NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/30/MTFH75938_2005-08-30_02-47-24_HO010025.html

Venezuela to sell cut-price heating oil to U.S. poor

Aug 29 10:39 PM US/Eastern

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Monday his government plans to sell as much as 66,000 barrels per day of heating fuel from its U.S. Citgo refinery to poor communities in the United States.

The offer, made after populist Chavez held talks with U.S. civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson, would represent 10 percent of the 660,000 bpd of refined products processed by Citgo. The deals would cut consumer costs by direct sales.

Venezuela's Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said officials were still working on the details on how the oil would be sold from Citgo, a unit of the state oil firm PDVSA.

"We are going to direct as much as 10 percent of the production, that means 66,000 barrels, without intermediaries, to poor communities, hospitals, religious communities, schools," Chavez told reporters at a press conference.

The world's No. 5 oil exporter, oil cartel OPEC member Venezuela is a key supplier to the United States, providing about 15 percent of all U.S. energy imports.

But relations between Caracas and Washington have become strained since left-winger Chavez was elected in 1998 promising social reforms.

Chavez, a former army officer who survived a coup in 2002, frequently accuses the U.S. of backing efforts to kill him or topple his government. U.S. officials dismiss those charges but say Chavez has become a threat to regional stability.

Chavez is a fucking idiot. I really hope the opposition in Venezuela can remove him. I think he's just doing this for PR nonsense.. obviously he doesn't give a shit about the people in his own country and is driving them to the poor house.

Chavez is a fucking idiot. I really hope the opposition in Venezuela can remove him. I think he's just doing this for PR nonsense.. obviously he doesn't give a shit about the people in his own country and is driving them to the poor house.

He obviously cares deeply about America's working poor. His concern touches me. He will be in my prayers tonight.

He obviously cares deeply about America's working poor. His concern touches me. He will be in my prayers tonight.
Just remember Pat Robertson want's the CIA to assasinate Chaves ;)

Chavez is going to sue Pat Robertson

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4194108.stm
in Finnish:http://www.kaleva.fi/html/JTpage504143.html

Chavez is going to sue Pat Robertson
I was under the impression that Robertson was protected by the 1st Amendment?
Also, last I checked, Chaves wanted him extradited

Chavez is going to sue Pat Robertson

Can he?

Chavez is obviously a much better Christian than Robertson. If Robertson was a holy man, he'd sell my Grandma cheap heating oil so she won't freeze her butt off.

God Bless Hugo Chavez and his Holy Oil. Amen

Can he?
No idea, but he can try

"I announce that my government is going to take legal action in the United States... to call for the assassination of a head of state is an act of terrorism," Mr Chavez said in a televised speech.

"If the US government does not take action that it must take, we will go to the United Nations and the Organization of American States to denounce the US government," Mr Chavez said.

No idea, but he can try

"I announce that my government is going to take legal action in the United States... to call for the assassination of a head of state is an act of terrorism," Mr Chavez said in a televised speech.

"If the US government does not take action that it must take, we will go to the United Nations and the Organization of American States to denounce the US government," Mr Chavez said.

Pat Robertson, for all his political clout, is still a private citizen. I don't think that the US government can be held responsible for the statements of a private citizen.

Pat Robertson, for all his political clout, is still a private citizen. I don't think that the US government can be held responsible for the statements of a private citizen.
Me neither but I believe they will make everything out of it. Terrorism is the key word.

"Bush, he noted, has often talked of taking a hard line not just with terrorists but with those who abet terrorism." (Ali Rodrigues, Foreign Minister)

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBSMYELUCE.html

The Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot shout fire in a crowed theater and can be held accountable for saying anything that results in "a clear and present danger", much less threatening to kill someone. I believe that Pat Robertson can and should be charged and jailed for his remarks.

Putting aside the Pat Robertson's insanity, Chavez has been a massive force for instability in the Region, he is partialy behind the chaos in Bolivia and has sheltered/funded the FARC. Venezuela is slipping into collectivism and illiberal democracy (caused by Chavez's politization of the armed forces, his parties monopoly on power, and his recent crack-down upon peaceful dissent).

That Idiot Robertson's remarks have taken peoples eyes off the ball and drawn attention from whats really going on down there... :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Amestria']The Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot shout fire in a crowed theater and can be held accountable for saying anything that results in "a clear and present danger", much less threatening to kill someone. I believe that Pat Robertson can and should be charged and jailed for his remarks.

Putting aside the Pat Robertson's insanity, Chavez has been a massive force for instability in the Region, he is partialy behind the chaos in Bolivia and has sheltered/funded the FARC. Venezuela is slipping into collectivism and illiberal democracy (caused by Chavez's politization of the armed forces, his parties monopoly on power, and his recent crack-down upon peaceful dissent).

That Idiot Robertson's remarks have taken peoples eyes off the ball and drawn attention from whats really going on down there... :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Yes, the absurdity of the situation is quite striking. Here's the prez the US tried so hard to keep from getting elected, that most people find it plausible that the US have tried to assasinate him.
And what does he do? Almost the exact opposite of what the US was so damn scared of.
So now the Americans hate him even more, because the chavs crappy rule turned out far worse than if he'd done any of the things he said he'd do..
And now he can even use their own inane terrorist arguments against them..

I mean really. It's hard as hell not to smile at it all, when you live as far away as I do.

I mean really. It's hard as hell not to smile at it all, when you live as far away as I do.
I just smile. Openly :D

obviously he doesn't give a shit about the people in his own country and is driving them to the poor house.

As opposed to where they were originally. :rolleyes:

obviously he doesn't give a shit about the people in his own country and is driving them to the poor house.
Actually, he does care...about the poor, who make up the democratic majority of the country.

See, you can tax the top 10% of a country to death, and give the money back to the rest through expanded hospital facilities, municipal services, free books, etc.

Then the elite can bitch all the want - they call a referendum and he gets 70% of the vote. Vote-rigging? My ass. It's called populism.

This is the beauty of freedom and democracy. Sometimes, someone a few people don't like, gets elected. And it's none of America's goddamn business.

Actually, he does care...about the poor, who make up the democratic majority of the country.

See, you can tax the top 10% of a country to death, and give the money back to the rest through expanded hospital facilities, municipal services, free books, etc.

Then the elite can bitch all the want - they call a referendum and he gets 70% of the vote. Vote-rigging? My ass. It's called populism.

This is the beauty of freedom and democracy. Sometimes, someone a few people don't like, gets elected. And it's none of America's goddamn business.*ripple of applause*
That's democracy for you, but you can only have Us style democracy, that is only the rich can run and only if they are in a narrow right leaning centerist band of political views.

Just remember Pat Robertson want's the CIA to assasinate Chaves ;)

Of course he does. Governments helping people means they're horning in on his business. Churches like Robertsons are the drug companies of religion.

"Why solve a problem when you make more money the worse the problem gets?"

"Abortions decreased under Clinton and increased under Bush? Vote for Bush, because the more abortions people are having, the more money they'll send me to speak out against them."

If Chavez goes and provides energy to the poor then they might start thinking that a certain amount of socialism is a good idea, and of course, when you start embracing socialism like the Catholics down south, Atheism can't be far behind... right?

Amestria']The Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot shout fire in a crowed theater and can be held accountable for saying anything that results in "a clear and present danger", much less threatening to kill someone. I believe that Pat Robertson can and should be charged and jailed for his remarks.

I believe that he should be jailed, but not for that. I'm a bit of a purist on civil liberties and think that if anyone does take him up on it then it's their fault, not Robertson's. Now on the matter of his doing business with war criminal President Taylor in Liberia and other such activities... that's jail worthy.

Putting aside the Pat Robertson's insanity, Chavez has been a massive force for instability in the Region, he is partialy behind the chaos in Bolivia and has sheltered/funded the FARC. Venezuela is slipping into collectivism and illiberal democracy (caused by Chavez's politization of the armed forces, his parties monopoly on power, and his recent crack-down upon peaceful dissent).

You can hardly blame Chavez for that. We've made it perfectly clear to him that we're perfectly willing to abuse any civil rights that he gives his people in order to have him overthrown. If he hadn't politicized the military we'd have overthrown him with it. Remember, there was a one day coup, but he had enough of the military on his side that it didn't take.

That Idiot Robertson's remarks have taken peoples eyes off the ball and drawn attention from whats really going on down there... :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Agreed. Noone's talking about Rove or DeLay anymore, even Shehann and Bush are fading from the limelight. It's all Katrina and Chavez now.

Chavez is obviously a much better Christian than Robertson. If Robertson was a holy man, he'd sell my Grandma cheap heating oil so she won't freeze her butt off.

God Bless Hugo Chavez and his Holy Oil. Amen

interesting take...

is Chavez even a Christian? How many has he killed or had killed, and has he repented of those sins?

he's just trying to kiss a little poor ass.

Pat Robertson, for all his political clout, is still a private citizen. I don't think that the US government can be held responsible for the statements of a private citizen.
Assassination of foreign leaders is bannned by two executive orders. I'm sorry, but Pat Robertson was advocating an illegal act, suggesting that it should be carried out even. He just deputised every nut with a gun and gave them a mission to kill Chavez. That my friends, is conspiracy. Conspiracy to assassinate a foreign leader. And its illegal both in the US and Venuezula.

Actually, he does care...about the poor, who make up the democratic majority of the country.

See, you can tax the top 10% of a country to death, and give the money back to the rest through expanded hospital facilities, municipal services, free books, etc.

Then the elite can bitch all the want - they call a referendum and he gets 70% of the vote. Vote-rigging? My ass. It's called populism.

This is the beauty of freedom and democracy. Sometimes, someone a few people don't like, gets elected. And it's none of America's goddamn business.
The only reason its percieved as any kind of a problem is because people still think that they should be able to buy democracy.

interesting take...

is Chavez even a Christian? How many has he killed or had killed, and has he repented of those sins?

he's just trying to kiss a little poor ass.
Google search "Chavez" + "killed" yeilds results that all pertain to people trying to kill Chavez. Including Pat Robertson

I also got this site
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1118
Which discusses innacuracies and exaggurations with regard to the deaths of pro and anti -Chavez demonstrators.

He obviously cares deeply about America's working poor. His concern touches me. He will be in my prayers tonight.

He doesn't. He is using this as a political card.. and personally, he doesn't care about his own fucking country. Hey, tactical grace, you are wrong. He doesn't care. He's driving them even more to the poor house.

Hugo Chavez populism: Make a bunch of promises, get some popularity, then run off with the money.

He doesn't. He is using this as a political card.. and personally, he doesn't care about his own fucking country. Hey, tactical grace, you are wrong. He doesn't care. He's driving them even more to the poor house.
Hugo Chavez populism: Make a bunch of promises, get some popularity, then run off with the money.
:rolleyes:

He doesn't. He is using this as a political card.. and personally, he doesn't care about his own fucking country. Hey, tactical grace, you are wrong. He doesn't care. He's driving them even more to the poor house.

Hugo Chavez populism: Make a bunch of promises, get some popularity, then run off with the money.
So... when did he run away with the money?

:rolleyes: bunch of people demonizing a head of state without some source to back up their claims.

Actually, he does care...about the poor, who make up the democratic majority of the country.

See, you can tax the top 10% of a country to death, and give the money back to the rest through expanded hospital facilities, municipal services, free books, etc.

Then the elite can bitch all the want - they call a referendum and he gets 70% of the vote. Vote-rigging? My ass. It's called populism.

This is the beauty of freedom and democracy. Sometimes, someone a few people don't like, gets elected. And it's none of America's goddamn business.
Actually.. Seems to me that you think he's doing what he got elected to do. As far as I can tell, the good people of Venezuela just got shafted yet again, because the chav has been aligning himself with the corporate right he was elected to give the boot.

Outside the Venezuelan pinnacle of power, noone's winning. Not the US, and not Chaves' voters.

As opposed to where they were originally. :rolleyes:
How much poorer will Venezuela be in ten years when Chavez has driven out all foreign investment and has used up all the nation's wealth to buy votes?

How much poorer will Venezuela be in ten years when Chavez has driven out all foreign investment and has used up all the nation's wealth to buy votes?
The best thing about democracy is that you can vote in whomever you like, regardless of dire predictions based on their policies. So to those who want to remove him...butt out. Democracy is not a science...it's a conglomeration of idiots voting in idiots.

The best thing about democracy is that you can vote in whomever you like, regardless of dire predictions based on their policies. So to those who want to remove him...butt out. Democracy is not a science...it's a conglomeration of idiots voting in idiots.
True. The US got Bush the same way Venezuela got Chavez. People who don't understand the issues that face their country got to vote for the person to lead their country.

True. The US got Bush the same way Venezuela got Chavez. People who don't understand the issues that face their country got to vote for the person to lead their country.
And I'd still take a democracy that would elect Bush over a coup that would install Pinochet...'economic miracle' myth or not.

Pat Robertson, for all his political clout, is still a private citizen. I don't think that the US government can be held responsible for the statements of a private citizen.

If the US can be held accountable.. im betting there are gonna be an awful lot of lawsuits against the EU with all those war protestors calling for bushs death >.>

And I'd still take a democracy that would elect Bush over a coup that would install Pinochet...'economic miracle' myth or not.
Democracy really is the second best form of government. The best being a benevolent military dictatorship run by me.

Democracy really is the second best form of government. The best being a benevolent military dictatorship run by me.
I'd let you run me any day...

Can he?

I am an attorney. Chavez cannot sue Robertson successfully. He has no standing in civilian court because, to dumb it down, Chavez is in Venezuela and from Venezuela; the courts can't enforce a judgment on him, and he can't enforce a judgment through the courts.

Chavez can ask the U.S. to extradite Robertson, but that won't happen and Chavez knows it because the U.S. isn't about to start extriditing its citizens to lunatic dictatorships everytime one of us says something derrogatory. That iron-fisted thing doesn't fly here. Chavez is either crazy (he may be unstable; I really don't know) or just playing a political game ("I've been offended! Appease me! Support my regime!).

Chavez can complain to the U.N. about it. That wouldn't actually do anything either except give the other U.S. hating nations a moment to lament how unfairly the U.S. treats them and how their feelings are hurt.

Robertson made a mistake by calling for Chavez's assassination, and he rightfully retracted and apologized for his statement. I suspect that he just got worked up and, being the very old man that he is, overstepped the expression of his frustration. But Chavez's reaction shows exactly what Robertson was frustrated about--Chavez is a man who would extend his absolute power to every corner of the globe, if possible.

I'm glad that the storm victims will have some oil relief from Venezuela, but given Chavez's track record, you have to wonder what's really motivating him. Let me give a possible (though purely speculative) explanation. Venezuela is part of OPEC--the organization that has doubled or tripled our gasoline prices over the last 3 years. The way it works is that they all get together now and again and decide how much oil they're going to sell the West and at what price. This artificially inflates the price of gasoline. What Chavez is offering to do is to sell more oil at an inflated price. He's not giving the oil away. He's not losing money on the transaction. He's just offering to increase Venezuela's sales. The price may be lower, but I seriously doubt that they're taking a cut in profits. If anything, it's a good way for Venezuela to get around their OPEC agreement wherein they agree to limit their sales to so much.

The man is a brutal dictator who's political and economic needs happen to coincide with the U.S.'s needs for oil right now. He's not a humanitarian.

The man is a brutal dictator who's political and economic needs happen to coincide with the U.S.'s needs for oil right now. He's not a humanitarian.
Since when has that stopped the US from supporting someone? Sheesh!

True. The US got Bush the same way Venezuela got Chavez. People who don't understand the issues that face their country got to vote for the person to lead their country.

I knew exactly what I was getting both times I voted for him.

Keep on believin' you're actually the majority :) that's our key to relection.

Since when has that stopped the US from supporting someone? Sheesh!

Sheesh! Since I didn't make any comment about the U.S. supporting or not supporting anyone, what's your point? :) Sheesh! :)

Sheesh! Since I didn't make any comment about the U.S. supporting or not supporting anyone, what's your point? :) Sheesh! :)
My point is: cut the guy some slack!

I knew exactly what I was getting both times I voted for him.

Keep on believin' you're actually the majority :) that's our key to relection.
You might have known, but I don't think the majority of voters really considered who they were voting for. They're brainwashed into voting against their own interests.

You might have known, but I don't think the majority of voters really considered who they were voting for. They're brainwashed into voting against their own interests.
Hmmm...isn't that the same thing people are saying about Chavez? Interesting...

Any enemy of Pat Robertson in a friend of mine

It's not humanitarian to sell cheaper fuel to the poor communities? He only cares about cash? Brutal dictator? Where do you people come up with this stuff?

Seems to me if he really did care about cash and not the poor he would align himself with other rich people so they coudl all back each other up. SO it's not about cash.

Seems to me if he didn't care about poor people he woulnd't be selling cheap fuel to poor communities in another country when it doesn't serve to keep him in office in any way since USians can't vote for him. so it's not about power.

I don't believe you can call someone who is democratically elected a dictator anyway (elections which were deemed fair by the international community) :confused: Do you not understand what the word dictator means or do you just like to use words to further an image that has no basis in reality.

OH and thanks for voting Bush and knowing precisely what he was going to do when he got in office. Thanks a freaking lot.

Yikes Sumamba...I just get so used to people calling Chavez a dictator, I kind of forgot to call them on it!

Double yikes!

They're brainwashed into voting against their own interests.

i don't know if brainwashed is the right term. fundamentally delusional, yes. but republican voters aren't even able to correctly identifiy many of the positions of their party. on a whole host of issues they just sort of assume that the party favors things they favor, even when it loudly proclaims the opposite.

I don't believe you can call someone who is democratically elected a dictator anyway (elections which were deemed fair by the international community) :confused: Do you not understand what the word dictator means or do you just like to use words to further an image that has no basis in reality.

I just wanted to respond to this part. The term "dictator" was being thrown around so much, I didn't realize that Chavez was actually elected! He attempted a coup in 1992, but that failed. He was imprisoned, pardoned two years later, and elected in 1998. I suppose that "would-be dictator" is probably a more appropriate title ;)

OH and thanks for voting Bush and knowing precisely what he was going to do when he got in office. Thanks a freaking lot.

ya'velcome! Somebody had to do the right thing, and we knew that we couldn't leave it up to you :)

It's not humanitarian to sell cheaper fuel to the poor communities? He only cares about cash? Brutal dictator? Where do you people come up with this stuff?

Seems to me if he really did care about cash and not the poor he would align himself with other rich people so they coudl all back each other up. SO it's not about cash.

Seems to me if he didn't care about poor people he woulnd't be selling cheap fuel to poor communities in another country when it doesn't serve to keep him in office in any way since USians can't vote for him. so it's not about power.

I don't believe you can call someone who is democratically elected a dictator anyway (elections which were deemed fair by the international community) :confused: Do you not understand what the word dictator means or do you just like to use words to further an image that has no basis in reality.

OH and thanks for voting Bush and knowing precisely what he was going to do when he got in office. Thanks a freaking lot.

You're welcome.

I just wanted to respond to this part. The term "dictator" was being thrown around so much, I didn't realize that Chavez was actually elected! He attempted a coup in 1992, but that failed. He was imprisoned, pardoned two years later, and elected in 1998. I suppose that "would-be dictator" is probably a more appropriate title ;)



ya'velcome! Somebody had to do the right thing, and we knew that we couldn't leave it up to you :)


If you had no idea he was elected than you have no idea what is going on and that makes your opinion completely invalid. Thanks for playing.

You're welcome.


*stun gun*

*multiple sendings of high voltage into your body*

*satisfaction*

If you had no idea he was elected than you have no idea what is going on and that makes your opinion completely invalid. Thanks for playing.

ya'velcome!

sour grapes, baby :)


someday, live in a world where people don't presume to know everything. it's nice here.

*stun gun*

*multiple sendings of high voltage into your body*

*satisfaction*

you probably would.


yeah, if only us bush supporters were as enlightened as you. then things would be better :rolleyes:

you probably would.


yeah, if only us bush supporters were as enlightened as you. then things would be better :rolleyes:


Would I? Did I say I was enlightened?

*stun gun for you too*

How much poorer will Venezuela be in ten years when Chavez has driven out all foreign investment and has used up all the nation's wealth to buy votes?

How is he buying votes? By bringing doctors in from Cuba to train Venezuelans to become physicians? By creating literacy programs and providing free tuition for university students? If the poor people that make up the majority of Venezuelans are still poor ten years from now, at least they will be healthy and educated, and a healthy, educated person has a better chance of finding new ways to generate revenue then someone who is simply poor and raised to think their only lot in life is to cater to a priviledged minority.

Chavez is a piece of shit, a useless piece of shit, as is his so called "socialist" government.

Norway, another Socialist Nation on the other side of the world has been declared "Best place to live" for the fifth time in a row. Their economy has expanded by 3.75 percent this year, interest rates are at 2.0 percent, annual inflation is at 1.1 percent, and unemployment is at 3.7 percent... that is a damn good economy. They also have stellar education, and life expectancy. Right now, they owe their economy mainly to North Sea oil, a source worth $180 billion, or $39,000 for each citizen. They have a very successful welfare system.

Venezuela on the other hand, despite its mind boggling abundance of oil and potential for wealth, manages to maintain pitiful poverty, unemployment, and economic growth levels. Why? Because Chavez, like countless tin pot dictators, warlords, and industrial barons around the world, maintains his position of power specifically my perpetuating the condition of poverty and squalor. Year after year he will censor the media and bombard his people with garbage about how the upper class wants to oppress them, how much they need him, and what he will do if they keep him around... year after year he will do nothing but throw them scraps, letting his people suffer as much as necessary to keep himself in power. He COULD turn his country into a world class nation, he could open his markets and capitalize on his oil while staying true to Socialistic ideals like Norway, but he wont. Why? Because once the promises have been fulfilled he won't be needed anymore, once the upper class boogeyman isn't keeping them down anymore, once people don’t need to elect him to stay alive he is useless... Nothing more then any other two-bit politician.

Democracy is nothing when your only hope for staying alive is the very thing oppressing you; as long as that is the condition then Chavez is as good as any other dictator.

Chavez is a piece of shit, a useless piece of shit, as is his so called "socialist" government.

Could anything intelligent possibly follow an opening like this?

Chavez is a fucking idiot. I really hope the opposition in Venezuela can remove him. I think he's just doing this for PR nonsense.. obviously he doesn't give a shit about the people in his own country and is driving them to the poor house.So anything bad he does is evil and ruins the country's economy but anything good he does is "PR nonsense"? :rolleyes:

Chavez is an arrogant bastard that thinks he can take on the world himself.

Unlike many people here, i do listen to the news that concern South America, and i can see through his "Oh! I give help to the poor, I'm god's gift to the world, Hate the US" crap. That man has done nothing but create more anarchy in an already chaotic region as is South America. The fact that he supports the FARC and shelters them in Venezuela, using the privilege of territorial domain to stop the colombian army and police is proof of how this man truly is. I'm not a supporter of international intervention, but the US should get it over already and break the guy.

I was under the impression that Robertson was protected by the 1st Amendment?
Also, last I checked, Chaves wanted him extradited

Would the first Amendment make it okay for a Muslim cleric to call for the assassination of Bush or other acts of terrorism?

No double standards allowed.

What if hate speech is against the law in Venezuela, like it is in some other countries? If Emery can be extradited for breaking an American law in Canada (with an act that is not illegal in Canada), can't Robertson have the same kind of standard applied to him?

yeah, if only us bush supporters were as enlightened as you. then things would be better :rolleyes:I'd settle for the occasional acceptance of facts when they are presented... :p

Chavez is an arrogant bastard that thinks he can take on the world himself.

Unlike many people here, i do listen to the news that concern South America, and i can see through his "Oh! I give help to the poor, I'm god's gift to the world, Hate the US" crap. That man has done nothing but create more anarchy in an already chaotic region as is South America. The fact that he supports the FARC and shelters them in Venezuela, using the privilege of territorial domain to stop the colombian army and police is proof of how this man truly is. I'm not a supporter of international intervention, but the US should get it over already and break the guy.

Many people feel that the word I bolded in your first sentence could apply at least as well to Bush, and if the US meddled and helped to remove a democratically elected head of state, they would be proven conclusively right. It would also painfully expose the hypocrisy in the neo-cons "we're spreading democracy." chant.

If the US can be held accountable.. im betting there are gonna be an awful lot of lawsuits against the EU with all those war protestors calling for bushs death >.>

Source please - what war protestors are calling for Bush's death instead of simply the end of the war?

I am an attorney. Chavez cannot sue Robertson successfully. He has no standing in civilian court because, to dumb it down, Chavez is in Venezuela and from Venezuela; the courts can't enforce a judgment on him, and he can't enforce a judgment through the courts.

True enough. Futhermore, the US is not well known for allowing its citizens to be tried in international courts, regardless of how justified the accusation may be. Ultimately, this is posturing by Chavez, but this time, he is in the right.

There are a lot of countries -- democratic countries -- that would prosecute Robertson for hate speech if he were one of their citizens.

For example, a native leader in Canada got dinged for speaking to the press on a subject that denigrated Jews.

Many people feel that the word I bolded in your first sentence (Chavez) could apply at least as well to Bush, and if the US meddled and helped to remove a democratically elected head of state, they would be proven conclusively right. It would also painfully expose the hypocrisy in the neo-cons "we're spreading democracy." chant.

True, i see your point, and i do see it would fit bush perfectly, however, as i have said I'M NOT A SUPPORTER OF INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTION, such as Iraq, however exceptions can be made, and just because he was democratically elected, does not mean he was RIGHTFULLY democratically elected. Anyone that knows of South American politics knows it is common to see corrupt elections, such as his.

He did not deserve to win, and even when he was almost taken away form his power, he also set his influence upon the referendum.

It's crazy - even if you don't like Chavez and think that his selling of cheap fuel to poor communities in the US is all a PR stunt (which I don't see how that could be helpful to him in Venezuela), can't you at least agree that it's a good thing anyway? Unless you have something against poor people.

It's not like he invaded the US to help rid us of our brutal dictator Bush, where the results from our questionable elections made world headlines, and while 'liberating' us had killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and is attempting to instALL his personal preferential form of govt., hijack our economy with special laws that allow for him and his powerful and influential friends buy all our assets up and make our country a breeding ground for terrorists.

Even though I despise Bush I can be thankful for the good thing (there's only one thing I can think of right now) he has done despite what his intentions may have been. The do not call list was the best thing mr bush ever did. I'm glad Saddam is gone but I don't think that he needed to be dealt with right away <understatement>nor do I think the war was planned sufficiently or executed well</understatement>

...just because he was democratically elected, does not mean he was RIGHTFULLY democratically elected. Anyone that knows of South American politics knows it is common to see corrupt elections, such as his.

He did not deserve to win, and even when he was almost taken away form his power, he also set his influence upon the referendum.

Please give a valid source for the supposed fact that he did not win the election fairly. International observers of the election said that it was fair.

True, i see your point, and i do see it would fit bush perfectly, however, as i have said I'M NOT A SUPPORTER OF INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTION, such as Iraq, however exceptions can be made, and just because he was democratically elected, does not mean he was RIGHTFULLY democratically elected. Anyone that knows of South American politics knows it is common to see corrupt elections, such as his.

He did not deserve to win, and even when he was almost taken away form his power, he also set his influence upon the referendum.

How many ex Venezuelan Presidents where permitted to observe the 2000 U.S. Presidential elections?

True, i see your point, and i do see it would fit bush perfectly, however, as i have said I'M NOT A SUPPORTER OF INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTION, such as Iraq, however exceptions can be made, and just because he was democratically elected, does not mean he was RIGHTFULLY democratically elected. Anyone that knows of South American politics knows it is common to see corrupt elections, such as his.

There were more concerns on transparency and rightfulness on the last US election than in Venezuela. Plus he has survived through half a dozen referenda. Give it a rest, he is the rightfully elected president and if you don't like him he only has two terms at most.

Could anything intelligent possibly follow an opening like this?

I regard him with the exact same disdain as I do the collection of scum and villainy in Africa and around the world. Useless piece of shit is charitable. But of course... that is merely my lack of intelligence showing. :rolleyes:

The cynical side of me says that he is trying to get brownie points with the American people. You see, before Pat Robertson, no one knew who Chavez was. Now, he is trying to shed himself in a positive light. Yet it may not work. He's extremely polarizing, as evidenced by NS. I guess this will happen in the US, too.

There were more concerns on transparency and rightfulness on the last US election than in Venezuela. Plus he has survived through half a dozen referenda. Give it a rest, he is the rightfully elected president and if you don't like him he only has two terms at most.The last US election had election supervisors though.

I regard him with the exact same disdain as I do the collection of scum and villainy in Africa and around the world. Useless piece of shit is charitable. But of course... that is merely my lack of intelligence showing. :rolleyes:

Evidently.

There were more concerns on transparency and rightfulness on the last US election than in Venezuela. Plus he has survived through half a dozen referenda. Give it a rest, he is the rightfully elected president and if you don't like him he only has two terms at most.

Riight, only two at most...

What's that, four, eight years?

Like that's not enough to completely break a country...

The cynical side of me says that he is trying to get brownie points with the American people. You see, before Pat Robertson, no one knew who Chavez was. Now, he is trying to shed himself in a positive light. Yet it may not work. He's extremely polarizing, as evidenced by NS. I guess this will happen in the US, too.

That may be. He may even be a complete scum bag. But still, what he is doing is a good thing when it comes to selling cheap fuel to the poor.

Anyway, I knew who Chavez was years before Robertsons comments. I knew about a coup attempt against him that he twarted. I knew about the referendums the upper class community had against him to try to get one of their own elected, which he won every time. So did many USians here on NS as he has been debated over several times.

I wasn't aware that Venezuela had term limits. I'm not saying they don't, I just wasn't previously aware of the fact.

That may be. He may even be a complete scum bag. But still, what he is doing is a good thing when it comes to selling cheap fuel to the poor.

Anyway, I knew who Chavez years before Robertsons comments. So did many USians here on NS as he has been debated over several times.
Bob, Jim, and Jill Anderson did not. Now, this is also surprising to me, because there was speculation that he'd sell Citgo. He has bad relations with Washington, and pays them taxes through Citgo, so that is a conflict of interest there. However, he must intend to keep it, or at least for this winter. Hell, he can more than afford to pay the taxes and his special discount right now.

Riight, only two at most...

What's that, four, eight years?

Like that's not enough to completely break a country...

...I'd say it's just enough time to entrench a nation in a war they won't be able to back out of gracefully for another ten years.

Bob, Jim, and Jill Anderson did not. Now, this is also surprising to me, because there was speculation that he'd sell Citgo. He has bad relations with Washington, and pays them taxes through Citgo, so that is a conflict of interest there. However, he must intend to keep it, or at least for this winter. Hell, he can more than afford to pay the taxes and his special discount right now.


You probably need to spell out what you are saying here for me because I'm completely lost when trying to decipher the point you are making. I don't know Bob, Jim or Jill Anderson, what didn't they do?

Whats surprising to you? That Chavez would do something for the poor of another nation or what?

What is the conflict of interest you are speaking of?

and I really need clarification on this too: "Hell, he can more than afford to pay the taxes and his special discount right now."

Has everyone forgoten that Chaves is a politician? Why is it that in a liberal democracy with freedom of the press we so easilly doubt the honest intentions of ellected officials but when Chaves speaks you buy every word? Remember after the Robertson comment when Chaves said he did'nt even know who he was? And when he realized it was good PR he decides he wants to sue/ extradite. Do you think he honestly wants to help American poor when there are many poor in his own country? Or do you think he wants to make PR headway on the US and world scene while helping socialist allies in the US?

You probably need to spell out what you are saying here for me because I'm completely lost when trying to decipher the point you are making. I don't know Bob, Jim or Jill Anderson, what didn't they do?
The average American.
Whats surprising to you? That Chavez would do something for the poor of another nation or what?
That he is keeping Citgo. By owning refineries in the US, Venezuela can buy oil from other nations, even when its own is cut off. Thus, it is immensily profitable. However, it pays taxes to the US, his ideaological arch-enemy. He has always hinted at selling Citgo for this reason.

and I really need clarification on this too: "Hell, he can more than afford to pay the taxes and his special discount right now."
Think: oil prices are through the roof. Chavez has loads of cash to spend now. He has been compared to Castro, and I think that it's a fair comparison. But he is different from Castro in a special way: his government is able to get immensly wealthy, and very quickly.

Has everyone forgoten that Chaves is a politician? Why is it that in a liberal democracy with freedom of the press we so easilly doubt the honest intentions of ellected officials but when Chaves speaks you buy every word? Remember after the Robertson comment when Chaves said he did'nt even know who he was? And when he realized it was good PR he decides he wants to sue/ extradite. Do you think he honestly wants to help American poor when there are many poor in his own country? Or do you think he wants to make PR headway on the US and world scene while helping socialist allies in the US?

There is a difference between saying he is helping others in order to help himself and completely ignoring the fact he is helping the poor and calling him a dictator.

Riight, only two at most...

What's that, four, eight years?
Seven. One to go in this one, six more if he wins the next one.


Like that's not enough to completely break a country...
The Venezuelans can call a referendum in the middle of the mandate and oust the president. That's the ultimate in checks and balances. If they prefer to see it through to the end, that's their problem.

The average American.

That he is keeping Citgo. By owning refineries in the US, Venezuela can buy oil from other nations, even when its own is cut off. Thus, it is immensily profitable. However, it pays taxes to the US, his ideaological arch-enemy. He has always hinted at selling Citgo for this reason.

Think: oil prices are through the roof. Chavez has loads of cash to spend now. He has been compared to Castro, and I think that it's a fair comparison. But he is different from Castro in a special way: his government is able to get immensly wealthy, and very quickly.


Okay the politically apathetic.. a.k.a the average American probably doesn't know who Chavez was. I was arguing because you said "nobody" knew who he was but I see where you are coming from now.

Why would he buy oil from other nations when he can get his own oil cheaper? How is buyign oil from other nations for a higher price more profitable? I honestly don't know that much about the industry.

Are you telling me that Chavez wants to sell Citgo because it pays taxes to the US and he doesn't like that?

Also, you seem to be saying that he has loads of cash so he is choosing to help poor people in the US get cheaper fuel. Is there something wrong with that? I'm not sure if you think this stunt, be it genuine or a PR stunt is good or bad. No matter what hs intentions, I think it is a good thing. Surely you can agree with that? I don't see how it is harming anything anyway.

I'll reserve judgement on this move for now. I do have suspicions, but for now that is all they are.

I still don't trust him and I am concerned about the actions his regime has made over the past few years, but I'll still reserve judgement on this one. Personally, I feel it's a move to keep him in power by buying the support of Americans; that Pat Robertson thing definitely has not cast the anti-Chavez people in a very good light. If he trains the American people to eat from his hand, proverbially speaking, they will be loathe to support attempts to remove him, especially with a president as unpopular as Bush...at least that's his angle from my worldview.

And if he did it out of goodwill, then I might reconsider my opinion of him.

Chavez is a fucking idiot. I really hope the opposition in Venezuela can remove him. I think he's just doing this for PR nonsense.. obviously he doesn't give a shit about the people in his own country and is driving them to the poor house.

It's called ALTRUISM, not PR. But I assume that you don't know this concept.

Has everyone forgoten that Chaves is a politician? Why is it that in a liberal democracy with freedom of the press we so easilly doubt the honest intentions of ellected officials but when Chaves speaks you buy every word? Remember after the Robertson comment when Chaves said he did'nt even know who he was? And when he realized it was good PR he decides he wants to sue/ extradite. Do you think he honestly wants to help American poor when there are many poor in his own country? Or do you think he wants to make PR headway on the US and world scene while helping socialist allies in the US?

Even if it is PR, who does it hurt? Seems to me the only thing being hurt is his own bank account.

From what I ahve seen, Chavez is helping the poor in his country get better health and education. If you were the elected leader of Venezuela, what would you do differently to help the poor?

is Chavez even a Christian? How many has he killed or had killed.is Bush even a Christian? How many has he killed or had killed.

It's called ALTRUISM, not PR. But I assume that you don't know this concept.

No politician is an altruist. Especially one sitting on such vast wealth, the very stuff that drives the modern world.

Would the first Amendment make it okay for a Muslim cleric to call for the assassination of Bush or other acts of terrorism?

No double standards allowed.

Actually, double standards are allowed. Neither a Muslim cleric nor anyone within the US's jurisdiction can threaten the life of the President.


What if hate speech is against the law in Venezuela, like it is in some other countries?

It doesn't change the fact that Venezuela doesnt' have jurisdiction over us Americans, thankfully. Besides, here in America, "hate speech" itself isn't illegal unless it's accompanied by threats or other actions. Some states and municipalities have some archaic laws on the book that are seldom enforced, but it's pretty much understood that they wouldn't withstand Constitutional muster if challenged in federal court.


If Emery can be extradited for breaking an American law in Canada (with an act that is not illegal in Canada), can't Robertson have the same kind of standard applied to him?

I'm not familiar with the Emery issue. Nonetheless, if Robertson had been in Venezuela at the time, there would be no saving him. It really makes sense if you think about it--what if China, by law, required all people in the world to pledge allegence to them? If we didn't comply, are we going to be extradited?

Why would he buy oil from other nations when he can get his own oil cheaper?
A couple of reasons. One, Venezuelan crude is very heavy. It'd make perfect sense to refine it, but Citgo can also buy cheaper oil to make more money.
Are you telling me that Chanez wants to sell Citgo because it pays taxes to the US and he doesn't like that?

Yes. Venezuelan defense policy is now centered among a hypothetical attack from the US, and he has threatened once or twice to cut diplomatic relations. So far, he hasn't.
Also, you seem to be saying that he has loads of cash so he is choosing to help poor people in the US get cheaper fuel. Is there somethign wrong with that? I'm not sure if you think this stunt, be it genuine or a PR stunt is good or bad. No matter what hs intentions I think it is a good thing. Surely you can agree with that? I don't see how it is harming anything anyway.
Chavez needs allies in the US. Otherwise, an anti Venezuelan policy will prevail. That'll hurt their economy in the long run, and Chavez knows it. It's not just a PR stunt: it is a means of survival. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But this is a politician, not a philantropist. Worse, he has been known to be a dirty politician. You have to question his motives.

I'd settle for the occasional acceptance of facts when they are presented... :p

I am on record, even in this thread, admiting when I have made a mistake of facts. I don't see pride as something that is party-specific. :p

I'll reserve judgement on this move for now. I do have suspicions, but for now that is all they are.

I still don't trust him and I am concerned about the actions his regime has made over the past few years, but I'll still reserve judgement on this one. Personally, I feel it's a move to keep him in power by buying the support of Americans; that Pat Robertson thing definitely has not cast the anti-Chavez people in a very good light. If he trains the American people to eat from his hand, proverbially speaking, they will be loathe to support attempts to remove him, especially with a president as unpopular as Bush...at least that's his angle from my worldview.

And if he did it out of goodwill, then I might reconsider my opinion of him.


What have you done for impoverished Venezuelans out of your good will?

What have you done for impoverished Venezuelans out of your good will?

Nothing other than charitable donations; I'm only a private citizen who lacks the ability to do more.

Nothing other than charitable donations; I'm only a private citizen who lacks the ability to do more.

What Venezuelan charities do you donate to? Should the Venezuelan people look upon these donations with suspicion?

I wasn't aware that Venezuela had term limits. I'm not saying they don't, I just wasn't previously aware of the fact.Germany doesn't (at least not for the Chancellor, but he's only the third most important person according to the constitution). Kohl was going for 20 years when Schröder defeated him...

Chavez is a piece of shit, a useless piece of shit, as is his so called "socialist" government.

Norway, another Socialist Nation on the other side of the world has been declared "Best place to live" for the fifth time in a row. Their economy has expanded by 3.75 percent this year, interest rates are at 2.0 percent, annual inflation is at 1.1 percent, and unemployment is at 3.7 percent... that is a damn good economy. They also have stellar education, and life expectancy. Right now, they owe their economy mainly to North Sea oil, a source worth $180 billion, or $39,000 for each citizen. They have a very successful welfare system.

Venezuela on the other hand, despite its mind boggling abundance of oil and potential for wealth, manages to maintain pitiful poverty, unemployment, and economic growth levels. Why? Because Chavez, like countless tin pot dictators, warlords, and industrial barons around the world, maintains his position of power specifically my perpetuating the condition of poverty and squalor. Year after year he will censor the media and bombard his people with garbage about how the upper class wants to oppress them, how much they need him, and what he will do if they keep him around... year after year he will do nothing but throw them scraps, letting his people suffer as much as necessary to keep himself in power. He COULD turn his country into a world class nation, he could open his markets and capitalize on his oil while staying true to Socialistic ideals like Norway, but he wont. Why? Because once the promises have been fulfilled he won't be needed anymore, once the upper class boogeyman isn't keeping them down anymore, once people don’t need to elect him to stay alive he is useless... Nothing more then any other two-bit politician.

Democracy is nothing when your only hope for staying alive is the very thing oppressing you; as long as that is the condition then Chavez is as good as any other dictator.


Curiously, Venezuela economy grew about 15% last year alone.

What Venezuelan charities do you donate to? Should the Venezuelan people look upon these donations with suspicion?

I donate to UN charities...I presume the money is going to these regions, and I trust them more than any others.

No, they shouldn't...the reason is, I have nothing to gain from charity other than self-satisfaction at doing something good in the world. Chavez has a lot to gain from winning over a sizable chunk of the American people (the electorate, most importantly).

Curiously, Venezuela economy grew about 15% last year alone.

But when oil prices swing, so does the economy. They need to diversify, and fast, to prevent those kinds of volatility again.

Curiously, Venezuela economy grew about 15% last year alone.

Hmmm, uplifitng the poor AND growing the economy. Yeah, what a disaster :rolleyes:

Chavez is a fucking idiot. I really hope the opposition in Venezuela can remove him. I think he's just doing this for PR nonsense.. obviously he doesn't give a shit about the people in his own country and is driving them to the poor house.

You obviously do not know much about Venezuelian politics since he is the first politician in memory that actually does care about his people with his land reforms...

It's crazy - even if you don't like Chavez and think that his selling of cheap fuel to poor communities in the US is all a PR stunt (which I don't see how that could be helpful to him in Venezuela), can't you at least agree that it's a good thing anyway? Unless you have something against poor people.

You're absolutely right. The people of the US will undoubtedly benefit from this act. But the topic of discussion is what kind of person Chavez is, and his motives for the sale. But hey, yeah... cheaper gas!


It's not like he invaded the US to help rid us of our brutal dictator Bush

I'm guessing that you don't have any respect for the Iraqi situation.

where the results from our questionable elections made world headlines

I have no question about the elections.

and while 'liberating' us

"us"? Are you Iraqi?

had killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians

correct.

and is attempting to instALL his personal preferential form of govt.,

correct, but I can't see the problem here.

hijack our economy

pppsssshh. :D The economy is doing quite well, thanks. :) Unemployment is low, salaries are up, home ownership is high, inflation is down. If that's hijacking, take me hostage.


with special laws

...approved overwhelmingly in both houses of congress with wide bi-partisan support...

that allow for him and his powerful and influential friends buy all our assets up

What the heck country are you from? Are we buying Canada up? I've never been wealthier... maybe Bush is trying to make friends with me :)


and make our country a breeding ground for terrorists.

This really confuses me. Are you Iraqi? I'm serious.

Even though I despise Bush I can be thankful for the good thing (there's only one thing I can think of right now) he has done despite what his intentions may have been. The do not call list was the best thing mr bush ever did.


This makes it sound like you're American. Dang...

I'm glad Saddam is gone but

...you're upset that a Democrat didn't oust him :)

I don't think that he needed to be dealt with right away

But most of us did. I understand that having the minority view must be frustrating :(

<understatement>nor do I think the war was planned sufficiently or executed well</understatement>

Yeah, it's too bad the Pentagon didn't contact you for your input before they started this thing.

Even if it is PR, who does it hurt? Seems to me the only thing being hurt is his own bank account.

From what I ahve seen, Chavez is helping the poor in his country get better health and education. If you were the elected leader of Venezuela, what would you do differently to help the poor?

First off instead of wasting money in a PR battle with the US I would work on diversifying the economy. The oil is going to run out you know. I'd probably steal a lot of ideas from the SEA Tigers....

Worse, he has been known to be a dirty politician. You have to question his motives.

After all it was Chavez who was nearly overthrown by the alliance of the private media cartel and the CIA, which wanted to replace the democratically elected president with a corrupt puppet government. And I don't think that Hugo Chavez ever tried to overthrow or kill George Bush.

After all it was Chavez who was nearly overthrown by the alliance of the private media cartel and the CIA, which wanted to replace the democratically elected president with a corrupt puppet government. And I don't think that Hugo Chavez ever tried to overthrow or kill George Bush.

Chavez was a former military officer who tried to seize power in two separate coups. He's no more innocent in that regard than the CIA or the private interests in the region.

I donate to UN charities...I presume the money is going to these regions, and I trust them more than any others.

Does the UN specifically inform you as to which projects your money is being allocated or are you just "supposing" for the sake of argument.

No, they shouldn't...the reason is, I have nothing to gain from charity other than self-satisfaction at doing something good in the world.

Chavez was a high ranking member of the military before the attempted the coup. He could have easily taken advantage of the corruption in the system and lived an easy life. Maybe, like yourself, he wanted to do something good in the world.

Chavez has a lot to gain from winning over a sizable chunk of the American people (the electorate, most importantly).

Naturally Chavez is a politician and is in the process of learning the hard lessons of international politics. Time will tell if he will be corrupted by the system, destroyed for remaining true to his political beliefs or prevail and lead Latin America into a new age of true democracy.

"I announce that my government is going to take legal action in the United States... to call for the assassination of a head of state is an act of terrorism," Mr Chavez said in a televised speech.
So let me get this straight, he can sit there and make claims of the US being out to kill him, but when one nutbag preacher suggests the CIA actually do this, he whines like a little girl about it?

After all it was Chavez who was nearly overthrown by the alliance of the private media cartel and the CIA, which wanted to replace the democratically elected president with a corrupt puppet government. And I don't think that Hugo Chavez ever tried to overthrow or kill George Bush.
See what I mean? He's polarizing.
Really, though, I think we'd be much more critical of him by 1999, with his new constitution. But I don't want to rehash my old arguements.

Does the UN specifically inform you as to which projects your money is being allocated or are you just "supposing" for the sake of argument.

Not really, other than the fact that the charities are intended for a specific region. Beyond that, it's safe to assume that a nation with such dire poverty and water pollution as Venezuela recieves a healthy portion of that aid.

Chavez was a high ranking member of the military before the attempted the coup. He could have easily taken advantage of the corruption in the system and lived an easy life. Maybe, like yourself, he wanted to do something good in the world.

He should have used peaceful methods. Venezuela was a civilian democracy, and there is no reason why he shouldn't have used those methods. Coups are not the way to effect change other than the imposition of yet another military dictatorship. Even if his intentions were good, he would have probably been sidelined or killed when he became too effective and anti-.corruption


Naturally Chavez is a politician and is in the process of learning the hard lessons of international politics. Time will tell if he will be corrupted by the system, destroyed for remaining true to his political beliefs or prevail and lead Latin America into a new age of true democracy.

That's why I would prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. While I don't agree with the things I've heard, it will take much more than 8 years in power to fully see his nation's future or his own plans, be they good or bad.

I can see your replies and your arguments, but something everybody is overlooking is his complicity with the FARC (Armed Revolutionary Colombian Forces).
If he's such a humanitarian, why, in god blazes, is he allowing a guerrilla to hide in his country, a guerilla responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths in Colombia, from farmers to politicians, not to mention the drug market and kidnapping.
By hiding them he becomes their accomplice on chaos throughout a sister nation.
Can anyone refute this?
Can you still say his actions are of a honorable man?
A man who wants to help the poor and only tries to bring justice??

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=875
US Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41, section C.
(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any
communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any
threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Whether on broadcast or cable TV, the 700 Club certainly qualifies, and Robertson's statement is undeniably (well, undeniably without being laughed at, as Pat discovered when he tried) a threat to another person - and note that the code does not specify that the other person must be a US citizen, within the United States, or even aware of the threat.

For a fuller review of this, take a look at FindLaw's article: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050826.html
Also, yes, Venezuela does have an extradition treaty with the US, as invoked this June by Venezuela requesting Luis Posada Carilles: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1663

It seems pretty clear that Robertson could in fact be criminally prosecuted for his statements - and the First Amendment does not protect criminal threatening, so let's set that argument aside. Whether Robertson will actually see any fines or jail time depends on how seriously he gets prosecuted by federal attorneys (for violating the above) and by Venezuela (under the terms of the extradition agreement, backed by Robertson's violations of the above).

If Robertson's comments are considered a "true threat", then Robertson violated this law. And if you don't think they are - replace 'Chavez' with 'Bush' and then decide for yourself whether the Secret Service would be knocking on your door if you said it on national TV.

Would the first Amendment make it okay for a Muslim cleric to call for the assassination of Bush or other acts of terrorism?

No double standards allowed.

What if hate speech is against the law in Venezuela, like it is in some other countries? If Emery can be extradited for breaking an American law in Canada (with an act that is not illegal in Canada), can't Robertson have the same kind of standard applied to him?
Clearly, it helps communication not to make assumptions about your fellow debators. So let clarify a couple of things:

1: I'm not american.
2: I do not personally think hatespeech, hatepropaganda & other ways of inciting murder should be protected by the right to Free Speech. And it isn't in my country.
3: I can't see how an American, satisfied with their own laws, can possibly hold it against anyone, if they incite hate/murder on Americans. The laws they're so proud of, means nothing if they only extends to some people.
4: Soverign nations can (to a large extent) work out their own extradition deals, and applicable common laws. And they mostly have already. I'm not sure on the specifics in this case though. All I can say, is that fairness or equality has got fuck-all to do with it.

So.. If it's legal for the insano preacher to incite murder on a forign head of state, then Venezuela shouldn't be able to do anything about it. Neither should the US.

Assuming that's the case (as far as I know, it is), Americans should shut the fuck up when they bitch about how others wants to kill Bush (or whoever).

No double standards allowed. Sadly, very few people agree.

Not really, other than the fact that the charities are intended for a specific region. Beyond that, it's safe to assume that a nation with such dire poverty and water pollution as Venezuela recieves a healthy portion of that aid.

So setting up schools that provide free education isn't going to help the poor? Providing doctors to areas that have water pollution, you don't think that's an adequate solution either?

He should have used peaceful methods. Venezuela was a civilian democracy, and there is no reason why he shouldn't have used those methods. Coups are not the way to effect change other than the imposition of yet another military dictatorship. Even if his intentions were good, he would have probably been sidelined or killed when he became too effective and anti-.corruption

Do you read your own links? Some of the AI articles you suggested I read demonstrate that there are human rights violations committed by the Venezuelan police and military that predate the coup. Perhaps he feared he would be assassinated if he tried democratic means.

However, I agree that violence is not a viable way for a leader to come to power, but Chavez did not come to power through a coup. He served time for his participation in the revolt and was pardoned when his predessecor wanted to curry favour with the supporters of Chavez.

That's why I would prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. While I don't agree with the things I've heard, it will take much more than 8 years in power to fully see his nation's future or his own plans, be they good or bad.

I sincerely hope that time will prove my faith is well placed and that your doubts are unneccessary. I would also like to add that it is nice to discuss Chavez with a moderate minded person who is open to the possibility that what he is doing is in the best interests of his people, as opposed to those who would use dirty words to describe someone they've never met.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=875
US Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41, section C.
(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any
communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any
threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Whether on broadcast or cable TV, the 700 Club certainly qualifies, and Robertson's statement is undeniably (well, undeniably without being laughed at, as Pat discovered when he tried) a threat to another person - and note that the code does not specify that the other person must be a US citizen, within the United States, or even aware of the threat.

For a fuller review of this, take a look at FindLaw's article: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050826.html
Also, yes, Venezuela does have an extradition treaty with the US, as invoked this June by Venezuela requesting Luis Posada Carilles: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1663

It seems pretty clear that Robertson could in fact be criminally prosecuted for his statements - and the First Amendment does not protect criminal threatening, so let's set that argument aside. Whether Robertson will actually see any fines or jail time depends on how seriously he gets prosecuted by federal attorneys (for violating the above) and by Venezuela (under the terms of the extradition agreement, backed by Robertson's violations of the above).

If Robertson's comments are considered a "true threat", then Robertson violated this law. And if you don't think they are - replace 'Chavez' with 'Bush' and then decide for yourself whether the Secret Service would be knocking on your door if you said it on national TV.

Wow, I didn't know any of this. Here's to hoping Pat Robertson's oneway trip to Venezuela :D

Ok, it won't happen... But god damn it would've been brilliant

But most of us did. I understand that having the minority view must be frustrating

Ah, so how does it feel to be a Bush supporter and a person who still thinks Iraq was a good idea? :(

Oh, I see, being in the minority is okay if you comprise that minority, but otherwise it's not okay.

Nice set of floating ideals you got there.

I can see your replies and your arguments, but something everybody is overlooking is his complicity with the FARC (Armed Revolutionary Colombian Forces).
If he's such a humanitarian, why, in god blazes, is he allowing a guerrilla to hide in his country, a guerilla responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths in Colombia, from farmers to politicians, not to mention the drug market and kidnapping.
By hiding them he becomes their accomplice on chaos throughout a sister nation.
Can anyone refute this?
Can you still say his actions are of a honorable man?
A man who wants to help the poor and only tries to bring justice??

The Venezuelan-Colombian boarder has been used by smugglers and guerrillas as sanctuaries from the government for decades. The FARC has operatives in Venezuela because they are a guerrilla group and can slip across the boarder at several points where the terrain makes it difficult for security forces to patrol. Also the guerrillas have access to civilian clothes, fake passports and slip across not only the Venezuelan-Colombian Border, but the Ecuadorian-Colombian Border as well.

The Venezuelan-Colombian boarder has been used by smugglers and guerrillas as sanctuaries from the government for decades. The FARC has operatives in Venezuela because they are a guerrilla group and can slip across the boarder at several points where the terrain makes it difficult for security forces to patrol. Also the guerrillas have access to civilian clothes, fake passports and slip across not only the Venezuelan-Colombian Border, but the Ecuadorian-Colombian Border as well.

Ok, what about the incident on Rodrigo Granda?

That man is one of the most important leaders of the surversives, responsible for many massacres of innocents, and yet, when colombian agents captured him, Chavez refused to let him go under invasion of domain. Claiming that colombian agents had kidnapped a venezuelan citizen (when there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary) and condemning the colombian government.

So, is harboring a genocidial criminal an action worthy of an "american hero"?

Ok, what about the incident on Rodrigo Granda?

That man is one of the most important leaders of the surversives, responsible for many massacres of innocents, and yet, when colombian agents captured him, Chavez refused to let him go under invasion of domain. Claiming that colombian agents had kidnapped a venezuelan citizen (when there was overwhelming evidence to the contrary) and condemning the colombian government.

So, is harboring a genocidial criminal an action worthy of an "american hero"?

On December 13, 2004, Rodrigo Granda, a member (the "foreign minister") of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, or "FARC"), was kidnapped by individual Venezuelan officials in Caracas, Venezuela, and taken to Cúcuta, Colombia (a departmental capital on the two nations' common border), where he was arrested by the Colombian authorities on December 14. Granda had been an (officially uninvited) attendant to the Second Bolivarian People's Congress in Caracas, an international gathering of supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela.

Colombia admitted that it offered and paid a reward for Granda's capture, although it initially denied that he had been captured in Caracas and transported to Cúcuta, only stating that he had been officially arrested by authorities in Cúcuta. The FARC issued a statement claiming that the Venezuelan state should have protected Granda during his visit, and Granda's lawyer said that Granda held dual Venezuelan and Colombian citizenship. The Venezuelan interior ministry dismissed the FARC's claims, stated that Granda's Venezuelan identification card had been obtained through the use of forged documents and, in addition, that Venezuela had been unaware of Granda's visit and therefore had never decided for or against protecting him. Venezuelan authorities stated that their country would have cooperated with Colombian authorities through official channels, but rejected what they considered an undue violation of their sovereignity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Granda_affair

Just remember Pat Robertson want's the CIA to assasinate Chaves ;)

it'd be funny if chaves called for robertson to get knocked off and the good thing is it would probably happen :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Granda_affair

This event set off a series of diplomatic tensions, with Colombia questioning Venezuela's lack of cooperation in law enforcement actions against guerrillas in its territory, the United States supporting Colombia's position and outright accusing Venezuela of harboring these guerrillas, Venezuela accusing Colombia of violating its sovereignty, and the FARC accusing Venezuela of doing too little to protect its members...

Now, what does that phrase tell you? The FARC demanding more protection from Venezuela??? It seems to me that the FARC feel they deserve protection from Chavez....

I wonder why.......

--snip

I wonder why.......

Well, the most obvious reason is because Chavez isn't offering them protection...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Granda_affair

This event set off a series of diplomatic tensions, with Colombia questioning Venezuela's lack of cooperation in law enforcement actions against guerrillas in its territory, the United States supporting Colombia's position and outright accusing Venezuela of harboring these guerrillas, Venezuela accusing Colombia of violating its sovereignty, and the FARC accusing Venezuela of doing too little to protect its members...

Now, what does that phrase tell you? The FARC demanding more protection from Venezuela??? It seems to me that the FARC feel they deserve protection from Chavez....

I wonder why.......

Ignoring my posts and using half a quote is not a good way to build an argument.

The FARC issued a statement claiming that the Venezuelan state should have protected Granda during his visit, and Granda's lawyer said that Granda held dual Venezuelan and Colombian citizenship. The Venezuelan interior ministry dismissed the FARC's claims, stated that Granda's Venezuelan identification card had been obtained through the use of forged documents and, in addition, that Venezuela had been unaware of Granda's visit and therefore had never decided for or against protecting him. Venezuelan authorities stated that their country would have cooperated with Colombian authorities through official channels, but rejected what they considered an undue violation of their sovereignity.

You're absolutely right. The people of the US will undoubtedly benefit from this act. But the topic of discussion is what kind of person Chavez is, and his motives for the sale. But hey, yeah... cheaper gas!



I'm guessing that you don't have any respect for the Iraqi situation.



I have no question about the elections.



"us"? Are you Iraqi?



correct.



correct, but I can't see the problem here.



pppsssshh. :D The economy is doing quite well, thanks. :) Unemployment is low, salaries are up, home ownership is high, inflation is down. If that's hijacking, take me hostage.




...approved overwhelmingly in both houses of congress with wide bi-partisan support...



What the heck country are you from? Are we buying Canada up? I've never been wealthier... maybe Bush is trying to make friends with me :)




This really confuses me. Are you Iraqi? I'm serious.




This makes it sound like you're American. Dang...



...you're upset that a Democrat didn't oust him :)



But most of us did. I understand that having the minority view must be frustrating :(



Yeah, it's too bad the Pentagon didn't contact you for your input before they started this thing.

You either didn't read between the lines and get the reference or I wrote it badly. I'm willing to admit that my writing sucks, but one thing I can say for sure is that you didn't respond according to the intent of my post.

Ah, so how does it feel to be a Bush supporter and a person who still thinks Iraq was a good idea? :(

Oh, I see, being in the minority is okay if you comprise that minority, but otherwise it's not okay.

Nice set of floating ideals you got there.


got that right brotha! ^5

So setting up schools that provide free education isn't going to help the poor? Providing doctors to areas that have water pollution, you don't think that's an adequate solution either?



Do you read your own links? Some of the AI articles you suggested I read demonstrate that there are human rights violations committed by the Venezuelan police and military that predate the coup. Perhaps he feared he would be assassinated if he tried democratic means.

However, I agree that violence is not a viable way for a leader to come to power, but Chavez did not come to power through a coup. He served time for his participation in the revolt and was pardoned when his predessecor wanted to curry favour with the supporters of Chavez.



I sincerely hope that time will prove my faith is well placed and that your doubts are unneccessary. I would also like to add that it is nice to discuss Chavez with a moderate minded person who is open to the possibility that what he is doing is in the best interests of his people, as opposed to those who would use dirty words to describe someone they've never met.

You are the man! So glad to have an intelligent guy like you fighting on the side of good!

You obviously do not know much about Venezuelian politics since he is the first politician in memory that actually does care about his people with his land reforms...

One of my strengths is Latin American politics. Venezuelan politics are horribly corrupt across the board. Chavez is also corrupt. He doesn't care about his own people. He only cares about fleecing his people.

That 15% growth is superficial and has created very few jobs. Poverty has also increased subtantially, and the middle class has totally disappeared in that same time.

I can see your replies and your arguments, but something everybody is overlooking is his complicity with the FARC (Armed Revolutionary Colombian Forces).
If he's such a humanitarian, why, in god blazes, is he allowing a guerrilla to hide in his country, a guerilla responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths in Colombia, from farmers to politicians, not to mention the drug market and kidnapping.
By hiding them he becomes their accomplice on chaos throughout a sister nation.
Can anyone refute this?
Can you still say his actions are of a honorable man?
A man who wants to help the poor and only tries to bring justice??
You'll be telling me next he allows terrorist organisations to openly collect money to fund thier activities and murders in many of the major cities... To be sure to be sure a dollar for the 'cause'!

Iranian Leader to Travel to Cuba and Venezuela Before UN General Assembly Meeting
Western Hemisphere Policy Watch
(30 Aug 05) - New York will not be the first stop which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will travel in his first foreign visit as Iran's newly elected president. Scheduled to attend the summit of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September, Ahmadinejad will instead be making a stop in Cuba and Venezuela before heading to the United States for the UN summit, according to the Iranian news agency, Farda News.

(Photo) Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro meets with Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in Tehran May 9, 2001. Castro urged Iran during the trip to help it defeat the U.S. "as you toppled the Shah" in 1979. Castro also said, together, Cuba and Iran would bring America "to its knees."
Ahmadinejad would have been to the United States, to participate at the meeting of the UN general assembly. However, advisors to the conservative Iranian president have apparently advised him against his debut on the international scene in the country that Iran often refers to as the "Great Satan."
"Ahmadinejad on his trip to New York will be making a stop in Caracas to meeting with Hugo Chavez [the Venezuelan president] and after that to Havana to meet with [the Cuban leader] Fidel Castro," said a report on Farda News. The 60th meeting of the UN general assembly is set to begin on 14 September.

Yesterday, lauding the resistance of the Cuban nation to the hegemonic policies of the US, Chairman of the Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said President Fidel Castro is regarded as an impressive character in contemporary history and his presence on the political scene has left a double impacts on the anti-imperialism spirit of the Cuban nation.

Iran and Cuba are on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism.

You know the thing I find amusing about this whole Chavez thing is how Pat Robenson and the US always claim to be spreading democracy and then try to kill a democratically elected leader because they don't like him.

Does anyone think President Hugo Chavez
is a democratic leader?

He dosent call his government a government,
he calls it a revolutionary government.

Under the Bolivarian Constitution of Venezuela
President Hugo Chavez can only serve two six year terms,
does anyone believe he will not find a way to govern
foreever like President Fidel Castro of Cuba?

Only time will tell, and I hope I am wrong.

Does anyone think President Hugo Chavez
is a democratic leader?

He dosent call his government a government,
he calls it a revolutionary government.

Under the Bolivarian Constitution of Venezuela
President Hugo Chavez can only serve two six year terms,
does anyone believe he will not find a way to govern
foreever like President Fidel Castro of Cuba?

Only time will tell, and I hope I am wrong.
Who gives a gnats p#ss about democracy, it's not some great panacea that will cure the ills of the central american countires. I'm pretty sure he thinks he doing better for hios people than what came before. Let's wait and see.

Does anyone think President Hugo Chavez
is a democratic leader?

He dosent call his government a government,
he calls it a revolutionary government.

Under the Bolivarian Constitution of Venezuela
President Hugo Chavez can only serve two six year terms,
does anyone believe he will not find a way to govern
foreever like President Fidel Castro of Cuba?

Only time will tell, and I hope I am wrong.
Well he was democratically elected by a large majority so yes, he is a democratic leader.

hitler was appointed leader of germany,
held democratic elections, and became a dictator.

Like I said only time will tell, if he gives up power
democratically after serving two full 6 year terms or not.

Any leader that calls his government
a revolution does not sound like a
democratic leader.

Would we want to live
Under President Bush for life,
Tony Blair for life,
Fidel Castro for life,
Hugo Chavez for life,
Saddam Hussein for life?

I don't believe you can call someone who is democratically elected a dictator anyway (elections which were deemed fair by the international community) :confused: Do you not understand what the word dictator means or do you just like to use words to further an image that has no basis in reality.

Dictator, from the latin meaning speak. One who is able to rule by decree, or "he says it so it shall be so." It can come to power through a democratic process, like Napoleon III or Hitler did, as long as once they are in power they no longer need to consult with other government figures, or are in a position to act despite their disapproval.

We tend to think of dictatorship as being digital, either you're beholden to the people, or you're an autocrat. But really, dictatorship is analogue. As the legislative becomes weaker, more conciliatory, or even just symbolic, the executive becomes more and more of a dictator. Like when an American president waits until Congress recesses to appoint a judge or cabinet member because he knows that Congress won't confirm him, or writes an executive order rather than getting Congress to pass a law. Though, technically, he has to put it in writing, so I suppose he'd be a librecrat.

Does anyone think President Hugo Chavez
is a democratic leader?

He dosent call his government a government,
he calls it a revolutionary government.

So then we should abolish the Republican party because they called it the "Republican Revolution" when Gingrich came in, and we have an amendment that prohibits anyone from holding office if they've helped overthrow the government. By their own admission, and your standards, the Republicans overthrew the government and all ought to be banished.

Now Hugo Chavez wants to help the victims of Katrina. God bless this great man.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050829/pl_afp/usweathervenezuelaoil

Venezuela offers fuel, food to hurricane-hit US Mon Aug 29, 7:48 PM ET

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez offered to send food and fuel to the United States after the powerful Hurricane Katrina pummeled the US south, ravaging US crude production.

The leftist leader, a frequent critic of the United States and a target himself of US disapproval, said Venezuela could send aid workers with drinking water, food and fuel to US communities hit by the hurricane.

"We place at the disposition of the people of the United States in the event of shortages -- we have drinking water, food, we can provide fuel," Chavez told reporters.

Chavez said fuel could be sent to the United States via a Citgo refinery that has not been affected by the hurricane. Citgo is owned by Venezuela's state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

In the Gulf of Mexico, which accounts for a quarter of total US oil output, 92 percent of crude and 83 percent of natural gas production were shut down due to Hurricane Katrina, which slammed Louisiana and Mississippi, according to US government data.

Venezuela is the fourth-largest provider of oil to the United States, supplying some 1.5 million barrels a day.

Last week, Chavez offered discount gasoline to poor Americans suffering from high oil prices and on Sunday offered free eye surgery for Americans without access to health care.

Iranian Leader to Travel to Cuba and Venezuela Before UN General Assembly Meeting
Western Hemisphere Policy Watch
(30 Aug 05) - New York will not be the first stop which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will travel in his first foreign visit as Iran's newly elected president. Scheduled to attend the summit of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September, Ahmadinejad will instead be making a stop in Cuba and Venezuela before heading to the United States for the UN summit, according to the Iranian news agency, Farda News.

(Photo) Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro meets with Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in Tehran May 9, 2001. Castro urged Iran during the trip to help it defeat the U.S. "as you toppled the Shah" in 1979. Castro also said, together, Cuba and Iran would bring America "to its knees."
Ahmadinejad would have been to the United States, to participate at the meeting of the UN general assembly. However, advisors to the conservative Iranian president have apparently advised him against his debut on the international scene in the country that Iran often refers to as the "Great Satan."
"Ahmadinejad on his trip to New York will be making a stop in Caracas to meeting with Hugo Chavez [the Venezuelan president] and after that to Havana to meet with [the Cuban leader] Fidel Castro," said a report on Farda News. The 60th meeting of the UN general assembly is set to begin on 14 September.

Yesterday, lauding the resistance of the Cuban nation to the hegemonic policies of the US, Chairman of the Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said President Fidel Castro is regarded as an impressive character in contemporary history and his presence on the political scene has left a double impacts on the anti-imperialism spirit of the Cuban nation.

Iran and Cuba are on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism.

The U.S. should be on that list too, unless ofcourse they decide to shut down Fort Benning Georgia.

One of my strengths is Latin American politics.

No it isn't.

Venezuelan politics are horribly corrupt across the board. Chavez is also corrupt. He doesn't care about his own people. He only cares about fleecing his people.

That 15% growth is superficial and has created very few jobs. Poverty has also increased subtantially, and the middle class has totally disappeared in that same time.

Yes, ofcourse, statistical information is so unreliable. ;)