NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-12/07/content_3887865.htm

Talk about a term limit... If we were to pass a similar law in the US, I'm sure people would be saying that it was the end of the world. But I guess it's a good thing for Venezuela to adopt a fascist dictator-for-almost-life.

Honestly, if your own government said that they had just passed laws that make your current PM or President stay in office until 2030, would you be upset?

CARACAS, Dec. 6 (Xinhuanet) -- New deputies elected to Venezuela'sNational Assembly, to be sworn in January, will legislate to keep President Hugo Chavez in office until 2030, National Assembly President Nicolas Maduro said on Tuesday.

The legislation would be revolutionary and would ensure that Chavez remains in power not just till 2021, but till 2030, Maduro said at a ceremony celebrating the victory of pro-government deputies in Sunday's elections.

Honestly, if your own government said that they had just passed laws that make your current PM or President stay in office until 2030, would you be upset?Considering who our PM is, yes, I'd be upset..
But if it was someone I liked, someone I considered suited for the job and likely to remain so. Then perhaps..
25 years is a long time though, and power tends to corrupt.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-12/07/content_3887865.htm

Talk about a term limit... If we were to pass a similar law in the US, I'm sure people would be saying that it was the end of the world. But I guess it's a good thing for Venezuela to adopt a fascist dictator-for-almost-life.

Honestly, if your own government said that they had just passed laws that make your current PM or President stay in office until 2030, would you be upset?
Upset? It would be time for a revolution!

Considering who our PM is, yes, I'd be upset..
But if it was someone I liked, someone I considered suited for the job and likely to remain so. Then perhaps..
25 years is a long time though, and power tends to corrupt.
I don't care if I liked our president. If the congress gave him that kind of power and he didn't veto it I'd start mailing out bombs or something. The constitution must come before politics and personal power.

I don't care if I liked our president. If the congress gave him that kind of power and he didn't veto it I'd start mailing out bombs or something. The constitution must come before politics and personal power.

I just want to see how many people like the idea of "President For Life" - people who secretly admire fascism.

I just want to see how many people like the idea of "President For Life" - people who secretly admire fascism.
Implying of course that anyone who supports Chavez, or supported him in the past of course loves facism.

I'm going to wait until I can read this from other sources to form an opinion...but on the general idea of presidential terms being extended...the restrictions are there for a reason, and no matter how 'good' a government might be, they need to have regular changes in leadership.

Edit: mmmm...click on the 'indian beauties' on that page...yum!

Disturbing if true. But the story lacks some critical details, such as exactly what it means to "keep Chavez in office until 2030". If they're simply going to lift the term limits law, that doesn't necessarily mean Chavez will stay in office - he might not be re-elected. If they're extending Chavez' current term to 2030 without elections, though, it's simply a fascist power grab.

Lifting term limits isn't necessarily undemocratic. The US did fine without presidential term limits until the 1950s, and there have been people in both parties in favor of repealing the term limits amendment ever since. I'm on the fence about it myself - I can see arguments both for and against term limits.

I'd really like to see some more details on what's going on here. Any other news sources reporting this?

Implying of course that anyone who supports Chavez, or supported him in the past of course loves facism.

I'm going to wait until I can read this from other sources to form an opinion...but on the general idea of presidential terms being extended...the restrictions are there for a reason, and no matter how 'good' a government might be, they need to have regular changes in leadership.

Edit: mmmm...click on the 'indian beauties' on that page...yum!

I didn't think that xinhua was the equivalent of Fox News, and probably more friendly to Venezuela.

Disturbing if true. But the story lacks some critical details, such as exactly what it means to "keep Chavez in office until 2030". If they're simply going to lift the term limits law, that doesn't necessarily mean Chavez will stay in office - he might not be re-elected. If they're extending Chavez' current term to 2030 without elections, though, it's simply a fascist power grab.

Lifting term limits isn't necessarily undemocratic. The US did fine without presidential term limits until the 1950s, and there have been people in both parties in favor of repealing the term limits amendment ever since. I'm on the fence about it myself - I can see arguments both for and against term limits.

I'd really like to see some more details on what's going on here. Any other news sources reporting this?

Going to have to look around - it's Chinese news.

I didn't think that xinhua was the equivalent of Fox News, and probably more friendly to Venezuela.
I'm not familiar with it at all. In any case, like I said, I'll wait until more details are forthcoming.

If it had been somebody i supported then: YES!

Disturbing if true. But the story lacks some critical details, such as exactly what it means to "keep Chavez in office until 2030". If they're simply going to lift the term limits law, that doesn't necessarily mean Chavez will stay in office - he might not be re-elected. If they're extending Chavez' current term to 2030 without elections, though, it's simply a fascist power grab.
Good points.

More links:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/13355182.htm

http://english.eluniversal.com/2005/12/06/en_pol_art_06A641283.shtml

http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/16579_Chavez.html

I just want to see how many people like the idea of "President For Life" - people who secretly admire fascism.You mean like the "President" of Jordan...the one you say is not a Dictator :rolleyes:
...or the "President" of Kuwait?...maybe you are talking about the "President" of UAE...

Which one is Chavez like?

You mean like the "President" of Jordan...the one you say is not a Dictator:rolleyes: ... or the "President" of Kuwait?...maybe you are taling abour the "President" of UAE...

Wich one is Chavez like?

Did I say they weren't dictators? Link to where I posted that they weren't dictators, and you'll win a prize...

It doesn't change the fact that Chavez can keep his post until 2030.

Did I say they weren't dictators? Link to where I posted that they weren't dictators, and you'll win a prize...
Prize?...

here is the contract.

I post the link...and if most posters say I am wrong... I will post one of your quotes in my sig for a week...

If they say you are wrong...You will post a quote of mine...for a week.

oh yeah...and I want a TG with your famous pics as a signing bonus. :D

Some analysts believe elections paved the way to Chavez to amend the constitution and extend term limits for all offices, including the president. Current term limits would bar Chavez from running again in 2012 if he is re-elected next year, but a new law could allow him to keep his post until 2030.
http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/16579_Chavez.html

OK, that clarifies things a bit. It appears that they are just doing away with term limits. He could still be removed from office by the voters, assuming fair elections are held.

(Interesting that Pravda is now a somewhat reliable news source, but I seem to be fond of digressions this morning.)

:p

*sigh* disappointing...

Upset? It would be time for a revolution!
Damn right

So...Chavez can stay in office for as long as he is elected without having to stand down for another member? Doesn't really seem fascist at all, just unusual I guess. Still, if he's doing a good job then this will let him continue doing so without having to worry about leaving and rushing through issues in his last term. If the people don't like him, they can still vote him out.

Hardly fascist really.

Heh, I saw this in the Topics thingy in-game and thought some nation had elected a Chav president... burberry all round!

If you're not british, you probably won't get this. Or do they have chavs in US? If so, you know what to do with them..,

:mad: :sniper:

So...Chavez can stay in office for as long as he is elected without having to stand down for another member? Doesn't really seem fascist at all, just unusual I guess. Still, if he's doing a good job then this will let him continue doing so without having to worry about leaving and rushing through issues in his last term. If the people don't like him, they can still vote him out.

Hardly fascist really.
Well, in the last parlimentary elections the opposition boycotted because of allegations of rigged vote counting machines. Only 25% of the eligible voters turned out. Hardly a mandate from the people, and if the allegations are true it's totally undemocratic.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/05/venezuela.vote.ap/

Well, in the last parlimentary elections the opposition boycotted because of allegations of rigged vote counting machines. Only 25% of the eligible voters turned out. Hardly a mandate from the people, and if the allegations are true it's totally undemocratic.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/05/venezuela.vote.ap/

Well, damn. I withdraw my first statement. Looks like Chavez might be upto no good. My sincere apologies DCD and DK. Looks like you boys might be onto something.

Think the US'll try some good old international pressure?

Well, damn. I withdraw my first statement. Looks like Chavez might be upto no good. My sincere apologies DCD and DK. Looks like you boys might be onto something.

Think the US'll try some good old international pressure?

No, according to some civil servant up at the UN, and a few EU nations, the US doesn't have any credibility to speak.

So we won't. Besides, Chavez stokes his constituency by telling them that the evil US is coming. So if we don't say anything and never show up and never impose sanctions, they'll eventually figure out he's full of it.

Think the US'll try some good old international pressure?yes I think so :D :D ;) :D

Well, damn. I withdraw my first statement. Looks like Chavez might be upto no good. My sincere apologies DCD and DK. Looks like you boys might be onto something.

Think the US'll try some good old international pressure?
Nope. It would be counterproductive. It would rally his people behind him and would cause other nations to go to his aid. Best strategy is to wait until he runs his nation into the ground with his bad economic policies and then make nice with the party that replaces him.

The constitution must come before politics and personal power.

Amen!

*Adds DCD's words of wisdom to sig*

Have a beer!

Isn't democracy fun! See what can happen?

And the opposition hasn't been too clever in this case... If they claim that the 75% who didn't vote were "united in silence", well then maybe they should have run against him and gotten those votes instead? Independent observators has stated that they found no evidence of a rigged election - but that is hardly needed if he's got no opposition who runs against him. So the results give him legitimacy even if the voter-turnout is low.

...and the opposition has painted themselves into a corner.

yes I think so :D :D ;) :D

Actually, I doubt they will - it really wouldn't work. Though I guess you'd like that...

More links:

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/13355182.htm

http://english.eluniversal.com/2005/12/06/en_pol_art_06A641283.shtml

http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/16579_Chavez.html
Ay, none of these sources answer the question of "is Chavez being legislated into power until 2030, or are the term restrictions being lifted...in which case, he has the ability to, but not the guarantee to be re-elected over and over until then."

Did I say they weren't dictators? Link to where I posted that they weren't dictators, and you'll win a prize...

It doesn't change the fact that Chavez can keep his post until 2030.
But so far, it doesn't guarantee it either. I'm interested in how many democratic nations do not have term restrictions.

Amen!

*Adds DCD's words of wisdom to sig*

Have a beer!
Gee, thanks. Maybe the FBI or secret service would enjoy investigating me over that statement.

Ay, none of these sources answer the question of "is Chavez being legislated into power until 2030, or are the term restrictions being lifted...in which case, he has the ability to, but not the guarantee to be re-elected over and over until then."

Since the opposition refused to take part in the elections over allegations of vote-rigging, he's probably guaranteed to be re-elected as many times as he likes.

Gee, thanks. Maybe the FBI or secret service would enjoy investigating me over that statement.

I can always edit it if you don't like it, though.

Isn't democracy fun! See what can happen?

And the opposition hasn't been too clever in this case... If they claim that the 75% who didn't vote were "united in silence", well then maybe they should have run against him and gotten those votes instead? Independent observators has stated that they found no evidence of a rigged election - but that is hardly needed if he's got no opposition who runs against him. So the results give him legitimacy even if the voter-turnout is low.

...and the opposition has painted themselves into a corner.
Unless the voting machines were actually rigged, in which case they voted with their absence and nobody can rig that.

Well, damn. I withdraw my first statement. Looks like Chavez might be upto no good. My sincere apologies DCD and DK. Looks like you boys might be onto something.

Think the US'll try some good old international pressure?
Maria Corina Machado, who leads the U.S.-backed vote watchdog group Sumate, called the vote "illegitimate."

"We are going to have a single party parliament that doesn't represent ample sectors of society," she said in a statement.
The vote is illegitimate because Chavez's party won an overwhelming victory? How's that? The opposition boycotted...they weren't prevented, they voluntarily decided to sit in the corner and pout. They are also suspected of blowing up a pipeline before the election:

Officials said government foes had tried to disrupt the vote by blowing up an oil pipeline. They called Saturday night's pipeline explosion a failed plot aimed at paralyzing supplies to Venezuela's largest oil refinery and destabilizing the country. Is that how political opposition works? With terrorism and hissy fits?

The Organization of American States had 60 observers monitoring the vote, while the European Union had 160 observers on hand.Do you hear any of the observers crying foul? Funny....only the opposition, and assorted haters of Chavez are. How much creedence are you going to give them? They'd hate him no matter what he did.

I can always edit it if you don't like it, though.
Yeah, please do. My hands aren't perfectly clean. If they really wanted to mess with me they could find something.

I don't care if I liked our president. If the congress gave him that kind of power and he didn't veto it I'd start mailing out bombs or something. The constitution must come before politics and personal power.

But, should the Constitution come before people?

Isn't democracy fun! See what can happen?

And the opposition hasn't been too clever in this case... If they claim that the 75% who didn't vote were "united in silence", well then maybe they should have run against him and gotten those votes instead? Independent observators has stated that they found no evidence of a rigged election - but that is hardly needed if he's got no opposition who runs against him. So the results give him legitimacy even if the voter-turnout is low.

...and the opposition has painted themselves into a corner.
And no shit...would you bother voting when the opposition didn't bother to show up anyway? You know who's going to win...why waste your time? Of COURSE there was an incredibly low turnout...but I love that the opposition is implying that somehow they were prevented from turning up. Low turnout in this case doesn't mean lack of support, it means normal people said, 'hey, why bother? Our guy's getting in anyway'.

Since the opposition refused to take part in the elections over allegations of vote-rigging, he's probably guaranteed to be re-elected as many times as he likes.
Allegations are all well and good, but INTERNATIONAL OBSERVERS found no signs of vote-rigging. And you of all people should know that an allegation alone does not hold up. Proof is needed. If it smells like bullshit, looks like bullshit...

Allegations are all well and good, but INTERNATIONAL OBSERVERS found no signs of vote-rigging. If it smells like bullshit, looks like bullshit...
Hmm... at this point, regardless of whether or not there was vote-rigging, if there's no opposition, he's President for Life with the term limits removed.

Unless the voting machines were actually rigged, in which case they voted with their absence and nobody can rig that.
I think they'd be best of holding another election...though god knows how much elections cost...what more does the opposition want? There were international observers? They need to get off their asses and join in...if the people want Chavez out, they can't very well get him out if there is no one else to vote for. And they can stop crying foul until they bloody well prove there is some sort of vote rigging going on.

Hmm... at this point, regardless of whether or not there was vote-rigging, if there's no opposition, he's President for Life with the term limits removed.
That's assuming there will never be opposition. I can't see them using this tactic indefinately, especially if the claims of vote rigging are false. Hell, even if the claims are true...I can't see them sitting out of every single election until 2030. It's a political ploy on their part, to make the election seem invalid. Well if it is, they made it so with their absence.

But, should the Constitution come before people?
The constitution is a tool to protect the people. Sometimes it protects people from themselves. The majority might want a president for life, just like the majority might want an official national religion, but the constitution makes them go through a long process of writing and approving an ammendment before they get it. That forces them to think through what they really want to do. If you short circuit the constitution you're an enemy of the people as well as the state.

The constitution is a tool to protect the people. Sometimes it protects people from themselves.
...
If you short circuit the constitution you're an enemy of the people as well as the state.so if the majority of the people want to amend the constitution...the People becomes an enemy of the People?

I say oxymoron

Just a quick question to the people saying the opposition boycott makes the election effectively invalid.

In the 2004 US presidential election there were worries from some people that some of the voting machines could be rigged to favour Bush. If Kerry had therefore boycotted the election and got 0 votes, how many of you would be demanding Bush stands down as democracy hadn't been served?

But, should the Constitution come before people?

That... Is what the Constitution is there for. It exists to mediate the inherent instabilities of both raw Democracy and Autocracy. It keeps bad shit like elected dictators from coming to power and demagogues from disenfranchising an ever larger number of people. Thirty Tyrants anyone?

Just a quick question to the people saying the opposition boycott makes the election effectively invalid.

In the 2004 US presidential election there were worries from some people that some of the voting machines could be rigged to favour Bush. If Kerry had therefore boycotted the election and got 0 votes, how many of you would be demanding Bush stands down as democracy hadn't been served?As I've said, I think another election should be held...but the opposition needs to participate. Have inspectors check the voting machines, whatever...I think that this is going to be continued to be used against Chavez, so in that way, the opposition accomplished their goal. But if another election is held, there should be full participation by the parties...they should not be allowed to stymie another EXPENSIVE election.

Implying of course that anyone who supports Chavez, or supported him in the past of course loves facism.

I'm going to wait until I can read this from other sources to form an opinion...but on the general idea of presidential terms being extended...the restrictions are there for a reason, and no matter how 'good' a government might be, they need to have regular changes in leadership.

Edit: mmmm...click on the 'indian beauties' on that page...yum!

Hi Sinuhue, welcome back, so I guess you would agree with me that the restriction term limits and regular changes in leadership should apply to
President Hugo Chavez and President Dictator for life Fidel Castro of Cuba.

The constitution is a tool to protect the people. Sometimes it protects people from themselves. The majority might want a president for life, just like the majority might want an official national religion, but the constitution makes them go through a long process of writing and approving an ammendment before they get it. That forces them to think through what they really want to do. If you short circuit the constitution you're an enemy of the people as well as the state.

The constitution must come before politics and personal power.

I'd disagree... I'd say the Constitution is a tool to define rights and responsibilities... whether that 'protects the people', or the opposite.

The important thing is, here you are running around making bomb-threats, because the constitution is more important TO YOU, than politics (although, I'm not sure how you separate those two) or personal power... and yet you don't see the irony that you are talking about blowing people up, to 'protect' them, apparently?

What about if something 'non-constitutional' (by current standards) WAS, in real terms, the BEST thing for the people?

Surely, the good of the people SHOULD come before the constitution? To me, at least, human lives are worth more than any number of 'pieces of paper'.

Just a quick question to the people saying the opposition boycott makes the election effectively invalid.

In the 2004 US presidential election there were worries from some people that some of the voting machines could be rigged to favour Bush. If Kerry had therefore boycotted the election and got 0 votes, how many of you would be demanding Bush stands down as democracy hadn't been served?
Me.

Hi Sinuhue, welcome back, so I guess you would agree with me that the restriction term limits and regular changes in leadership should apply to
President Hugo Chavez and President Dictator for life Fidel Castro of Cuba.Were Cuba a democracy, then yeah sure, I'd support a restriction of terms.

I'm not really decided on this one though...I mean, a restriction in terms only means a specific person can not be the head of state for longer than the set period of time...it doesn't mean the party can't be there forever and ever amen. And new leadership doesn't always change the party much...it can, but it's not a guarantee. Bleh...who knows...I'd be suspicious of a move like this in my own country, to a certain extent, but then again, I don't think it would guarantee one leader a permanent position...

Hey, I'm going to Cuba in January:)

Good for you then. At least you're consistent.

Moving on, how many elections does Chavez have to win before people'll drop all this dictator talk?

That... Is what the Constitution is there for. It exists to mediate the inherent instabilities of both raw Democracy and Autocracy. It keeps bad shit like elected dictators from coming to power and demagogues from disenfranchising an ever larger number of people. Thirty Tyrants anyone?

Enough of the grade-school 'patriotism class' version... that isn't what the constitution is 'there for', at all, now, is it?

The Constitution is not some holy relic. It sets forth the rights and rsponsibilities of the state, in terms of the relationship between people and government - and how much influence each should have on the other.

It does NOT keep anything from happening, because it can ALWAYS be amended... all it DOES do is set forth a system. One that CAN be dynamic, although it seems to be viewed as somewhat inanimate.

The point is, if the US consitution were amended to allow Bush to serve another 25 years, Bush serving for another 25 years would BE 'constitutional'.

It perturbs me that the US seems to have decided their Constitution is the Newest Testament, or something.

Good for you then. At least you're consistent.

Moving on, how many elections does Chavez have to win before people'll drop all this dictator talk?
It'll never end. The term has apparently been altered to include "people who are elected democractically, but with whom we do not agree".

The constitution must come before politics and personal power.

I'd disagree... I'd say the Constitution is a tool to define rights and responsibilities... whether that 'protects the people', or the opposite.

The important thing is, here you are running around making bomb-threats, because the constitution is more important TO YOU, than politics (although, I'm not sure how you separate those two) or personal power... and yet you don't see the irony that you are talking about blowing people up, to 'protect' them, apparently?

What about if something 'non-constitutional' (by current standards) WAS, in real terms, the BEST thing for the people?

Surely, the good of the people SHOULD come before the constitution? To me, at least, human lives are worth more than any number of 'pieces of paper'.
Whoa, before you accuse me of terrorism take my response in the context it was offered. The government of the US is subordinate to the constitution. Lawmakers, executive branch officials and judges are forced to act within the framework of the constitution. I made no bomb threats against legitimate government officials. I made no bomb threats against current government officials. I only stated that if the government decided to scrap the constitution it was illegitimate and subject to revolution. This principle is supported in the writings of our founding fathers. Please don't try to get me arrested.

The constitution isn't just a piece of paper. It's a set of ideas that are designed to protect people from tyranny. It's got a built in system for changing the rules. I can't see how enforcing the constitution would hurt the people.

so if the majority of the people want to amend the constitution...the People becomes an enemy of the People?

I say oxymoron
Did I say that? No. I know that the constitution provides for a process to ammend it. That process is good. It encourages thoughtfull debate and democratic action. Ammending the constitution by using the methods prescribed in that document is totally constitutional by definition.

It'll never end. The term has apparently been altered to include "people who are elected democractically, but with whom we do not agree".

So I can call Bush a dictator? Blair? my MP? hell, any Tory MP? This could be fun after all...

Whoa, before you accuse me of terrorism take my response in the context it was offered. The government of the US is subordinate to the constitution. Lawmakers, executive branch officials and judges are forced to act within the framework of the constitution. I made no bomb threats against legitimate government officials. I made no bomb threats against current government officials. I only stated that if the government decided to scrap the constitution it was illegitimate and subject to revolution. This principle is supported in the writings of our founding fathers. Please don't try to get me arrested.

The constitution isn't just a piece of paper. It's a set of ideas that are designed to protect people from tyranny. It's got a built in system for changing the rules. I can't see how enforcing the constitution would hurt the people.

First - Your exact words were "I don't care if I liked our president. If the congress gave him that kind of power...". You neglect to even include the prosepct that the constitution CAN be altered to make that a thoroughly 'constituitional' action.

Second - Again - exact words: "I don't care if I liked our president. If the congress gave him that kind of power and he didn't veto it I'd start mailing out bombs or something". So - in order to protect YOUR vision of what government should do... YOUR interpretation of the constitution... you are willing to engage in terrorist activities... by your own admission.

Third - "Mailing bombs" is tantamount to killing people. I don't see how you see it any other way. Whether or not those people are 'legitimate government officials'... or 'illegitimate' ones... or just post office workers who happen to be unlucky enough to be stood nearby when your explosive device gets 'munched' by the mail-sorting machine.... I don't see how you read the constitution to make that 'okay'?

First - Your exact words were "I don't care if I liked our president. If the congress gave him that kind of power...". You neglect to even include the prosepct that the constitution CAN be altered to make that a thoroughly 'constituitional' action.


The congress can't give him that kind of power. It wouldn't be constitutional. DCD is right.

First - Your exact words were "I don't care if I liked our president. If the congress gave him that kind of power...". You neglect to even include the prosepct that the constitution CAN be altered to make that a thoroughly 'constituitional' action.

Second - Again - exact words: "I don't care if I liked our president. If the congress gave him that kind of power and he didn't veto it I'd start mailing out bombs or something". So - in order to protect YOUR vision of what government should do... YOUR interpretation of the constitution... you are willing to engage in terrorist activities... by your own admission.

Third - "Mailing bombs" is tantamount to killing people. I don't see how you see it any other way. Whether or not those people are 'legitimate government officials'... or 'illegitimate' ones... or just post office workers who happen to be unlucky enough to be stood nearby when your explosive device gets 'munched' by the mail-sorting machine.... I don't see how you read the constitution to make that 'okay'?

First - I was assuming that they'd ignored the constitution, not ammended it. I was trying to protect what the constitution said our government should do, not what I think it should do. Personally I think the constitution stands in the way of some things I'd personally like to see happen, but I acknowledge that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and that it must be obeyed. Rule of law comes first.

Second - No, in order to protect the US constitution I'd be willing to participate in a revolution against an illegitimate government that had decided to scrap the document. Terrorists kill civilians. Revolutionaries kill the people in power who opress them.

Third - If the government abandons the constitution I believe that the founding fathers would have endorsed a revolution. My loyalty is with the constitution, not with any tyrant. This nation was born out of revolution against what the founding fathers saw as tyranny and in the second ammendment they provided for an armed populace that could revolt again if the government became tyrannical.

Were Cuba a democracy, then yeah sure, I'd support a restriction of terms.

I'm not really decided on this one though...I mean, a restriction in terms only means a specific person can not be the head of state for longer than the set period of time...it doesn't mean the party can't be there forever and ever amen. And new leadership doesn't always change the party much...it can, but it's not a guarantee. Bleh...who knows...I'd be suspicious of a move like this in my own country, to a certain extent, but then again, I don't think it would guarantee one leader a permanent position...

Hey, I'm going to Cuba in January:)

Well at least you agree Cuba is not a democracy, and therefore Fidel Castro is a dictator for life where the party in power never changes, please get to know the real Cuba not the Cuba for tourists with hard currency only, and while I do not agree with your Cuba travel plans, have a nice trip to Cuba,
it is still a beautiful island nation despite dictator for life Fidel Castro of Cuba.

P.S. I saw your going to Cuba Thread.

Well at least you agree Cuba is not a democracy, and therefore Fidel Castro is a dictator for life where the party in power never changes, please get to know the real Cuba not the Cuba for tourists with hard currency only, and while I do not agree with your Cuba travel plans, have a nice trip to Cuba,
it is still a beautiful island nation despite dictator for life Fidel Castro of Cuba.
Na, this trip, it's all about the resorts. I'll save the real Cuba for later. Why even go, you ask? Well, I could just hang out in a hotel in Canada...but I want to sit in the sun, and I don't feel like going to Mexico. I'm going to be a total resort bitch...I probably won't even step foot onto REAL Cuba soil. My dollars will prop up Fidel's reign. MUAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

Mexican presidents are limited to just one term and from time to time the president would send someone (a secretary, congressperson, governor, etc) to say something like "hey, wouldn't it be good if term limits were raised" and wait for the ensuing uproar to see if that'd be a good idea or not. It never was a good idea.

However, Mexico fought a bloody revolution over reelection issues, so that is a much more sensitive spot than it is in Venezuela.

We still have to wait for the 2006 Venezuelan presidential election and what happens after that.

But, if Chavez wants my opinion, he should look closer into modern Mexican history, especifically Plutarco Elias Calles.

Na, this trip, it's all about the resorts. I'll save the real Cuba for later. Why even go, you ask? Well, I could just hang out in a hotel in Canada...but I want to sit in the sun, and I don't feel like going to Mexico. I'm going to be a total resort bitch...I probably won't even step foot onto REAL Cuba soil. My dollars will prop up Fidel's reign. MUAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

At least I am being nice about this.

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
Thomas Jefferson

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
Thomas Jefferson

If our house be on fire, without inquiring whether it was fired from within or without, we must try to extinguish it.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Lewis, Jr., May 9, 1798

"Every generation needs a new revolution."
Thomas Jefferson quotes

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny"
Thomas Jefferson quotes

In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
Topic: Constitution

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Topic: Obedience

A little rebellion now and then is a good thing.
Topic: Rebellion

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty.
Topic: Timidity

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

At least I am being nice about this.
I'm just reminding you I'm a bitch. You may have forgotten:)

Hmmm, it's nice to know that people consider the country I live in undemocratic as it doesn't have terms limits. Which is odd when you consider that its parliament has existed since the 13th century (though it has only been a truly democratic institution for the last century), and that this system of democracy is considered to be the mother of many of parliamentary democracies. But if term limits make a country democratic, then who am I to disagree with the majority.

Anyway, it looks like a stunt by the Venezuelan opposition to entice Chavez to take a stronger hold of the country so they can legitimise violent means of opposition where their democratic means have failed miserably.

Besides, Venezuela can hardly be called undemocratic at the moment. It's had 11 polls in 7 sevens. Perhaps people are getting tired of constantly having to get up and walk to the polling station.

However, I agree with the US administration. Buying weapons from Spain instead of the US? That's just hideous! Chavez must obviously be a threat to stability in the region.

Time will tell, but Chavez definately will have a tough time ahead of him trying to resist the pressure of legislature completely under his control.

Aha! So England doesn't have term limits? What do you have to say to THAT, Kimchi? My god...Tony Blair could be "Dictator for a Long Time" too!!!!

Aha! So England doesn't have term limits? What do you have to say to THAT, Kimchi? My god...Tony Blair could be "Dictator for a Long Time" too!!!!
Yeah, but there aren't allegations of vote rigging in England. There were such allegations in Venezuela, the opposition boycotted the vote, and only 25% of the eligible voters showed up. It does look a little more crooked in Venezuela.

Aha! So England doesn't have term limits? What do you have to say to THAT, Kimchi? My god...Tony Blair could be "Dictator for a Long Time" too!!!!

They don't have a lot of things written down in the UK - they go on a lot of good will and trust.

Yeah, but there aren't allegations of vote rigging in England. There were such allegations in Venezuela, the opposition boycotted the vote, and only 25% of the eligible voters showed up. It does look a little more crooked in Venezuela.There were such allegations in the US, actually. And we didn't have international observers on hand, which - IIRC - were present in Venezuela.

The opposition basically decided to be petty and throw away the election, and now they're going to extend term limits. Doesn't inspire confidence in Chavez for me, but it's not the end of the world yet.

Aha! So England doesn't have term limits? What do you have to say to THAT, Kimchi? My god...Tony Blair could be "Dictator for a Long Time" too!!!!

YAY! UK bashing.

Seriously though, tony blair is not the head of state, he's just the most popular MP amongst labour memebers, and First Lord of the Treasury.

There were such allegations in the US, actually. And we didn't have international observers on hand, which - IIRC - were present in Venezuela.

The opposition basically decided to be petty and throw away the election, and now they're going to extend term limits. Doesn't inspire confidence in Chavez for me, but it's not the end of the world yet.
What did the International observers report back in any case? :confused:

There were such allegations in the US, actually. And we didn't have international observers on hand, which - IIRC - were present in Venezuela.

The opposition basically decided to be petty and throw away the election, and now they're going to extend term limits. Doesn't inspire confidence in Chavez for me, but it's not the end of the world yet.
Agreed. The vote on term limits, however, should be postponed until the election's fairness can be determined IMHO. If Bush and the congress tried to push for an elimination of term limits, particularly in his first term where I'm pretty convinced the election was unfair, I'd be pretty angry.

They don't have a lot of things written down in the UK - they go on a lot of good will and trust.
And its worked pretty damn well so far. It survived the first half of the 20th century when most European governments collapsed either from war or internal pressures. For instance: France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Central and Eastern Europe.
[/uncharacteristic patriotism :O]

What did the International observers report back in any case? :confused:
No complaints so far.

The opposition boycotted the election because they said that it would be possible to cross-link the information between the fingerprint machine used to record that you have voted and the vote-taking machine. Potentially that would make it possible to create a record of who voted for whom. Of course, the government denies it, but the opposition insisted that an investigation was necessary.

The other problem is that the Venezuelan electoral authority is made up of party people, with each party getting a proportional representation according to the last vote. This means that it's in the hands of whatever happens to be the strong party, and this can block or reject electoral reforms or propositions.

And its worked pretty damn well so far. It survived the first half of the 20th century when most European governments collapsed either from war or internal pressures. For instance: France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Central and Eastern Europe.
[/uncharacteristic patriotism :O]
There's nothing like tradition, I always say.

No complaints so far.

The opposition boycotted the election because they said that it would be possible to cross-link the information between the fingerprint machine used to record that you have voted and the vote-taking machine. Potentially that would make it possible to create a record of who voted for whom. Of course, the government denies it, but the opposition insisted that an investigation was necessary.

The other problem is that the Venezuelan electoral authority is made up of party people, with each party getting a proportional representation according to the last vote. This means that it's in the hands of whatever happens to be the strong party, and this can block or reject electoral reforms or propositions.

Yeah but unlike the Chechnya election which the Int'l observ. said was unfair and probably if not positively rigged, if they say this Venez. one was legit, then... well, it's legit!

YAY! UK bashing.

Seriously though, tony blair is not the head of state, he's just the most popular MP amongst labour memebers, and First Lord of the Treasury.He's 'just' the most popular MP amongst labour memebers, and First Lord of the Treasury? I think you do not understand the significance of the position. As I'm aware the American president cannot dismiss his vice president, whereas Blair can dismiss anyone he likes from the cabinet for simply publicly disagreeing with him.

However, it is true that he isn't head of state, but no English head of state has vetoed an Act for Parliament for way over a century.

I'm just reminding you I'm a bitch. You may have forgotten:)

I am a nice guy, Ok Sinuhue have a nice trip to Cuba anyway,
the end of the story.

Canada doesn't have term limits on its prime ministers or other politicians. Does that make Canada undemocratic?

Just because there is an amendment to the US constitution disallowing presidents to serve for more than two terms doesn't mean that all countries must do things the same way.

I'm backing Sinuhue on this. There have been allegations of election rigging on the part of the opposition, but international observers have found no evidence. The opposition parties chose not to participate. With no opposition, it's not surprising that most people didn't bother to go out and vote. Hell, more than half of the potential voters in the US don't bother to vote either, even when all the parties show up.

The opposition parties made their point. They knew they would lose - in previous elections (again, observed by international election babysitters), Chavez still got more than 60% of the popular vote. This time they wanted to make a stand and a big splash on the international scene. So they boycotted. They took their toys and went home. But does that mean that Venezuela should go without a government because the opposition doesn't want to play anymore? Do they have to keep spending money on elections until the opposition is satisfied with the results?

Or maybe they should figure out a way to become more popular amongst the most populous people in Venezuela - the poor. That's what Chavez does, and that's who votes for him. They only get one vote each, but there are still more poor and working class people in that country than middle class or wealthy people. And if the wealthy and middle class continue to emigrate, well, that just makes the percentage of pro-Chavez voters even larger. The opposition parties need to find ways to appeal to the people who are staying in Venezuela, not the ones who are leaving. And if they can't figure that out, Chavez really will be President-for-Life, because the poor people won't have an opposition candidate they want to vote for.

It's kinda like politics in Canada. If the CPC want to climb over their 1/3 of the population voting base, they have to appeal to the rest of Canada without alienating their base. If they can't do that, it's not the Liberals fault and it's not the voters fault, it's the party's fault.

What did the International observers report back in any case? :confused:

Washington Post writes: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601913.html)

European observers said Tuesday that Venezuela's congressional elections were fair and transparent despite opposition claims of irregularities and a low voter turnout.



Jose Silva, head of the European Union team, said the vote was clean and praised the elections council.
"For us, there was transparency in the electoral process," said Silva, who oversaw about 160 observers.
He said many Venezuelans did not trust the nation's elections system, leading them to abstain from voting.


And, not surprisingly, he blames the US for the low turnout... It's part of a plot, you see. :cool:


Fnord

YAY! UK bashing.

Seriously though, tony blair is not the head of state, he's just the most popular MP amongst labour memebers, and First Lord of the Treasury.That's right. Great Britain's head of state hasn't been chosen through a democratic process at all, and she definitely doesn't have any term limits.

That's right. Great Britain's head of state hasn't been chosen through a democratic process at all, and she definitely doesn't have any term limits.
Well, since you have no problem with removing term limits, we'll go ahead and repeal ours here in the US.

Well, in the last parlimentary elections the opposition boycotted because of allegations of rigged vote counting machines. Only 25% of the eligible voters turned out. Hardly a mandate from the people, and if the allegations are true it's totally undemocratic.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/05/venezuela.vote.ap/

In the last two non-presidential parliamentary elections turnout rates were comparable. That WITH the boycott.

The opposition boycotted because polls indicated Chávez's coalition would win, and they would much rather condemn the results as illegitimate than participate legitimately and lose.

Chávez has the right to remain president as long as the people keep electing him.

Ya know what I think? Who cares? It's no one's business except for Venezuela's. They can do as they please. In Canada we've had leaders who have served many terms back to back. So what!

Ya know what I think? Who cares? It's no one's business except for Venezuela's. They can do as they please. In Canada we've had leaders who have served many terms back to back. So what!
We'll keep that statement on file for the day when the people of Venezuela get tired of Chavez, but can't get rid of him because he's become as parasitic as Pinochet.

Ya know what I think? Who cares? It's no one's business except for Venezuela's. They can do as they please. In Canada we've had leaders who have served many terms back to back. So what!

Can we sing the "Blame Canada" song now? :D

Can we sing the "Blame Canada" song now? :D

Oh yes, please do, I love that one! :)

He's 'just' the most popular MP amongst labour memebers, and First Lord of the Treasury? I think you do not understand the significance of the position. As I'm aware the American president cannot dismiss his vice president, whereas Blair can dismiss anyone he likes from the cabinet for simply publicly disagreeing with him.

However, it is true that he isn't head of state, but no English head of state has vetoed an Act for Parliament for way over a century.

No, I do actually. It is you that does not. There is no actual position "prime minister." Indeed the term started as an insult. Moreover, you can be prime minister without being first lord.

Tony Blair is only "Prime minister" because of the consent of fellow labour members. His government could be brought down tomorrow if they felt that strongly about it.

Yeah, but there aren't allegations of vote rigging in England. There were such allegations in Venezuela, the opposition boycotted the vote, and only 25% of the eligible voters showed up. It does look a little more crooked in Venezuela.
How do you know there weren't allegations of vote rigging in England? I'm sure a bunch of people alleged that. But they aren't likely to get much press, because no one is waiting to pounce on such accusations, the way they are when dealing with Venezuela. The point is not the allegations, it's the fact that a lack of term restrictions does not automatically mean 'Dictator for a long time'.

YAY! UK bashing.

Seriously though, tony blair is not the head of state, he's just the most popular MP amongst labour memebers, and First Lord of the Treasury.
Yeah, it's a little different in parliamentary systems like ours. Martin is the First Lord of the Toilet Brush.

I am a nice guy, Ok Sinuhue have a nice trip to Cuba anyway,
the end of the story.
:fluffle:

Yeah, it's a little different in parlimentary systems like ours. Martin is the First Lord of the Toilet Brush.

I think the UK could use a lord of the toilet brush. Indeed, I long to see the day when the Prime Minister has to scrub peoples toilets.

Ya know what I think? Who cares? It's no one's business except for Venezuela's. They can do as they please. In Canada we've had leaders who have served many terms back to back. So what!
Ack...SOCRED for 30 years in a row in Alberta...do we have term limits, Steph? I'm a bad Canadian...I don't actually remember.

We'll keep that statement on file for the day when the people of Venezuela get tired of Chavez, but can't get rid of him because he's become as parasitic as Pinochet.
Ah yes, compare him to a military dictator who had thousands murdered, tortured, and dissappeared, and who was so arrogantly sure that his people loved him anyway, that he finally lost power during a referendum he was certain he'd win. Hmm...the connection? Oh...they're both South American. Yeah. What...Hitler's not good enough to compare him too? Or is that TOO over the top?

We'll keep that statement on file for the day when the people of Venezuela get tired of Chavez, but can't get rid of him because he's become as parasitic as Pinochet.

Please tell me you are not as incurably stupid as this post suggests.

Pinochet killed thousands of people who opposed his regime.
Chavez simply beat them in an election.

Well, since you have no problem with removing term limits, we'll go ahead and repeal ours here in the US.Sure, why don't you do that? We here in Canada get by just fine without them. And the US did too, until that amendment was added to your constitution just a few decades ago. (It was in the fifties, yes?)

The point is, just because the US has term limits doesn't mean that everyone else needs them. Have term limits, don't have term limits, they both have their pros and cons.

Sure, why don't you do that? We here in Canada get by just fine without them.

The point is, just because the US has term limits doesn't mean that everyone else needs them. Have term limits, don't have term limits, they both have their pros and cons.
It doesn't???:eek:

It doesn't???:eek:Does your sarcasm gun have a full automatic mode? :D

Canadian reason to have term limits: Ralph Klein. The guy is a bumbling drunken fool who publically makes fun of the poor and those with mental disabilities. But Albertans keep voting him into office. Maybe the Alberta Liberals should boycott the next provincial election. I mean, just because you know you're going to lose because 75% of the population is voting for the same party they've been voting for for over a decade doesn't mean you can't find a reason to disrupt the process.

Viva the Alberta Liberal revolution!

Or so I've been hearing in this thread.

Or maybe the should do what the Canadian federal conservative party has done. They've been in opposition to the same party for 12 years, but they just keep plugging along, hoping someday to split the center-left vote and somehow increase their appeal in the urban ridings.

Nah, that sounds boring. I mean, all they're likely to get if they actually win is a minority government anyway.

Does your sarcasm gun have a full automatic mode? :D
No, that's illegal. Semi-automatic only.

You know, it occurs to me that Klein and Chavez have a lot in common - they're both loud, bigmouthed populist politicians who say things they shouldn't in public. The primary difference is that Klein kisses US government bootie, while Chavez farts in its general direction. If Klein made international headlines, it would balance things out more.

Canadian reason to have term limits: Ralph Klein. The guy is a bumbling drunken fool who publically makes fun of the poor and those with mental disabilities. But Albertans keep voting him into office. Maybe the Alberta Liberals should boycott the next provincial election. I mean, just because you know you're going to lose because 75% of the population is voting for the same party they've been voting for for over a decade doesn't mean you can't find a reason to disrupt the process. Ay, we have a long history of voting in the same people ad naseum. I think Ralph is a dictator (forget he was democratically elected), a nutjob populist, and many other things I can't say here.

Viva the Alberta Liberal revolution!

Or so I've been hearing in this thread.

Or maybe the should do what the Canadian federal conservative party has done. They've been in opposition to the same party for 12 years, but they just keep plugging along, hoping someday to split the center-left vote and somehow increase their appeal in the urban ridings.

Nah, that sounds boring. I mean, all they're likely to get if they actually win is a minority government anyway.Why won't anyone think of OUR opposition parties, and cry about how unfair life is for them? WHY!!!???

You know, it occurs to me that Klein and Chavez have a lot in common - they're both loud, bigmouthed populist politicians who say things they shouldn't in public. The primary difference is that Klein kisses US government bootie, while Chavez farts in its general direction. If Klein made international headlines, it would balance things out more.
Haahahahaha...you beat me too it. Klein has made more outrageous statements than Chavez...but has so far only directed them towards people with little political power...homeless people, students, the elderly, the infirm, the mentally ill, and so on.

But Klein will always win in a popularity contest against Chavez (a contest held in Canada or the US anyway) because he's a devout capitalist.

Well this is good news for you leftists. The USSR is gone, Castro could buy the farm any day now, and China is getting a little too "capitalist". I s'pose you need a new Communist dictatorship to look up to.

And make no mistake, he is a dictator. Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler; did they just seize power by force? Of course not. Their people wanted them. Caesar, conquerer of Gaul, Napoleon, bringer of order after the Terror, Hitler, who would save the downtrodden and abused German people from misery and make them greater than ever before. You don't have tryanny forced on you. You invite it. You smile and march along because the tyrant is someone you like.

Well this is good news for you leftists. The USSR is gone, Castro could buy the farm any day now, and China is getting a little too "capitalist". I s'pose you need a new Communist dictatorship to look up to.

And make no mistake, he is a dictator. Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler; did they just seize power by force? Of course not. Their people wanted them. Caesar, conquerer of Gaul, Napoleon, bringer of order after the Terror, Hitler, who would save the downtrodden and abused German people from misery and make them greater than ever before. You don't have tryanny forced on you. You invite it. You smile and march along because the tyrant is someone you like.
Aye carumba. Did you notice that none of the elected bad guys you mentioned above were communists? Did you notice that none of the communists you mentioned above were ever elected? No one is running around saying that Castro was democratically elected. But we are pointing out that Chavez has been elected multiple times, and international observers have been onsite to ensure that the vote was fair.

If the people of that country continue to vote for Chavez in fair democratic elections, they have the right to have him as leader. Especially if opposing parties don't show up at the election. If Chavez does start rigging the elections, or cancels them altogether, then the international community can rise up and condemn them. You know, like what happened in the Ukraine recently. Until then, they get the president they vote for, just like you do.

Well this is good news for you leftists. The USSR is gone, Castro could buy the farm any day now, and China is getting a little too "capitalist". I s'pose you need a new Communist dictatorship to look up to.

And make no mistake, he is a dictator. Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler; did they just seize power by force? Of course not. Their people wanted them. Caesar, conquerer of Gaul, Napoleon, bringer of order after the Terror, Hitler, who would save the downtrodden and abused German people from misery and make them greater than ever before. You don't have tryanny forced on you. You invite it. You smile and march along because the tyrant is someone you like.
:rolleyes: The same bullshit could be said of the US. But bullshit it would remain, nonetheless. You can't suddenly change the meaning of dictator to mean "people who are democratically elected, but with whom we do not agree" all on your own.

USians hate it when people bitch about who they vote in...so why don't you shut the hell up about who OTHER people vote in? TIT FOR TAT.

And make no mistake, he is a dictator. Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler; did they just seize power by force? Of course not.
You forgot Roosevelt. And there was strong talk about lifting term limits so Reagan could run again.

Not everybody who gets elected to serve a long time ends up becoming a dictator, you know.

First - I was assuming that they'd ignored the constitution, not ammended it. I was trying to protect what the constitution said our government should do, not what I think it should do. Personally I think the constitution stands in the way of some things I'd personally like to see happen, but I acknowledge that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and that it must be obeyed. Rule of law comes first.

Second - No, in order to protect the US constitution I'd be willing to participate in a revolution against an illegitimate government that had decided to scrap the document. Terrorists kill civilians. Revolutionaries kill the people in power who opress them.

Third - If the government abandons the constitution I believe that the founding fathers would have endorsed a revolution. My loyalty is with the constitution, not with any tyrant. This nation was born out of revolution against what the founding fathers saw as tyranny and in the second ammendment they provided for an armed populace that could revolt again if the government became tyrannical.

First - amended or breached doesn't matter. I find it hard to believe that either eventuality JUSTIFIES mailing bombs to people. Killing people for a piece of paper... the Bible OR the 'Constitution'... sickens me.

Second - Terrorists use the weapon of terror (i.e. fear of their actions), to attempt to institute some change in a regime. The actions you describe, ARE those of a terrorist. Call yourself a 'partisan' if you prefer.... or 'insurgent' seems quite popular.

Third - again, I am distressed at how people seem to regard the Cionstitution as some kind of holy book. The 'founding fathers' were mortal men. I'm sorry, but it's true. And THOSE mortal men may have protected the citizenry best by WRITING the Constitution.... however, another mortal man might protect the citizenry best by shredding it.

No, I do actually. It is you that does not. There is no actual position "prime minister." Indeed the term started as an insult. Moreover, you can be prime minister without being first lord.

Tony Blair is only "Prime minister" because of the consent of fellow labour members. His government could be brought down tomorrow if they felt that strongly about it.I'm sorry to have made an incorrect assumption of your knowledge.

Well I'm sure I'm telling you what you already know, but...

Well, like Deep Kimchi said, the UK seems to have an affinity towards tradition. The term Prime Minister is actually mentioned in a few pieces emergency wartime legislation.

Well technically the position of Prime Minister is by apointment of the sovereign (can she can appoint whoever she wants, be it one of her corgis if she so wishes). However, for at least the last 100 years, the sovereign has appointed the head of the majority party in the House of Commons as the Prime Minister.

Despite their existence, these technicalities make vert little difference to British Government. For instance, the Prime Minister is the first among equals in the cabinet, but this hasn't stopped Prime Ministers becoming increasingly presidential.

Hmmm... I'm sure where I'm going with this. I'll guess I'll stop.

I'm sorry to have made an incorrect assumption of your knowledge.

Well I'm sure I'm telling you what you already know, but...

Well, like Deep Kimchi said, the UK seems to have an affinity towards tradition. The term Prime Minister is actually mentioned in a few pieces emergency wartime legislation.

Well technically the position of Prime Minister is by apointment of the sovereign (can she can appoint whoever she wants, be it one of her corgis if she so wishes). However, for at least the last 100 years, the sovereign has appointed the head of the majority party in the House of Commons as the Prime Minister.

Despite their existence, these technicalities make vert little difference to British Government. For instance, the Prime Minister is the first among equals in the cabinet, but this hasn't stopped Prime Ministers becoming increasingly presidential.

Hmmm... I'm sure where I'm going with this. I'll guess I'll stop.


If you want to be very technical, the office of Prime Minister is actually named in the order of precedence, the Chequers Act, and formally established by the Ministers of the Crown act.

However, there is little statutory authority that describes the actual powers and duties entailed to the position.

As a matter of constitutional convention much of the authority that is percieved to be held by the prime minister, actually stems from Royal Perogative exercised upon the "advice" of the prime minister. For example, the Monarch still actually appoints all cabinet ministers, however this is done so on the basis of the PMs recommendations.

As a practical matter, Tony Blair's power exists only so long as he can control his fellow labour MPs. Which he can't anymore. He'll be gone by easter. Next June at the latest.

Edit: Actually I see we are pretty much in agreement about the nature of the office though. And yes Tony has been too presidential. I remember when PMs used to walk to work.

You remember when Prime Ministers used to walk to work? Eheh... I was only 12 when Blair was elected (despite being 4 years above the age of suffrage, I have still yet to be able to exercise my right to vote. Don't get me wrong, I've tried, but circumstance has just meant I've never been near a place where I can place my vote at times of election. Not that my vote would have made a difference, I would have voted for Diane Abbott <3, the incumbent)

You're probably right about Blair's resignation. He seems to be getting kinda 'last-stand-ish', especially with the amendment to the terror bill and his comment afterwards 'I may have lost, but it's better to do what you think is right and lose rather than the other way round'. And his comments that he know he's going to get a lot of flak from both sides of the channel over his negiotions overs the EU budget.

OK, that clarifies things a bit. It appears that they are just doing away with term limits. He could still be removed from office by the voters, assuming fair elections are held.

In that case, no problem at all. We have no limits here in France as to how many times someone can be re-elected. Seems there *is* a limit in Venezuela, though. Over here, age acts as a natural limit. Chirac won't be standing for a third term, and neither did Mitterrand before him.

Aye carumba. Did you notice that none of the elected bad guys you mentioned above were communists? Did you notice that none of the communists you mentioned above were ever elected? No one is running around saying that Castro was democratically elected. But we are pointing out that Chavez has been elected multiple times, and international observers have been onsite to ensure that the vote was fair.

If the people of that country continue to vote for Chavez in fair democratic elections, they have the right to have him as leader. Especially if opposing parties don't show up at the election. If Chavez does start rigging the elections, or cancels them altogether, then the international community can rise up and condemn them. You know, like what happened in the Ukraine recently. Until then, they get the president they vote for, just like you do.

I was actually making two seperate points:

1) Liberals like communist dictatorships, or at least don't veiw them as worse than any other system of government.

2) Just because someone is elected doesn't make them a good and just leader.

You mean like the "President" of Jordan...the one you say is not a Dictator :rolleyes:
...or the "President" of Kuwait?...maybe you are talking about the "President" of UAE...

Which one is Chavez like?

All the countries you just listed are kingdoms. Kingdoms work differently. However Venezuela was a democracy. I use the term was because now it clearly looks as if it will not be. Sorry to see this happen.

:rolleyes: The same bullshit could be said of the US. But bullshit it would remain, nonetheless.

Uh huh. I must have missed the part when Bush suspended elections and crowned himself emperor. But then I'm just brainwashed by FoxNews. Better put your tinfoil back on, wouldn't want the CIA-Rays to get you.

You can't suddenly change the meaning of dictator to mean "people who are democratically elected, but with whom we do not agree" all on your own.

Go back and read my post. If you can find and highlight where I did that, you win a cookie. What I said was that many dictators are brought into office by popular demand.

USians hate it when people bitch about who they vote in...so why don't you shut the hell up about who OTHER people vote in? TIT FOR TAT.

I may hate it but that sure doesn't stop you and others from bitching about how we vote. So when shut up about Bush I'll shut up about Chavez. TIT FOR TAT.

Well this is good news for you leftists. The USSR is gone, Castro could buy the farm any day now, and China is getting a little too "capitalist". I s'pose you need a new Communist dictatorship to look up to.

And make no mistake, he is a dictator. Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler; did they just seize power by force? Of course not. Their people wanted them. Caesar, conquerer of Gaul, Napoleon, bringer of order after the Terror, Hitler, who would save the downtrodden and abused German people from misery and make them greater than ever before. You don't have tryanny forced on you. You invite it. You smile and march along because the tyrant is someone you like.

*sigh*

Not even the CIA views the current government of Venezuela as being a dictatorship.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ve.html

I was actually making two seperate points:

1) Liberals like communist dictatorships, or at least don't veiw them as worse than any other system of government.

2) Just because someone is elected doesn't make them a good and just leader.You haven't made point number one at all. I have yet to meet a liberal who thought Stalin was cool, for example. I could just as easily say that conservatives like facist dictatorships, because of the support for Batiste and Pinochet. But unlike you, I know that is a gross generalization.

As for point number 2, yay! We agree. Being elected doesn't automatically make someone a good leader. Examples abound. But as you may recall from the last US federal election, people don't like it when you tell them they shouldn't vote for the person they want to vote for. As long as an election is free and fair, the population gets the leader they voted for. We have no need to get involved unless they are invading other countries, or slaughtering their own population or some other equally horrific thing. And guess what. Whatever mistakes Chavez is making - he's not making those ones.

You forgot Roosevelt. And there was strong talk about lifting term limits so Reagan could run again.

Not everybody who gets elected to serve a long time ends up becoming a dictator, you know.

Again, either what I wrote was unclear, in which case I'm happy to correct it, or my words are being deliberately twisted, in which case that's very intellectually dishonest.

I did not say that anybody who is constantly elected by popular vote is a dictator. I said dictators are frequently first elected by popular vote or brought in by a popular revolution.

And as a side note, many politicians during WWII were growing weary of Roosevelt. Very popular leader, wartime, great deal of nationalism. The ingrediants were there and more than a few were concerned.

Again, either what I wrote was unclear, in which case I'm happy to correct it, or my words are being deliberately twisted, in which case that's very intellectually dishonest.

I did not say that anybody who is constantly elected by popular vote is a dictator. I said dictators are frequently first elected by popular vote or brought in by a popular revolution.

And as a side note, many politicians during WWII were growing weary of Roosevelt. Very popular leader, wartime, great deal of nationalism. The ingrediants were there and more than a few were concerned.But you keep calling Chavez a dictator with nothing to back it up. That's the problem.

We have no need to get involved unless they are invading other countries, or slaughtering their own population or some other equally horrific thing. And guess what. Whatever mistakes Chavez is making - he's not making those ones.

I did not suggest such a course of action. And if my first point was a gross generalization, I apologize for getting hot-headed. But the fact remains that it takes a great stretch to call the situation in Venezuela democratic.

But you keep calling Chavez a dictator with nothing to back it up. That's the problem.

Oh come on now. If the Democrats boycotted the next election, and the 100% Republican congress voted to keep Bush in office until 2030, would that not send up some kind of red flags for you?

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-12/07/content_3887865.htm

Talk about a term limit... If we were to pass a similar law in the US, I'm sure people would be saying that it was the end of the world. But I guess it's a good thing for Venezuela to adopt a fascist dictator-for-almost-life.

Honestly, if your own government said that they had just passed laws that make your current PM or President stay in office until 2030, would you be upset?

Since when to we accept the editorialized predictions of xihuanet.com as gospel truth?

Regardless, this hasn't even been proposed yet, let alone done. Even your story would require Chavez to be re-elected every 6 years. So all the alleged bill does is raise term limits.

You are scaping the barrel here.

Oh come on now. If the Democrats boycotted the next election, and the 100% Republican congress voted to keep Bush in office until 2030, would that not send up some kind of red flags for you?Yeah, I'd say you Americans had gone completely crazy.

There's a difference between saying that Bush will be permitted to run again in 2008 and 2012 and 2016 (etc) and saying Bush will be the president until 2030.

And that's what they're doing in Venezuela. Getting rid of term limits so that Chavez can run again. And if the opposition doesn't like it, they better do more to appeal to the voters, or you're right, they may as well crown him King.

But as long as they hold free and fair elections every term, and the opposition have the opportunity to participate, neither of us can call that a dictatorship.

Here in Canada, we've had multiple leaders who have run the country or its provinces in excess of 10 straight years. Are we a dictatorship because we let them run for more than 2 terms?

Oh come on now. If the Democrats boycotted the next election, and the 100% Republican congress voted to keep Bush in office until 2030, would that not send up some kind of red flags for you?

I believe in the two-term limit for President, but I wouldn't be as hysterical as you suggest.

The alleged proposal (the source is iffy) would only lift Venezuala's current term limits law. Chavez would still have to be re-elected.

Face it. You might not like him, but he has the support of the vast majority of his people.

elections: president elected by popular vote for a six-year term; election last held 30 July 2000 (next to be held NA 2006)
election results: Hugo CHAVEZ Frias reelected president; percent of vote - 60%
note: a special presidential recall vote on 15 August 2004 resulted in a victory for CHAVEZ; percent of vote - 58% in favor of CHAVEZ fulfilling the remaining two years of his term, 42% in favor of terminating his presidency immediately

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ve.html

Again, either what I wrote was unclear, in which case I'm happy to correct it, or my words are being deliberately twisted, in which case that's very intellectually dishonest.
Neither. You're just making a very poor argument.

I did not say that anybody who is constantly elected by popular vote is a dictator. I said dictators are frequently first elected by popular vote or brought in by a popular revolution.
Which makes it seem like you mean that popular support is a bad thing, when in truth it is the abuse of this popular support for personal benefit that's bad.

And as a side note, many politicians during WWII were growing weary of Roosevelt. Very popular leader, wartime, great deal of nationalism. The ingrediants were there and more than a few were concerned.
That they were, which still didn't mean he really was about to become a dictator, even if he had lived another twenty years.

Regardless, this hasn't even been proposed yet, let alone done. Even your story would require Chavez to be re-elected every 6 years. So all the alleged bill does is raise term limits.
It has been talked about seriously by Venezuelan legislators. It will be interesting to see if they really do it, or in what capacity Chávez intends to remain active in political life.

2) Just because someone is elected doesn't make them a good and just leader.

WHAT?! :eek: But they said... And it's a democratic... You know, in a democracy it's...

Say it ain't so, Joe, say it ain't so!

Sorry about that, I will go away now...

I was actually making two seperate points:

1) Liberals like communist dictatorships, or at least don't veiw them as worse than any other system of government.

That statement is absurd.

Anti-"communism" in the case of "communist" dictatorships spans across the entire Left, from the moderate social democrats of American liberalism to Trotskyist ultra-radicals.

2) Just because someone is elected doesn't make them a good and just leader.

No, it does not. It does, however, mean that the person in question is not a dictator.

Oh come on now. If the Democrats boycotted the next election, and the 100% Republican congress voted to keep Bush in office until 2030, would that not send up some kind of red flags for you?

Yes, about the reactionary complicity of the Democratic Party in the reckless abuses of the Republicans.

Unless the polls predicted a massive loss for the Democrats, and they withdrew as to avoid the humiliation and denounce the election as illegitimate.

I was actually making two seperate points:

1) Liberals like communist dictatorships, or at least don't veiw them as worse than any other system of government.

This is just silly. Liberals detest all types of dictatorships. Unfortunately, the US has a habit of cozying up to anti-communist dictators (Somoza) or other convenient dictators (Hussein).

2) Just because someone is elected doesn't make them a good and just leader.

No one disagrees with this.

Interesting that Pravda is now a somewhat reliable news source...

http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/16593_indigo.html

Say what?!