatic relations with unpopular leaders means he agrees with those leaders. After all, Gandhi called Hitler his "dear friend", yet I don't think you complain about Gandhi. At least for that reason.

5. Could you, OMC, identify Venezuela an unmarked map of the world without cheating? How about South America?

Absolutely to both. But nice attempt at a personal attack there bub. Not surprising, it's all I've generally ever seen from you. Why should you stop the childishness now?

I mean without googling it first, silly.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. Even Weaker.

"It's pathetic seeing somebody complain about it, when they're guilty of it themselves"

Yeah, I'm a world leader now. This has to be one of the silliest arguments I've seen from you. I mean, were you actually serious?


"I might believe you here, if you complained also about the Venezuelan Constitution which allows it, the other Venezuelan presidents who've used it, or all the other democracies in the world with similar systems. But you don't, so I think it's a phony complaint. I'm not surprised you don't understand that."

What part can you not get through your head about him choosing to use the concept itself is what I take issue with? Geez, it's like you just don't even try to understand the point. Furthermore, when someone starts posting bow down and worship threads on past Venezuelan leaders or others doing the same than maybe I absolutely will post complaints as well. But to currently use that as evidence somehow is amazingly misguided. You also continue to put forth this misguided premise that what others do somehow directly affects the perception of what he does. We're talking about him here. Opinions and references about him are all that is relevant. Not sure why you can't grasp that either.



"He hasn't shut down the ones he disagrees with. Just the ones that broke the laws."

So says you. But I consider that to be bullshit and a warped perception of reality. What I love about this concept is how foaming at the mouth you and others would be if the same things were to be done here. I hate hypocritical premise.



"Actually, what's the weak tactic is the argument that because he has diplomatic relations with unpopular leaders means he agrees with those leaders. After all, Gandhi called Hitler his "dear friend", yet I don't think you complain about Gandhi. At least for that reason."

Now you're being quite disingenuous. This isn't just diplomatic relations. He has made clear his agreement with them. You seriously didn't know this? Wow, you were more uninformed about the truth of Hugo than I gathered. Read up on it.


"I mean without googling it first, silly."

Awwww, that was cute. Yet more mindless childish attack. Makes me laugh really. You think it makes you cool, but really it just makes you weak.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

86. ..

"You think it makes you cool, but really it just makes you weak."

Yes, I'm sure that I'm the one who has to worry about what other people are thinking of me.

:rofl:

[Selatius]

94. The television network in question supported the military coup d'etat against the gov't.

Of course they were going to get in trouble. The network itself is still broadcasting. What's different is the corporation that ran the network has lost its license, so the network will be handed over to another corporation or be turned over to the workers themselves. If CNN had done the same thing against Bush during a hypothetical coup against him, CNN would lose its license as well.

[Selatius]

80. The fact is "rule by decree" has been exercised repeatedly even before Chavez

In fact, under both the old and new constitutions, the provision exists within both. If the Venezuelans had such an issue with it, they would've removed it when they held a constitutional convention in the late 1990s. As it stands, if you want to hurl criticism about the rule by decree provision written into their constitution, then your beef is not with Chavez but with the people down there for writing the constitution.

[EFerrari]

57. His rhetoric may not communicate to you, but it's done just fine

all over Latin America (and in the UN, where it got applause). Ruling by decree for a limited time and for a specific task has been done before in Venezuela, no matter how our whore press tries to misrepresent it. Our own media is subject to consequences if they'd ever have the balls to engage in sedition which has been the situation in Venezuela because the wingnuts there own the media just as they do here.

As far as his relations to Iran and Cuba, our Dear Leader is anathema for most of the rest of the world and has relations with those POS plural in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and China.

:shrug:

[camero]

114. Well, he's not the only one that rules by decree

I think Bush's "decree" would be the executive orders which allow him to interpret the constitution to his liking in spite of congressional intent. The difference is Chavez uses his decrees to reduce inequality in his country while Bush and pals use decrees to shred our bill of rights.

[druidity33]

132. shhh, don't you know...

you're not allowed to compare our *resident to Chavez... it somehow defeats your argument! Everyone should hate Chavez since he's obviously a politician and a POS too! He's decreeing all over the place! And, and, and he's so... mean, or something. Definitely not a good man. Definitely not. No sir. Nope. He doesn't do any good for any one, nuh uh.









dripping
:sarcasm:

[JackRiddler]

141. "Closing down the media"

This is your sinister euphemism for refusal to renew a broadcast license granted to a corportation when it comes up for review. (A corporation that supported a coup against the elected government of Venezuela but was nevertheless allowed to continue broadcasting until its license came up four years later.)

If I were president, the FCC would revoke all current broadcast licenses when they come up for review, and re-distribute these to start-ups who aren't allowed to own more than one channel in any market - and none at all to entities that also own a daily newspaper in the same market.

Free TV time for political campaigns, doled out to everyone on the ballot, would become a requirement of licensing.

You want to call that closing down the media? Fine.

[1932]

153. You should google the scope of the decree powers. You might be surprised.

Also, when did he close down the media?

As for the rhetoric, it's mild to the rhetoric the US has used to justify its foreign interventions.

[Judi Lynn]

158. Wasn't it Reagan who started calling other governments "evil?"

Now that's a step straight backwards, isn't it? Right back into the Dark Ages.

[1932]

163. ...and then killed people in those countries because they were evil.

Chavez is only making jokes. Yet Stoessel seems more worried about Hugo.

[Gabi Hayes]

36. heh...one thing you can COUNT on in these oft occurring threads is the

almost completely FACT free ad hom attacks on Chavez.

can't we just go back to halcyon Cynthia McKinney bashing days of yore?

at least she's an American! and a democrat, to boot. we do such a great job of eating our own here

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. So Sorry. I Was Unaware This Was Meant To Be A Brainless Walk In Lockstep Or Die Thread. My Bad.

And for what it's worth, I'm allowed to have any opinion on any subject I want without having to gain your approval or provide some court worthy documentation of how and why I forged my opinion.

The thread says ya gotta love him. I said no ya don't, and in fact it's quite easy for me not too.

Ain't a damn thing wrong with that really. And furthermore, though Cynthia deserved probably every bit of ridicule she received, she was in fact one of our own. Hugo isn't.

[Postman]

64. You're correct.

You're entitled to your own opinion. No matter how misinformed it may be.

You don't like Chavez. I get it.

Doesn't mean he ain't doing the right thing by the Venezuelan people no matter what you or I think.

Go Hugo.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

68. Doesn't Mean Ya Have To Love Him Either.

And because you do doesn't me he is doing right by the Venezuelan people either.

That's way it's up to each person to forge their own opinion. Don't let the concept bother you so much.

[Postman]

76. Ahh...yeah

Usually one forges an opinion using facts and historical background.

Apparantly others, don't.

Quite honestly, I don't care if you love him or not. In fact, I, myself, don't "love him"...it was a figure of speech that was apparantly lost on you who it seems took it literally.

(in the words of Fox News) I wish you well.

[Warren Stupidity]

96. OMC breaks out in a rash whenever a HC thread starts. nt.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

100. It's Called Alternative Opinion. Makes This Community Better.

If mindless worshipping lockstep threads went unopposed, that would not be a very good thing.

[Warren Stupidity]

95. If he is not 'doing right by the people'

they are free to vote his sorry ass right out of office anytime they choose. Why aren't they doing that? Why when we helpd stage a recall election, did it go down in flames? Why when Chavez ran for re-election, did he win by a huge majority?

Doing right by the Venezuelan people, or doing right for what you think the Venezuelan people want?

[ronnie624]

124. As of yet, you have expressed no opinion.

You have only engaged in name-calling, attempts at character-assassination, and the repeating of simplistic memes, which on closer scrutiny, always turn out to be utterly false.

Have you nothing to say about the incredible economic growth, the radical decline in poverty, the falling infant mortality rate, or the dramatic increase in literacy in Venezuela? How about Chavez's stunning popularity, or the fact that millions of Venezuelans poured into the streets, to prevent the coup d'etat against their elected government?

It would be nice to see you address these points, instead of dropping into a thread like gang-busters, squawking and screeching, "rule by decree!", "dictator!", "piece of shit!".

I guess I can rest easy, knowing that a thinking individual who values the truth, will not be fooled by such nonsense.

[PassingFair]

162. You forgot...

"Commie"

That's really what the knee-jerking is all about....

...JERKING all over the place every time the
thought of CASTRO flits any where NEAR ...

[scarletwoman]

42. Apparently you believe that no Chavez thread is complete without you chiming in to dis him.

If you have nothing of actual substance to offer by way of a counter-argument, why do you bother?

OMC goes on record once again (ad nauseum) to declare that Chavez is a "piece of shit" -- big fucking deal. It's pathetic.

sw

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. That's So Cute How You Act Like It Is Forbidden In This Thread To Express Personal Opinion.

Pretty funny too. I must've missed the "you must not think for yourself and are expected to walk in lockstep with the Hugo Chavez worshiping cult mentality or you will be attacked. Conform! Conform! Conform!" tag attached to the thread. :rofl:

[scarletwoman]

77. Oh bullshit. If you feel such a strong need to offer your opinion, then back it up with a rationale.

Otherwise, why the fuck should anyone give a shit about what you think?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

81. Couple Of Points.

1. Thread said ya gotta love him. I chose to be lighthearted about the statement and reply with no you don't, in fact I find it easy to think him a piece of shit. Guess what: In reply to the OP my statement was perfectly fine and appropriate with no further need of justification. No matter how red in the face you want to get claiming such, it simply isn't true. This wasn't some fact based thread touting his accomplishments, that I just walked in on and said something attacking with nothing to justify it. No, not like that at all. Simple light OP, simple light response. Nothing more was required. Deal with it.

2. Once asked for rationale, I freely gave it. For reasons unknown you seem to continue to want to ignore that simple fact.

3. I couldn't give a rats fat ass who gives a shit about what I think.

[scarletwoman]

97. Here goes: I responded to a post you made at 5:58. My post went up at 6:13.

You replied to my post at 6:16. My reply to your 6:16 post went up at 6:42. Your reply to my 6:42 post went up at 6:45 (you are obviously a much faster composer and typist than I). In the meantime I had also replied at 6:37 to a 6:20 post by Donald Ian Rankin.

In between the times of the exchanges between you and me, I read a few more posts on this thread BELOW my latest posts -- therefore, I did not see all the posts ABOVE my initial post, wherein, you did indeed offer some rationales for your opinion in response to OTHER posters on this thread.

You posted replies to other peoples' posts at 6:09 & 6:11 (while I was composing my 6:13 post), 6:14 (while I was reading posts below my initial 6:13 post), 6:21 (while I was reading D.I. Rankin's 6:20 post), 6:29 & 6:36 (while I was composing my 6:37 reply to Rankin's post).

So, no, I did not keep up with everything you posted to other folks here while I was either reading other peoples' posts on this thread or replying to yours.

I stand by my original comment. Ever since you have been on DU, I've not seen a single Chavez thread wherein you did not jump in and immediately start calling him names ("piece of shit", "thug", etc.). My irritation at your habitual ad hominens got the better part of my discretion. My bad.

[Warren Stupidity]

98. But it is forbidden!

Read the rules:

"OPERATIONMINDCRIME is not allowed to post his opinions about Hugo Chavez"
- the management.

Read 'em and weep.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

101. LOL

Ok, that DEFINITELY made me laugh. Thanks for the levity. :)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

51. Any thread saying "you've got to love Chavez" deserves to be challenged.

Chavez undeniably currently has a democratic mandateat present - so did many other leaders who went on to become dictators - but he's repeatedly demonstrated (by his suppression of the media, repeated increase of his own personal powers, policies designed to increase his own popularity at the expense of Venezuela's national interest etc) that his committment to democracy is only skin deep, and that he has no intention of leaving power.

He's done some good things - if he were to leave power tomorrow his legacy would be more positive that not, by a considerably margin - but he's a tupenny-hapenny autocrat who hasn't needed to show his true colours yet, and watching DUers fawn over him just because he's rude about Bush is one of the most depressing things I've seen.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. Absolutely And Well Said.

[scarletwoman]

I have absolutely NO problem with the OP's opinion being challenged with an actual counter-argument.

You, for example, have offered an actual rationale for your opinion -- as opposed to simply calling Chavez nasty names.

Everyone has opinions. If a person can't be bothered to back up their opinion with a reasoned argument then that opinion does absolutely nothing to further the discussion. It's just egositic mastabatory spewing.

sw

[EFerrari]

91. Bull. He didn't suppress the media that tried to depose him

illegallly, he didn't increase his executive powers himself and Venezuela is THRIVING. Venezuela is giving charity to US.

Maybe a fact or two would decrease your depression.

[pretzel4gore]

99. look what happened with Saddam

it started with demonization, and built up from there. 3200 american troops are now dead. And Iraq lies in ruins. President Chavez comes to us viz the newsmedia, which covered up the Downing Street Minutes, and has never mentioned, unless in a setting watched by political junkies, the weird USAF/Norad air exercises being held on sept 11th/01... yet you take issue with Chavez! When the BBC was broadcasting live on sept 11/01, at about 5 in the pm, the woman was saying that WTC 7 had collapsed, though it was STILL clearly visible, live on the screen, behind her! A mixup at the BBC somehow slipped into the real world and was recorded all over the place (the BBC pulled the plug on the correspondent minutes prior to the WTC 7's actual collapse- and BBC has since claimed it 'lost' the footage from that time period/broadcast!)
All this says is that President Chavez is up against some pretty nasty fukkers, and his very survival says that there's HOPE, for us...not much hope, mind you...
oops http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001730
northern vigilance... http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?before_9/11=militaryExercises&timeline=complete_911_timeline

[Donald Ian Rankin]

117. That's a non-argument.

Boiled down, you appear to be saying:

Bush and the conservative media said Saddam Hussein was bad.
This lead to the Iraq war.
The Iraq war was a bad thing.
Bush and the conservative media are saying Chavez is bad.
Therefore saying Chavez is bad is bad.
Therefore Chavez is not bad.

To quote W. S. Gilbert, "These arguments sound very well, but I can't help thinking that, if they were reduced to syllogistic form, they wouldn't hold water".

I quite agree that many of Chavez's critics are deeply unpleasant individuals. However, being the enemy of my enemy does *not* make him my friend.

Incidentally, you talk about the "demonisation" of Saddam; do you think that he didn't deserve to be held in the utmost opprobium for his vast numbers of killings?

[pretzel4gore]

146. saddam was a political player in the middle east

he has syria, iran, kuwait, jordan, saudia arabia and turkey surrounding him. israel is only a few hundred miles away, and israel is a nuke power. As recent events indicate, the shiite/sunni/kurdish elements saddam rode herd on, are very very brutal looking out for their own interests, and needed a firm hand, like tito in yugoslavia. For you rightwing guys to judge saddam hussein, accuse him of murders w/out any evidence not made up by a US pr firm, and continue to slander a man who noone denies ran iraq pretty goddam well (iraq was one of the few 3rd world nations enjoying nearly full literacy, regardless of sect or gender, another one is cuba...)
saddam was a honourable man compared to bush and blair, and your offhand slandering his name and record says it's you who thinks what foxnews tells you to think you think you think you think...
btw if saddam can be criticised it is precisely for his working with the US/british etc intelligence agencies- saddam knew damn well what them racist pigs thought about poor countries like iraq, yet he went along with them too often...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

154. That's unbelievable.

I'm inclined to give up on you, but for the benefit of any lurkers reading this thread and getting lost in that interminable paragraph, let me highlight some phrases:

"For you rightwing guys" - I do love a nice unsupported personal attack. I don't use the "alert" feature, but you sorely tempt me to.

"to judge saddam hussein, accuse him of murders w/out any evidence not made up by a US pr firm" - so all those kurds, marsh arabs etc killed themselves? This is only marginally less contemtible than holocaust denial, and just as much in defiance of the evidence.

"and continue to slander a man who noone denies ran iraq pretty goddam well" - well, apart from the brutal supression of all political opponents and individual liberty, the mass murders, the invasion of Kuweit etc...

"saddam was a honourable man compared to bush and blair" - not a terribly strong claim, but one that I think is a) absurd, unless you're using a very warped definition of "honour", and b) very telling about your double standards.

"and your offhand slandering his name and record says it's you who thinks what foxnews tells you to think" - again, I do love unsupported personal attacks.



May I say that I think that your grasp of political realities is matched only by your prose style.

[pretzel4gore]

161. thanks. first reading your diatribe, i thought i was in for a putdown!

c/mon Donald, i only hold Saddam up cuz he's dead; and the history of the effect he had on Iraq is still to be written, i think we can agree. And blairbush were instrumental in his downfall! That set up my defending of him- i despise g bush and t blair only because i know we are better people then those 2 indicate by their crass leaderships. I shouldn't have referred to 'rightwing guys' with you then getting sideswiped, as that does not really decribe you, or indeed anyone on DU. ..I'm sorry. That was unnecessary, and wrong. The OP was about Hugo Chavez, who's dearer to my way of thinking more then Saddam, and it was the criticism of Chavez that was inplied in your comments that was the bee in the bonnet...

[rman]

123. Are there any politicians that you think are not a piece of shit,

any politician that has only good and no bad?

[druidity33]

135. i think

The answer to that one might give him away. Who d'ya think? Goldwater? Nixon? Raygun?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

139. That's So Weak. You Can't Do Any Better Than That? For Real?

Ohhhhhhhh OMC must be a freeper! He doesn't like savior Chavez! And if someone doesn't agree with ME and think EXACTLY as I do on a given topic then they just MUST be FREEPERS!

God it's just so ridiculously silly when posters can only respond with such weakness. I mean seriously, you can't do any better than such tactics? I know you can. Give it a try.

[druidity33]

142. well then answer the question

Who's your favorite politician? Better yet, give us a list...


Go Sabres!

Viva Chavez!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

143. You Seriously Need To Pay Attention.

It has already been answered prior to even my initial reply to you.

Furthermore, your continued attempt, even if made in ignorance, to put forth a premise that I'm a freeper because I don't think like you do, is still pathetic. You really are being so silly. :silly:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

138. There Are Quite A Few. My Main Pick Would Be Barbara Boxer.

For a politician, I trust her fully. But you also warped the definition. I never said they had to be ALL good. It's the level of their bad which determines whether or not they are pieces of shit. Wouldn't you agree?

[Postman]

34. New York Rangers Suck

Just my opinion.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. Pretty Much. Not Sure What Their Problem Is But Thankfully They've Been Doin A Bit Better As Of Late

Hopefully they'll continue to play stronger and figure out how to protect a GODDAMN LEAD!

Regardless, I still fail to see what the hell that has to do with this thread, so try and stay on topic LOL

[gravity]

39. I agree

Chavez and Bush are like two kids when it comes to politics.

[dweller]

13. - 5

is being generous.

dp

[scarletwoman]

25. Barbara Walters interviewing Hugo Chavez?!?! Isn't that like mixing matter & anti-matter?

Will Friday night's broadcast of this interview cause a collapse of the time-space continuum? :scared:

Seriously though, this is pretty far out. I will definitely tune in on Friday night to watch this, even though I can't stand Baba Wawa -- but I AM fascinated by Chavez.

Thanks for the heads up!

sw

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

92. LOL!

[Richard Steele]

27. Recommended.

[cali]

38. I don't love bombast, and he's nothing if not bombastic.

Call it a gut feeling, but I don't trust him. But then, there are very few politicians I do trust.

[rman]

112. Look at what he does, don't only listen to what he says.

I think politics is best approached rationally, not with your gut.

[cali]

113. Politics may be best approached rationally, but my

gut has served me reliably when it comes to human beings, and let's face it, politics is a human endeavor, therefore I employ both my gut and my head in assessing political figures. I've admired some of what Chavez has done, but I'm not about to totally discount his speech as one tool for assessing him.

[rman]

122. What has Chavez said that makes you concerned?

[Balbus]

59. I don't like whiners..

And that's all this third-world, asshat, dictatorial, piece-of-shit Chavez knows how to do: whine.

[EFerrari]

61. No. If he whined, no one would notice. He challenges Junior

and he does it in public.

And since when was "third world" an insult, progressive? :wow:

[Gabi Hayes]

73. isn't it amazing? what is it about chavez' attempt to change the economic

landscape of his nation, for hundreds of years held in subjugation?

I can't believe the hatred felt for him, backed by nothing but MISINFORMATION, mischaracterizing what he's done, and LYING about basic facts, one of the most obvious being his refusal to EXTEND the LICENSE of one TV station that has acted in provably treasonous fashion over the years

he DID not shut down a TV station, much less MORE than ONE, you fucking LIARS who keep insisting upon that

when you make accusations like that, WITHOUT PROOF, you're WORSE than those who do the same thing on the other side, because you advance THEIR cause with your misstatements

it's very very sad to see this sort of thing happening here

thanks for reminding me

[EFerrari]

82. It is amazing.

:shrug:

[Ron Green]

85. The power of Empire will be reined in very painfully, and there are some even at DU who

are in its grip.

[EFerrari]

89. Sometimes, we learn too well. n/t

[INDIA]

164. Is that you Luke Skywalker? n/t

[High Plains]

160. Wow, thanks for that enlightening analysis.

"this third-world, asshat, dictatorial, piece-of-shit Chavez"

[Ron Green]

63. His bombast and rhetoric are understandable and timely,

given the current toxic domination of the Western Hemisphere by the little pissant in the White House. I'm willing to cut him some slack on style in view of his substantial activities.

[mdmc]

65. God Bless him

[EFerrari]

79. His hyperbole reads well in Latin America. It's a cultural taste. n/t

[RB TexLa]

74. No, I don't gotta

[The Doctor.]

90. Really starting to like the guy.

[Cha]

106. Yeh, you do! I'd really like to

go to Venezuela someday and see Angel Falls and check out the lay of the land.

[ellisonz]

108. I don't swing that way.

:evilgrin:

[Swamp Rat]

111. "He burns people, villages and he … invades nations."

[rman]

116. "bombastic"

It used to be that Chavez was "increasingly authoritarian", in spite of the fact that after some 8 years or Chavez there's still no evidence to support the claim.
The new talking point seems to be that he's "bombastic".


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bombastic
...
"—Synonyms pompous, grandiloquent, turgid, florid, grandiose. Bombastic, flowery, pretentious, verbose all describe a use or a user of language more elaborate than is justified by or appropriate to the content being expressed. Bombastic suggests language with a theatricality or staginess of style far too powerful or declamatory for the meaning or sentiment being expressed..."


So, can someone explain how it is that Chavez' use of language is "more elaborate than is justified by or appropriate to the content being expressed" or "far too powerful or declamatory for the meaning or sentiment being expressed"?

Does it apply to such statements as "Bush is a donkey", "Bush is a devil" or "Bush is an imperialist"?
If not, than what statements of Chavez does it apply to?

And then still, is that all you got? That the problem with Chavez is in the way he expresses himself? How is the way in which the man talks more important than his policies?

[EFerrari]

126. Because we at DU don't call Junior a chimp, a felon or a moron.

I think there is a bit of protecting against the Outsider in all of this, i.e., I can call out my dim son but don't YOU do it! :)

[happydreams]

134. I think candid is more like it.

[Larkspur]

120. Viva Hugo Chavez!!!

I "heart" Hugo Chavez, and I'm a granddaughter of Irish and Lithuanian immigrants. Maybe my ancestors' rebellious history is what attracts me to Hugo.

I wish we could clone his backbone and infuse it into our Dem leaders.

[stirlingsliver]

128. Chavez Has Long Been A Hero Of Mine

Chavez has long been a real hero of mine.

He cares about the dispossessed of Venezuela, and of poor people everywhere.

He is also a hero because he delights in afflicting the comfortable.

[EFerrari]

133. Welcome to DU, stirlingsliver

:)

[Megahurtz]

136. HUGO - A - GO - GO!!!

:bounce:

[murloc]

140. I don't like the fact that he is now a "dictator lite"

But his heart is in the right place and he seems to be doing good things.

Honestly I don't think that I would like to see anyone in America wield such powers, but it seems to work quite well in Venezuela.

[Judi Lynn]

145. He was elected last December for 6 years. Is that what you mean?

He was elected originally in December 1998, and was sworn in on February 2, 1999.

After a constitutional convention, Venezuelans re-elected him a year later or so, for 6 years. He is currently serving his SECOND 6 year term.

We've had some creative history types around here, but there are some actual facts involved which can't be bent for a political advantage.

[murloc]

147. Yes, your facts are correct.

My concern is the rule by decree powers that were recently granted (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6315819.stm) . Anytime someone wields absolute power there is the possibility that it could be abused - even if they came to those powers honestly and democratically. Could you imagine if the previous Congress had granted Bush absolute power for 18 months? I suppose that that would tickle rightwingers fancy, but it would solidify the end of Democracy here in our country as I'm certain Bush would never relinquish it.

In the case of Chavez so far, that has not been the case. Far from it. Chavez is doing wonderful things with reorganizing Venezuela and its industries. Heck he is even doing good things HERE in our country.

If you look at this history of Venezuela, they have embraced rule-by-decree in the past and seem to have returned back to Democracy as scheduled and that is certainly a good indicator for the future. By all indications, Chavez will return and relinquish his powers when the job is done - but honestly thats a leap of faith that would make me nervous were I a citizen of Venezuela.

Like I said, I wouldn't want to do this in America, but it seems that Venezuela is making it work.

[1932]

150. The decree powers are narrowly tailored and they're tailored to increase democracy

Don't they give him more power to initiate laws which will devolve power to community governments?

And I'm not sure you can compare anything that Venezuela did before '99 to what the government does now since it only had a real constitution since '99. However, this government did have these powers twice before, I believe, and both times, the government passed laws which devolved political and economic power.

I fully believe that the only difference this time is that western media is more committed to misrepresent what these powers are about.

[Judi Lynn]

157. It could be something as simple as the corporate media weren't aware that he had

these temporary powers then, and that they could try to get a lot of propaganda mileage by blowing it all out of proportion for domestic consumption.

Whatever he could do with this limited, temporary additional authority probably pales by comparison to the power _Bush has seized for himself permanently.

[bobbie]

144. I do love him

And I'm envious that Venezuela has a true leader.

[earth mom]

152. Looks like the freepers have come out of the woodwork on this thread.

Interesting how they can't take the truth about * isn't it? :eyes:

Anywho, I thought Hugo ROCKED! Loved the bit at the end when he spoke of how MLKs dreams are his dreams, our dreams. It was great! :applause:

However, the positives were short lived and it was annoying with how Barbara & ABC tried to keep it all "impartial" where anything positive about Chavez was kept to the bare minimum...yet they made sure those rich brats got to say how much they wanted to leave. Whateva. :eyes: Also, John Stossel had to get his snide remarks in too, which really PISSED me off. Gawd, I despise that man! :grr:

[Judi Lynn]

159. I heard once that Stossel interviewed a wrestler who knocked him flat, on purpose, as a statement.

That would be a great clip to see at YouTube.

What meager intelligence Stossel has is completely unfocused in any useful way.

[Colobo]

167. If a Dem doesn't like Chavez, that Dem is a Freeper?

What a logic...

[oblivious]

168. I was talking to an extremey conservative American friend about Hugo.

He mentioned the usual propaganda about his anti-Americanism, he's a damn commie, blah blah.

But after informing him very nicely that Hugo was anti-Bush but not anti-American and that his policies were socialist, not communist, blah blah, he confessed quietly so no one else could hear that he really did like the guy and loved him sticking it to Bush.

I was flabbergasted.