Author
|
Topic: Chavez - hero or villain
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 18 September 2007 07:29 AM
I am not Chavez's biggest fan, but I don't accept that advertisement as in any way a fair account of what had happened during the referendum campaign.Overall, I think Chavez retains substantial democratic legitimacy. Maybe that legitimacy is a bit stained as a result of shenanigans during the referendum campaign, but I'd say that about George Bush, too. Finally, it is important to understand that the people putting out that video are very likely the same ones who supported a military coup against Chavez BEFORE the referendum campaign.
So, their compliants about departures from democracy have to be understood as talking points for foreign consumption, which they don't adhere to themselves when it comes to gaining power.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 18 September 2007 07:29 AM
This isn't the first attempt at a referendum nor will it be the last. And, as the BBC report on the 2004 referendum noted: quote: Members of the opposition have used any means they can - legal or not - to try to secure his overthrow and commentators say this setback is unlikely to quench their zeal. Some warn the threat of violence is never far away in this Venezuelan tug-of-war.
In the attempted coup d'etat, sponsored by the U.S., all sorts of media fraud was perpetrated upon the public in an effort to brainwash Venezuelans. It failed. Chavez has handily won a series of a dozen, or more, elections in his career and will undoubtedly keep winning elections with his partisanship for ordinary people. Tough shit for the rich people. But hey, that's a slick video. The remarks about ordinary Venezuelans are a nice touch too. Not that such remarks bear any relationship to reality.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 18 September 2007 08:03 AM
quote: Soon after (the August 2004 referendum - N.Beltov), Henry Ramos, a spokesman for the Democratic Coordinator, the umbrella of 27 opposition political parties, announced, "We categorically reject the results."
They had no intention of respecting the will of the majority of Venezuelans. The opposition broke its promise of respecting the results of the 2004 referendum if international observers were present, which they were, to confirm the results. The opposition used fraudulent exit polls to justify their rejection of democracy. They knew they were going to lose and took steps to justify their rejectionism in advance of the 2004 vote. quote: Former U.S. President, Jimmy Carter: In 1998, Hugo Chávez was elected president of Venezuela when the two major political parties had fallen into disrepute after dominating the governments for 40 years. There was a subsequent referendum to approve a new constitution and then, in 2000, another nationwide election for local, state and national offices. Chávez prevailed by close to 60 percent in both presidential elections, which were judged by us to reflect the will of the people, but a strong opposition force remained determined to remove him from office.We criticized the constitutional referendum for being too rushed to allow debate, and we said that some of the national legislative and local election outcomes in 2000 were uncertain given irregularities and poor audits. We did not question the presidential election, however, with its wide vote margin. With tacit approval from Washington, a military coup against Chávez was successful in April 2002, and the U.S. government immediately recognized the anointed leader. But an aroused Venezuelan public and condemnation of the coup by Mexico and other Latin American governments resulted in Chávez being restored to office after two days in custody. The next attempt to depose him was with a series of nationwide strikes that shut down oil production and almost destroyed the nation's economy. The government survived, but the political confrontation continued. In January 2003, I proposed that a peculiar provision in the new constitution be implemented that provided for the people to decide in a referendum whether Chávez should leave office or complete his term. Both the opposition and the president agreed to abide by this decision, and the Organization of American states joined The Carter Center in reducing tension, ensuring communication between the contending political groups, monitoring the gathering of necessary petitions and observing a recall referendum. The vote in Venezuela two Sundays ago was the culmination of this process, and a large number of other international observers were invited, including Latin American presidents and members of the U.S. Congress. Because of intense distrust expressed by the opposition, extra care was taken to ensure secrecy and accuracy of the voters' decisions. An electronic voting and tabulation system was developed by a Venezuelan-American consortium led by SmartMatic. It permitted touch-screen voting, with each choice backed up by a paper ballot that was examined by the voter and then placed in a sealed box. We international monitors assured that the machines were tested in advance, and observed the voting nationwide. At the end of the voting day, results from each of the 20,000 machines were certified by poll workers and party observers and transmitted on telephone lines to central election headquarters in Caracas. All paper ballots were retained under military guard in the local regions. As predicted by several public-opinion polls and also confirmed by our independent vote tabulation, Venezuelans once again expressed support for Chávez, this time by a 59 percent to 41 percent margin. He will now serve the remaining 2 ½ years of this term (and be eligible for reelection). ... Regardless of whether foreign governments approve or disapprove of a political decision made by citizens of a sovereign and democratic country, the only legitimate recourse is to honor the decision, to cooperate whenever possible and to promote possible leadership changes through democratic means.
The facts are the facts. The Recall Referendum in Venezuela in 2004 [ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 18 September 2007 08:24 AM
ZNet has a recent article about current proposed constitutional changes in Venezuela. It also reviews 'Western' media treatment of the changes and might be a useful foil to the YouTube video. quote: The constitutional reform project introduced by the Venezuelan President on August 15, 2007 has provoked an unprecedented media frenzy. ... the media only concentrated on the proposed change to Article 230 that would repeal the limit on presidential terms currently set at two terms. (2) The French press, among others, immediately denounced Chávez’ intention to “remain in power” (3) and criticized the Venezuelan president’s “temptation of total power” claiming he aimed to “become the sacrosanct leader.” (4)It is both curious and ironic that the French press feign to be offended by Chávez’ attempt at a third term when presidential term limits are not constitutionally limited in France. According to the French Magna Carta, President Nicolas Sarkozy could go on governing for the next 30 years, if reelected, without any problem. The same goes for countries such as United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and most other European nations. This fact has never aroused the slightest critique from the western media.
Other aspects of the reforms have been treated with silence. And no wonder. quote: It is worth mentioning that the media, so long-winded about this matter, have hardly mentioned the rest of the proposed reforms. In addition to annulling presidential terms limits and extending the duration of terms from six years to seven, the project also proposes to establish a “social stability fund” that would guarantee workers “fundamental rights such as retirement, pensions, vacations, prenatal and postnatal leave and other others...” (15) The workday would be limited to six hours creating a 36-hour workweek and employers would be prohibited from forcing wage earners to work overtime. “The exploitation of workers” would become unacceptable. (16)The reforms would also abolish the autonomy of the Central Bank thus allowing subsidies to be applied to social programs. In addition, communal councils that play a direct role in decision-making would be multiplied in order to promote a more participatory democracy. New forms of ownership with a cooperative character would be created, without eradicating private property. Land currently not in production would be distributed among rural farmers. Similarly, the reform would write “the express interdiction of large estates” into the constitution as well as the prohibition of all monopolies. “The state reserves [the rights to], for reasons of national sovereignty, development and interests, the exploitation of liquid, solid and gaseous hydrocarbons.” Likewise, it would make impossible the privatization of the nation’s natural resources. (17) the media has censored all these reforms.
Bad dictator! Evil socialist! How dare they! quote: So it is of little surprise that the Venezuelan president has become the most popular leader in the world. Advocating the emancipation of those constantly humbled by an unsustainable economic order, Chávez has sparked hope not only in his own people, who are now inexorable actors in establishing the trajectory of their country; but he is also a source of inspiration for the dispossessed around the globe. Conversely, to the rulers of the world, Hugo Chávez is a dangerous example. He is a leader who refuses their tutelage and calls into question their devastating hegemony. In retaliation they strive to discredit him by any means possible with the cowardly complicity of the western media that, tossing journalistic ethics out the window, does not hesitate in the least to manipulate reality and excel in the realm of disinformation.
Hugo Chávez and Constitutional Reform
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 18 September 2007 08:50 AM
quote: "There are 23 countries in Europe and places like Canada where prime ministers and presidents can run as long as people elect them," Mr. Montiel said in an interview at the Venezuelan embassy. "We cannot say that Canada and the U.K. are not democratic countries."In Canada, we've seen the case of William Lyon Mackenzie King. His term was almost 22 years. The customary right in Canada has it that a prime minister can run as along as people elect him as prime minister." Under Venezuela's constitution, Mr. Chavez will have to step down in 2012, after serving two six-year terms. Under proposed constitutional changes before the nation's National Assembly, term limits will be abolished and each term will last seven years rather than six. In addition, the changes would mean greater presidential control over municipalities and states, a six-hour working day and increased presidential control over the central bank. Mr. Montiel said the changes, which he expects will sail through the assembly and win approval by the public in a referendum in early December, have nothing to do with Mr. Chavez's quest for more personal power. In fact, it's all about "widening and deepening participatory democracy." "We believe that President Chavez is a democratic leader and a pedagogue of democratic principles who respects the transference of power to the people," Mr. Montiel said, in fluent yet sometimes convoluted English. Mr. Montiel, who plans to meet politicians, labour leaders and members of Venezuela solidarity committees in Ottawa and Montreal, said his goal is to counter "the big lies" spread by the capitalist media against Mr. Chavez, including reports of the rampant inflation and other economic ills touched off by Mr. Chavez's massive public spending policies.
Globe and Mail
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Catchall
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14486
|
posted 18 September 2007 10:21 AM
"If they were Indigenous people like those at Kanesetake or Caledonia the media would cheer on the police, the public would throw stones at children and the media would cast the protesters as violent savages."I honestly cannot believe that. In fact the only reason that the police or army have not been called in to disburse the protest at Caledonia is because of the fear of a public backlash. I think you are giving Canadians a bad rap. Very few of us would throw stones at children, native or otherwise. And most feel very uncomfortable, sympathetic even, with the natives plight. We're just unable to decide what to do to fix it. After all, we are Canadians - and Canadians are not known for their bold decisivness. We are known, however, for encouraging government to throw money at problems without being accountable for outcomes. This approach has not served the native community well. You can paint the natives as victims - in many ways they are. Just don't paint Canadians in general as their oppressors. Save that distinction for manipulative lying politicians and bureaucrats. [ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: Catchall ]
From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732
|
posted 18 September 2007 11:31 AM
quote: Originally posted by Catchall: "If they were Indigenous people like those at Kanesetake or Caledonia the media would cheer on the police, the public would throw stones at children and the media would cast the protesters as violent savages."I honestly cannot believe that. In fact the only reason that the police or army have not been called in to disburse the protest at Caledonia is because of the fear of a public backlash. I think you are giving Canadians a bad rap. Very few of us would throw stones at children, native or otherwise. And most feel very uncomfortable, sympathetic even, with the natives plight. We're just unable to decide what to do to fix it. After all, we are Canadians - and Canadians are not known for their bold decisivness. We are known, however, for encouraging government to throw money at problems without being accountable for outcomes. This approach has not served the native community well. You can paint the natives as victims - in many ways they are. Just don't paint Canadians in general as their oppressors. Save that distinction for manipulative lying politicians and bureaucrats. [ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: Catchall ]
I think you got lost in cyberspace. This is a progressive board not a place to spew right wing propaganda against left leaders. The crap above about Canadians and natives proves you don't have any progressive viewpoint so go hide under a rock or bridge please.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017
|
posted 18 September 2007 11:33 AM
quote: Originally posted by Catchall: "If they were Indigenous people like those at Kanesetake or Caledonia the media would cheer on the police, the public would throw stones at children and the media would cast the protesters as violent savages."I honestly cannot believe that. In fact the only reason that the police or army have not been called in to disburse the protest at Caledonia is because of the fear of a public backlash. I think you are giving Canadians a bad rap. Very few of us would throw stones at children, native or otherwise. And most feel very uncomfortable, sympathetic even, with the natives plight. We're just unable to decide what to do to fix it. After all, we are Canadians - and Canadians are not known for their bold decisivness. We are known, however, for encouraging government to throw money at problems without being accountable for outcomes. This approach has not served the native community well. You can paint the natives as victims - in many ways they are. Just don't paint Canadians in general as their oppressors. Save that distinction for manipulative lying politicians and bureaucrats. [ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: Catchall ]
Have you seen "Rocks at Whiskey Trench" catchall? Pay particular attention to what Alwyn Morris, former gold medal kayaker for Canada, has to say about his feelings about Canada after that incident. Have you been there when the white supremacists march in Caledonia? Come on down October 8 when they line up again to harass Six Nations people. See how many Caledonians are there to oppose them. (Hint: NONE! except us supporters on the site with Six Nations.) You still have the rose coloured glasses on about 'Canada'. Take a trip across a barricade and see what 'Canada' looks like from there: A thief, a liar, an anti-aboriginal propaganda machine, a criminal desperate to keep the proceeds of its crimes by fair means or foul. I guarantee you won't be singing the anthem or waving the flag anymore. To "do nothing" as Canadians do is to allow the governments to continue to plunder Aboriginal lands. To "do nothing" as Canadians do is to be a party to the oppression. Yes, Canada is an oppressive tyranny, if you are a traditional aboriginal person. And the government regularly participates in rigging band elections to keep 'their people' in Council. [ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: saga ]
From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
1234567
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14443
|
posted 18 September 2007 11:53 AM
quote: And the government regularly participates in rigging band elections to keep 'their people' in Council.
Saga, I have to disagree with you on that one. The elections I've seen and I've seen a few, are fair. However, the people vote in who they want and eventually they will hate their chief and council. This is because the government figured out early on that if they got rid of the Indian agents, they could turn the nation against itself by requiring that they have a chief and council. Chief and council have no power. They try to distribute what little funds they get to where its needed. Today, FN chief and council can pass a Band Council Resolution (BCR) to get rid of say, crack dealers, the police don't bother with the BCR's because they don't hold up in court. So nothing is done and then the Chief and Council are made to look like they aren't doing anything. It's very sneaky and very effective what Indian and Northern Affairs has done. Sorry for the off topic but that one needed explaining. [ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: 1234567 ]
From: speak up, even if your voice shakes | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921
|
posted 18 September 2007 12:09 PM
quote: Originally posted by Catchall: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOsSM0z9DnsPictures are harder to refute than words. I'm not so sure Chavez is worthy of anyone's admiration even if he does have the conviction to stand up to America.
Current technology makes pictures much more vulnerable to refutation than they used to be. I don't know exactly what's going on in Venezuela. I'd be amazed if, for the first time in human history, no one was behaving badly! But as revolutions go, this one is exceedingly gentle and gradual. There is also something I call "the rage of the poor". Given enough time and enough suffering, this will eventually erupt. I'm not evaluating this morally. It's just a fact. (You may say, "those are soldiers". But where do you think they come from?) But, to return to my initial point, these pictures may not depict Venezuealan reality at all.
From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 18 September 2007 01:38 PM
quote: Under Venezuela's constitution, Mr. Chavez will have to step down in 2012, after serving two six-year terms. Under proposed constitutional changes before the nation's National Assembly, term limits will be abolished and each term will last seven years rather than six.
I'd say this is a bad thing. Typically, Latin American countries have had problems with autocratic leadership and quasi-tyrants who become defacto "Presidents for Life". When Mexico had its revolution, it passed a constitutional amendment called "No Re-election". It requires Presidents to leave office after one term. This is not a perfect system, but it limits the temptation to pack the bureaucracy with your supporters, and behave arbitrarily. The spokesman, Mr. Montiel, thinks Venezuela is like Canada and that William Lyon MacKenzie King can be analogized with Chavez. Since the countries and their traditions and institutions are so different, this is a highly misleading analogy.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 18 September 2007 02:45 PM
No, I didn't miss it. I thought it was stupid.Many countries have constitutions which do not limit the number of presidential terms. Few countries are presently EXTENDING the duration of Presidential terms, and few are ABOLISHING constitutional limits, either. The Presidency in France is Gaullist in origin, and, for my money, it is relatively undemocratic. just as DeGaulle wished. Still, MANY things are different in France, as compared to Venezuela, or Mexico, or Argentina, or Ecuador. For one thing, the ruling party in France, just like the ruling party in Canada, cannot easily pack the civil service with its members. In Venezuela, Mexico, etc, personnel lose and gain employment every time there is a change of administration. Having long-sitting Presidents can lead to the packing of the judiciary, and the party-politization of the civil service. Those are anti-democratic trends, as are less-frequent elections. Seven years is a long time to put up with someone without a chance to reject him (or her).
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 18 September 2007 03:20 PM
Actually, you seem not to be well versed in Venezuelan history. There are numerous instances of popular adulation of a leader, coupled with eventual usurpation of power and contempt for democracy.Juan Vicente Gomez is perhaps the most obvious example, but I remeber in my own lifetime that General Perez Jimenez was wildly popular in Venezuela. His successor, too, Romulo Betancourt, could instantly summon a crowd of 500,000 or so supporters and was wildly popular during the first years of Accion Democratica. Later, not so much. So, Chavez is popular. Great. But why does he need to extend the Presidential term to seven years?
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 19 September 2007 06:43 AM
quote: Originally posted by Briguy: Why is six years the magic number? Or 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10? Chavez is introducing a completely arbitrary change (along with other far more important reforms), and being compared to banana republic dictators for doing so? Seven years seems long to me, personally, but that's only because I'm conditioned for a national election every 4-5 years. I understand that this conditioning comes as the result of an arbitrary decision made over 100 years ago.I can see why Americans are so upset about Chavez wishing to eradicate the two term maximum, because they've lived with the notion that presidential term maximums are essential to democracy their whole lives. There are a number of other countries that easily disprove this idea. The idea is even disproven within the US when you consider elected members of the Senate or the House (although the US is more of a kleptocracy these days than a democracy).
Well, lets not forget to that social reformer FDR was probably the most popular President in US history.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
non sequitur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10176
|
posted 19 September 2007 07:41 AM
quote: Originally posted by N.Beltov:
... who died during his fourth term in office. Within two years following the death of FDR, the Republican dominated Congress passed the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning Presidents from being elected more than twice. Sounds like electoral sour grapes to me. I've also read Republican blogs suggesting, when Dubya was more popular, that he should be allowed to run for a third term. It's all about helping your own team.
If it weren't for term limits, Ronald Reagan would have been President well into the 1990s.
From: Regina | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 19 September 2007 01:31 PM
quote: Within two years following the death of FDR, the Republican dominated Congress passed the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning Presidents from being elected more than twice.
Oh, gee! And here I thought that, not only does Congress have to pass a proposed amendment, but it also has to be pased by a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, AND has to be passed by THREE-FOURTHS of the states! http://ustl.org/Current_Info/ratified.html It won't take you long to figure out that the Republicans you mention didn't have 2/3rds of the Senate, 2/3 of the House of Representatives, OR 3/4th of the states. You see, it wasn't done by the Republicans to screw the Democrats. It was done because there had been a long-standing practice of two terms only, so that too much power was not amassed by one individual. Almost no President before had tried to stay in power longer than eight years. So, let's not make up half-truths so that we can claim that Chavez is some great principled democrat because the Republicans passed the 22nd amendment over Democratic objections. They didn't. The Democrats supported the Amendment. And he isn't. He's someone who tried a coup, and then later was legitimately elected. I think he's relatively popular to this day in Venezuela, but that's not an argument for changing the Constitution there. Interestingly, the non-Communist Left group Indymedia opposed the abolition of Presidnetial term limits recently. Here's what they said about it: quote: H. J. RES. 11 is a bill introduced in the House on January 7, 2003 by Congressman Jose Serrano (D-NY), calling for the repeal of the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution and the abolishment of Presidential Term Limits. Forget just waiting it out till 2004 or 2008. This bill may make it possible for George Bush to be emperor forever, waging war without end, fulfilling the Administration's wildest Caesarian dreams, putting an end to 227 years of Constitutional rule in the United States. Email this. Post this on every message board you visit. Inform anyone and everyone you can get your hands on and let them know about this deliberate undermining of American democracy and Constitutional authority.
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/49555.php
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893
|
posted 19 September 2007 08:58 PM
Catchall: quote: Pictures are harder to refute than words.
That's right. Now watch this video of a telecast from RCTV (the Fox News of Venezuela): RCTV media manipulation Here's some of the translation: “Let's close the program with a golden button: look this that someone sent me by email to [email protected]. Show us the image: Everyone of you can recognize this place: this is ¡Fuerte Tiuna! (headquarters of the venezuelan army) which has becomed an very strange parking place. Wow, long life to beauty revolution! (President Chávez uses to call the venezuelan revolution as “beauty revolution”) All these big, big, big, trucks are overthere, parked in Fuerte Tiuna, and these doesn't seem to be for military uses, because of the variated colors they have. Now, i wonder: Is this the socialism of the XXI Century? I don't know... why if the president told that if revolution must not buy these trucks, there are so many? Well, a question that we make ourselves, and the venezuelan people does... why they bought these hummers?” Now watch the end of the video to see the lies exposed. Its actually a picture of a luxury parking lot in California that has "Fuerte Tiuna" superimposed over it. As others have said, the US is spending millions on anti-Chavez propaganda. It's nice to see they at least bought one sucker with all that money.
From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 20 September 2007 03:15 AM
quote: US Intelligence or FoxNews
Dude, really, what the hell is the difference? And you know squat about Calidonia or treatment of FN people. What foolishness you post! Finally, I agree 100 percent with ceti, this right winger called "catchall" decides to start a thread that really belongs on Freak Dominion and we're all giving it legitimacy.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 20 September 2007 08:41 AM
quote: Something our so called "free" leaders would never consider.
Yes, you are right, there has never been a referendum on Constitutional change in Canada. However, for any better-informed people still following this thread despite everything, it is important to understand that plebiscites are not necessarily democratic, either. For example, should 51% be able to change the Constitution? Can they permanently change things so their preferred candidate remains in power until his death? Secondly, the fate of most referenda simply depend upon the way the question is framed. In the US, right-wing anti-tax forces have used referenda for their purposes, and Hitler's referendum to approve himself as Fuhrer should not be forgotten, either. "Do you support the troops in Afghanistan?" is an example of a winning, yet misleading, even dishonest, question. Finally, referenda and plebiscites tend to override individual rights and the rights of the minorities. A referendum on gay marriage or the right of Muslims to the veil would likely lose, but would nonetheless not be democratic.\ Democracy isn't just counting heads, it involves rights also.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 21 September 2007 07:43 AM
quote: Chavez and his referendum can be likened to Hitler! No hysterical hyberbole there!
Ha ha! One of your stupid cronies specifically mentioned the Holocaust, totally inappropriately. I didn't. I did not "liken" Chavez to Hitler, either, so why did you misrepresent what I said? You do that quite often, and normally because your position is indefensible I said REFERENDA are not necessarily DEMOCRATIC as they can be USED by dictators. That says nothing about Chavez or Hitler being alike. I hope Chavez has more principled defenders than you guys.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130
|
posted 21 September 2007 08:02 AM
quote: Originally posted by Cueball: Ahh yeas... House screams bloody murder when someone says we should remeber the Holocaust when talking about the end of Habeus Corpus in his beloved USA, but Chavez and his referendum can be likened to Hitler!No hysterical hyberbole there! Over here: -- click on the rolleyes to see the rant! [ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Cueball, we have a long standing policy against putting words in peoples mouths. Don't. Also,, having met Jeff, I absolutely cannot imagine him being hysterical. [mod hat off] quote: And why, oh why, would we title a thread "Hero or villain?" Do we always have to follow the black-or-white agenda? Sometimes, leaders are "fairly good", "decent" or "moderately unacceptable", not just heroes or villains.
I'm not sure why I'm in a minority on this board in not having a problem with this general concept. Try this as an exercise,... repeat several times. "Castro's done some good stuff" "Castro's done some bad stuff" "Lately he's not doing much stuff" "It's all part of the great fabric of life"
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 21 September 2007 01:01 PM
You mean this theorem?I have also met Jeff, and I made the intitial statement. He seemed pretty rational at the time. In fact he was handing over cash to member of one of the communist parties. He was hanging at the time with some Chilean communists. Go figure. [ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 21 September 2007 03:08 PM
quote: In fact he was handing over cash to member of one of the communist parties.He was hanging at the time with some Chilean communists. Go figure.
Perhaps they were secret members of a Communist Party, since I would "hand over" money to such a person unless they had a legal claim on it. I never "hung" with Chilean Communists either, unless they were pretending to be something else. Anyway, isn't that the dread "redbaiting" that Babble disallows?
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790
|
posted 21 September 2007 04:02 PM
The you don't know who you are hanging out with. Lol.And yes, the Communist persons had a legal claim on the money you were handing to them. Why did you put yourself in a position where you would be handing Communist persons money, even if it were legal, if consorting with communists was such a big problem for you. I personally didn't see anything wrong with any of that. It is you who is always going on about secret communist cabals on this website, and inferring peoples "guilt" by association. Michael Mandel is a communist, and you have specifically identified him as "good friend" of yours on this web site. And yes, this is Redbaiting, and it is not disallowed on this website, if it were you would have been banned long ago. [ 21 September 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535
|
posted 22 September 2007 03:26 AM
quote: Originally posted by Frustrated Mess: [qb] That's interesting. You find. Hmmmm.
Yep. "I find" is a colloquial phrase I use which is akin to "In my opinion..." , "From my perspective..." , e.g. I find whole wheat pancakes lack taste without some jam and syrup. Its an affectation I picked up from my family. I apologize for sharing my opinion. At first glance the original post appeared to be an opinion based question to me, like "George Bush: evil or good." "Jean Henry Dunant: Illuminati Lizard-overlord or Humanitarian." quote: Originally posted by N.Beltov: [Q]Two words: critical support.Anyone on the left should know what it means.[/Q]
I don't do any hero worship, voluntarily, by default, or otherwise. Besides, I do not recognise your authority.[ 22 September 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]
From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 22 September 2007 10:10 AM
You know, back when Chavez started announcing this stuff about a 'socialist revolution', I got a bit worried, because there's a very fine line between legitimately expressing the will of the people and wanting to stay in power for the sake of it.I like Chavez's bombast as much as the next fella (Mr. Danger, indeed ) but I just can't help but get a gut feeling that what he's up to could have bad repercussions for South America's challenge to US hegemony. Chavez has deliberately placed himself well to the left and far ahead of other South American leaders in being willing to do almost anything to tweak Dubya's nose, and the danger I'm sensing is that Chavez may start to believe his own press to the point of not noticing when he's losing his touch. And that'll be when the USA will take any chance they can to discredit him so badly the other South American leaders will not be able to recover and steer their own path. The USA is full of arrogant bastards who are steeped in the internal racism of the country that says no brown-skinned person can talk that way to a white guy and get away with it, and they'll be only too glad to "teach Venezuela a lesson". (I realize Canada has the same problems, but we're not in a position to bully Venezuela.)
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 22 September 2007 04:46 PM
I think we can. My take on this is that Chavez, while clearly influenced by the Cuban experience, is building a democratic alternative to both the Cuban model AND the U.S. style capitalism that some anti-chavista posters here clearly want Venezuela to lower itself to.This is a new approach, and so far Chavez has mainly avoided taking the U.S. bait by imposing severe repression. The man IS in a struggle against reactionary and antidemocratic opponents, so it was never realistic to expect him to be a complete democratic purist. The U.S., Canada and the UK ALL imposed some political restrictions during World War II(and arguably they got worse in the U.S. in the fifteen years AFTER the war)so no English-speaking country has much moral authority to lecture Venezuela on democratic purity. And the Nicaraguan experience shows that little good ever comes of forcing a country to end its revolution. Nicaragua was a dead zone, with no hope and ideals, for sixteen years after 1990. It's politics are still impaired by what the U.S. did to it. Chile is only now recovering from what the fascists did(abetted as they were by finicky "anticommunist" centrists). I think we can all agree that no good could ever come of Chavez being overthrown.
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will Hiscock
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4361
|
posted 24 September 2007 07:27 PM
I'm no expert on Venezuela, I've read a few books, the most recent of which was Michael McCaughan's(writes for the Guardian and the Irish Times) "the Battle for Venezuela". From what I've read Chavez has strong democratic beliefs. 1992 coup or no. I don't doubt that there have been violent deaths related to putting down protests, but I would be surprised if there hadn't been extream acts of violence on the part of the protestors beforehand. As to why the army is used, the police are strongly anti-Chavez, and were key to the 2002 coup, and have been shown to have killed Chavez supporters since. They have also used torture and beatings, something that Chavez has never been accused of by unbiased media (as opposed to the clips above). The situation is to frantic to expect full liberities, but Chavez has chosen to be more than easy on the opposition given acts of treason. Indeed, reprisals were not even carried out against those that took part in the coup against him. If anything Chavez's democratic leanings have put the revolution in danger from vioent right-wingers on several occasions - much to his credibility. Not all good - but a far cry from what the fear mongers would have us believe
From: St. John's, NL | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|