NationStates Jolt Archive

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A1AAB827-2F19-492C-9204-CF933D734338.htm

What a bastard.:rolleyes:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A1AAB827-2F19-492C-9204-CF933D734338.htm

What a bastard.

Hm. He's offering cheap fuel to low-income families. Hardly looks like a bastard to me.

Man, you pissed me off for a second.
I thought you said "Cesar Chavez is a bastard."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A1AAB827-2F19-492C-9204-CF933D734338.htm

What a bastard.

He had no father? Whoa!

That's so ridiculous it's not even funny anymore; this is the same thing as taking someone's money, making a huge profit off of it, and then giving back a pittance of it as a "generous" donation.

Venezuelan oil production has fallen 40% since Chavez has taken power, resulting in drastically reduced exports which have a lot to do with the rise in oil prices. This in turn increased the burden on the poor and lower income consumers drastically but meant billions for the state owned oil company, it's so bad now that they have to buy oil from Russia to meet their OPEC quota.

One of the main reasons why lower income consumers have to pay so much is because of Chavez's (intentional?) mismanagement of the oil industry. What he's doing is reaping massive profits off of the poor and then giving them a pittance to make it look like he cares...if he truly cared about the poor, he would be driving increases in production to lower costs for them and not buying oil off Russia to hide his incompetence as a leader.

People are seeing him for what he really is, though. Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador and the Carribean nations are all moving against him either independently or on the side of the US.

Man, you pissed me off for a second.
I thought you said "Cesar Chavez is a bastard."

No, Cesar Chavez actually cared about the poor and didn't use them as a tool to put himself in as dictator of South America.

No, Cesar Chavez actually cared about the poor and didn't use them as a tool to put himself in as dictator of South America.
Precisely.

....
Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador and the Carribean nations are all moving against him either independently or on the side of the US.
Are they? How?

Are they? How?

All of their leaders oppose Chavez, Guatemala/Carribean/El Salvador/Uruguay are all negotiating free trade agreements directly with the US, and even Alan Garcia of Peru (the former Chavez of South America in the 1980's) is denoucing him as a threat.

All of their leaders oppose Chavez, Guatemala/Carribean/El Salvador/Uruguay are all negotiating free trade agreements directly with the US, and even Alan Garcia of Peru (the former Chavez of South America in the 1980's) is denoucing him as a threat.

Oooh. The economic giants that they are.

I'm sure Chavez and Morales and Lula are quaking in thier boots.

No, Cesar Chavez actually cared about the poor and didn't use them as a tool to put himself in as dictator of South America.

Some "dictator"; all those elections just vaporize into air?

By helping Low-Income European Families, Hugo Chavez is merely fueling the European Communist Juggernaut. Those families woud normally need to take money off of Europe that they could use on their army. I always knew Hugo Chavez was a closest Communist.

By helping Low-Income European Families, Hugo Chavez is merely fueling the European Communist Juggernaut.


...And that is bad, how?

By helping Low-Income European Families, Hugo Chavez is merely fueling the European Communist Juggernaut.

I'm quaking with terror.

Oh, please, Great Lord George W. Bush, protect me from the European Communist Juggernaught....

I'm quaking with terror.

Oh, please, Great Lord George W. Bush, protect me from the European Communist Juggernaught....

Amen. :)

So he's an ass because he's offering warmth to the working class? And you call him a bastard? You capitalist swine. Hugo Chavez is a great man. He is working so that the working class can be the same as the "manager" class.

So he's an ass because he's offering warmth to the working class? And you call him a bastard? You capitalist swine. Hugo Chavez is a great man. He is working so that the working class can be the same as the "manager" class.

The problem is, the European Working Class will be warm. But if Hugo Chavez gives them warmth, it means the Governments of Europe don't have to, and if they don't need to give warmth, they have more money to fuel their Communist system.

The problem is, the European Working Class will be warm. But if Hugo Chavez gives them warmth, it means the Governments of Europe don't have to, and if they don't need to give warmth, they have more money to fuel their Communist system.
The governments of Europe don't even give warmth to the poor. And more money to communism, the better. And they aren't even giving money to communism, since they're all capitalist bastards. (most of them anyways)

The problem is, the European Working Class will be warm. But if Hugo Chavez gives them warmth, it means the Governments of Europe don't have to, and if they don't need to give warmth, they have more money to fuel their Communist system.

The European Left hasn't been doing too well for the past two and a half decades; Europe is no more "Communist" than the Soviet Union was a pinnacle of libertarian principles.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A1AAB827-2F19-492C-9204-CF933D734338.htm

What a bastard.:rolleyes:

Yeah. The unmitigated GALL to sell discounted oil to poor Americans in the northeast when BushCo won't lift a finger to help our own people.

DAMN those Venezuelans! DAMN them to HELL!

The problem is, the European Working Class will be warm. But if Hugo Chavez gives them warmth, it means the Governments of Europe don't have to, and if they don't need to give warmth, they have more money to fuel their Communist system.

Let me take an educated guess.

Everything to the left of Jean-Marie Le Pen and James Dobson is a "communist"?

So, let me get this straight:

Chavez is a bastard for giving oil to the poor in a country that's led by a man that's hell-bent on couping him out.

Chavez is a dictator for having accepted seven media channels against him and survived countless recalls after being brought back in by popular pressure after a coup.

SOME PEOPLE ARE GETTING A DICTIONARY FOR BIRTHDAY!!!

Are they? How?

Simply by having a minor disagreement amongst themselves. US neocon Propaganda

I like this bit in the article:
Some Chavez critics said the heating aid programme was an attempt to embarrass George Bush, the US president, and was an attempt to score political points and not an act of charity.
Shock! Horror!
A politician attempting to make an opponent look bad!
OMFG! Is nothing sacred? When will this travesty end?

Looks like some critics are running out of bad things to say, so they run news through an inverter. He's doing charity? He's a commie scum! He's having elections? He's a dictator!

Then there's the other side.

He's oppressing the masses! It's for the good of the nation! He's gunning down protestors? They were asking for it.

Wierd people.

Woo! If there's one reason for me to love Hugo Chavez, it's not this cheap crap, but because he shunned Blair on his visit to the UK! :D

http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,1774993,00.html

He sure seems to be one hell of a public speaker/demagogue though. Got to give that to him.

Venezuelan oil production has fallen 40% since Chavez has taken power, resulting in drastically reduced exports which have a lot to do with the rise in oil prices. This in turn increased the burden on the poor and lower income consumers drastically but meant billions for the state owned oil company, it's so bad now that they have to buy oil from Russia to meet their OPEC quota.

One of the main reasons why lower income consumers have to pay so much is because of Chavez's (intentional?) mismanagement of the oil industry. What he's doing is reaping massive profits off of the poor and then giving them a pittance to make it look like he cares...if he truly cared about the poor, he would be driving increases in production to lower costs for them and not buying oil off Russia to hide his incompetence as a leader.:rolleyes:WTF are you talking about? Chavez is burdening the poor how? Gas is 13 cents a gallon in his country. He keeps it that way so the poor of his country aren't burdened.

Alan Garcia of Peru (the former Chavez of South America in the 1980's)

This could never be considered a reliable description of Alan Garcia.

Mr García's moderately populist APRA party has links with Democratic Action, a social-democratic party that is the Venezuelan president's oldest political foe at home.

Chavez has unwisely meddled in the election in Peru and Garcia has subsequently denounced him, but this doesn't make your assertion any less ridiculous.

Hm. He's offering cheap fuel to low-income families. Hardly looks like a bastard to me.
commie.

So he's an ass because he's offering warmth to the working class? And you call him a bastard? You capitalist swine. Hugo Chavez is a great man. He is working so that the working class can be the same as the "manager" class.
Oh really. You guys on the exreme left never realise how communism is always evil and never worksl.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A1AAB827-2F19-492C-9204-CF933D734338.htm

What a bastard.:rolleyes:

Congrats' Chavez ! Keep going ! :)

Congrats' Chavez ! Keep going ! :)
No. Chavez is evil.

Venezuelan oil production has fallen 40% since Chavez has taken power, resulting in drastically reduced exports which have a lot to do with the rise in oil prices. This in turn increased the burden on the poor and lower income consumers drastically but meant billions for the state owned oil company, it's so bad now that they have to buy oil from Russia to meet their OPEC quota.

Sure, oil prices have nothing to do with the Irak war, with China ecomical boom, ...

And hey, what's wrong with Chavez refusing to give the limited natural ressources of his country for cheap ?

One of the main reasons why lower income consumers have to pay so much is because of Chavez's (intentional?) mismanagement of the oil industry.

I guess you didn't follow what happened in Venezuela. The oil production was not damaged by Chavez, but by Chavez' opponents, who organised patronal strikes (called "lock outs" which are forbidden in most european countries), and most of all, SABOTAGE. They sabotaged the installations, the computer system, destroyed informations, ... just to harm Chavez.

What he's doing is reaping massive profits

Himself ? No. He doesn't put this money on his pocket. He uses it for others. He used it to build hospitals and schools. To teach how to read to one MILLION of (previously illeterrate) Venezuelian adults. To give free food to Venezuelian kids. To restore eyesight to hundred of thousands of people in all South America (Operation Miracle), ...

off of the poor and then giving them a pittance to make it look like he cares...if he truly cared about the poor, he would be driving increases in production to lower costs for them and not buying oil off Russia to hide his incompetence as a leader.

How would a general lowering of oil costs help the poors ? It'll help the poors a bit for the short term, sure. But it'll the rich much more. The poorest of the world don't use much oil. At the cost of harming Venezuelian's poor and the others who receive the benefits of the social programs. At the cost of Venezuela's future. At the cost of accelerated greenhouse effect.

What he's doing is both trying to help his citizen by using the wealth of his country (oil) in order to help them, and to help the poorest of the world (with Operation Miracle, with handing them, and only them, cheaper oil, ...). That's the best way to do.

People are seeing him for what he really is, though. Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador and the Carribean nations are all moving against him either independently or on the side of the US.

LOL. Did you follow the previous "America's Submit" ? Bush was nearly alone with his puppet Vincente Fox (who will lose the coming elections) and the Columbia governement (friend of the drug dealers), all other leaders siding more or less openly with Chavez.

In Bolivia, they elected Evo Morales, who sides openly with Chavez. In Argentina, the new president is also relatively close to Chavez. In Peru, the anti-US candidate won the most votes. In Nicaragua, the Sandinastas are about to win the next elections, and they openly side with Chavez. In Ecuador, according to polls, 55% of the population want a Chavez-like president.

Most of South America's people are siding with Chavez. And many governements do it more or less openly.

The problem is, the European Working Class will be warm. But if Hugo Chavez gives them warmth, it means the Governments of Europe don't have to, and if they don't need to give warmth, they have more money to fuel their Communist system.

Europe, communist ? WTF ?!

Europe, communist ? WTF ?!I think he's doing comparative politics as opposed to absolute politics. Did you read the post that commented that a poster must think everyone to the left of Jean-Marie Le Pen must be a communist.

No. Chavez is evil.

Sure. Helping the poor, curing people, teaching them how to read, that's evil. Wanting the wealth of your country to be used to for the general interest, that's evil. Creating a very democratic system, with recall referendum and people's initiated referendum, that's evil.

Sure. As sure as War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength.

Please, could you stop double-thinking ?

No. Chavez is evil.
How is he evil?

No. Chavez is evil.

No. Zevahc is evil. Chavez is his good twin currently in power.

Chavez, evil? Bullshit. He's probably as corrupt as any politician and is using oil as a leverage for power. Bush is evil.

So, let me get this straight:

Chavez is a bastard for giving oil to the poor in a country that's led by a man that's hell-bent on couping him out.

Chavez is a dictator for having accepted seven media channels against him and survived countless recalls after being brought back in by popular pressure after a coup.



Your grasp of Venezuelan politics is biased by the message sent to you from a biased official source...I'll give you another version

I live in Caracas, Venezuela. I have been living here since I was 5 years old, and I knew Venezuela before his regime and now I have to live under the tyranny of Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías. I love this country, and although I could move thanks to my spanish nationality, I have chosen to remain so I can tell people of what is wrong with this goverment.

He's giving free oil to poor people is other countries...I cannot morally oppose it, but if you could see the poor people in this country, HIS country and responsability, you might realize otherwise. Poor people in the UK have a better life style than most poor people here, that get killed by dozens every weekend by crime groups, that have no water, not even food, and no cars to use our cheap oil at all.

Public hospitals stopped working here years ago, so most of us have to fend health care all by ourselves (even as we now pay ten times more taxes than 7 years ago). The police is heavily underpay, and corrupt to the core. Most services are collapsed, and even our infrastructures (like bridges buildings, highways, subway systems) follow this path due to total lack of maintenance. Chávez have thrown our economy to a trash can, and prizes of normal goods rise every week meanwhile he gives oil and money to people in other countries. Oil is at 70$ and we don't have a single life improvement.

His regime is mainly supported by an iron grip in the military, and his popular support is waning. He survived the recalls by sheer and brute electoral corruption, mostly because his party controls the electoral organisms. He fires people that vote against him in the public administration, or refuse to give them any help at all, thanks to the fact that our vote is not secret anymore. That way he can prevent the masses to pronounce against him, and win as many recalls as he wishes (please check the electoral abstention numbers in the last recalls) Chávez stopped being the constitutional president of this nation after 2002, when millions asked by his resign.

I am a journalist. I know what happened that April 11 of 2002, that you call a coup, I was there every step. Almost a million people, civilian, unarmed people, gathered to present themselves to the presidential palace after a general strike that lasted for more than 3 months and destroyed our already imploding economical status. They were ambushed by paramilitary units trained and prepared by the Chávez regime and 11 were shot to death in minutes, with several dozens wounded. I was steps away, my team took photos, I saw the men with the red caps shooting, I heard the bullets whistling around and the innocents falling.

Chávez scared away and commanded the military to start a plan (called the "Ávila plan") aimed to militarize the city and use lethal force to supress the protestors. The military high officers, displaying a strange show of ethic, refused to use tanks against unamed civilians, moved to the presidential palace, and asked Chávez to resign for the good of the people. And HE ACCEPTED, because he was scared. Noone deposed him, and he was brought back by other military sectors that needed him in power to continue their continual abuse of civilians after several days of a vaccuum of power.

This goverment has outright eliminated opposers, either by killing them or incarcelating them. Its true that we could suffer worst, but this dictator in particular tries to maintain a face for the international community, so he could insult several powerful leaders and suffer no consequences, calling himself a "democratically elected" president and hiding behind that premise. I guess his plan is working after reading the opinion of foreign people like you...

Sure. Helping the poor, curing people, teaching them how to read, that's evil. Wanting the wealth of your country to be used to for the general interest, that's evil. Creating a very democratic system, with recall referendum and people's initiated referendum, that's evil.

Sure. As sure as War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength.

Please, could you stop double-thinking ?

And stop reading Cuban newspapers...Jesus

"Helping the poor", "CURING people". You're a propaganda animal

Venezuelan oil production has fallen 40% since Chavez has taken power, resulting in drastically reduced exports which have a lot to do with the rise in oil prices. This in turn increased the burden on the poor and lower income consumers drastically but meant billions for the state owned oil company, it's so bad now that they have to buy oil from Russia to meet their OPEC quota.



hmmm really nothing like living in the past

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2849121.stm

The Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, has said the country's oil production has reached normal levels after falling to record lows during a general strike which ended last month.
Mr Chavez said production reached almost three million barrels per day, which, he said, should allay the fears of Venezuela's international clients.

He also said the giant Paraguana refinery would return to full operational capacity within a few days.


and on a side note that was hardly his fault as opposition leaders created this problem to try and force him out

and on a side note that was hardly his fault as opposition leaders created this problem to try and force him out

It was his fault. It was his responsability. He fired most directors to replace them with military personnel and his supporters (that seemed to be total inepts), it was the logical thing to protest if you are fired with just the justification that a friend of someone important want the job.

And the refineries and the rest of oil facilities weren't saboutaged...It is simply that the prepared personnel were replaced by untrained people that caused fires, mistakes and collapse of several structures...Noone saboutaged them...As I said, stop reading cuban news only. Try a venezuelan newspaper for a change

WTH? first Chavez is calling the U.S and Britain Imperialists and now he wants to give low price fuel to poor Europeans? whats next week building a hospital and then demolishing it when the patents complain?

It was his fault. It was his responsability. He fired most directors to replace them with military personnel and his supporters (that seemed to be total inepts), it was the logical thing to protest if you are fired with just the justification that a friend of someone important want the job.

And the refineries and the rest of oil facilities weren't saboutaged...It is simply that the prepared personnel were replaced by untrained people that caused fires, mistakes and collapse of several structures...Noone saboutaged them...As I said, stop reading cuban news only. Try a venezuelan newspaper for a change

Considering your a Journalist I thought that you would know that the BBC isn't Cuban! Far from it

:rolleyes:WTF are you talking about? Chavez is burdening the poor how? Gas is 13 cents a gallon in his country. He keeps it that way so the poor of his country aren't burdened.
He's anti-communist. So he just looks for every excuse, even if it is false, to put communism down. Hell man, I might make just move to Venezuela. Poverty rates are decreasing drastically, gas is fucking 13 cents a gallon, shit man...

commie.

Oh really. You guys on the exreme left never realise how communism is always evil and never worksl.
So I suppose what this man is doing, providing warmth for low-income families in Europe, is such an evil deed that only minions of Satan himself would do it? The only communism you've probably seen is Soviet Russia. And that wasn't even communism. That, my good man, was Stalinism. Any communist who gladly accepts a Stalinist into their house deserves the same fate of every Stalinist. Death. Stalinists are closer to Authoriatians than Communists. Ignorant bastard...

No. Chavez is evil.
THE FUCK?!?! He's providing warmth to low-income families in Europe. And how much do these families have to pay? NOTHING! How the fuck is this evil, my good sir?

Your grasp of Venezuelan politics is biased by the message sent to you from a biased official source...

Actually, most of the media, be it in France (where I live), in Venezuela, or nearly everywhere in the world, don't even hide their violent hostility to Chavez. My opinion only comes from careful study of the question, which showed me the truth behind the lies.

I live in Caracas, Venezuela. I have been living here since I was 5 years old, and I knew Venezuela before his regime and now I have to live under the tyranny of Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías.

Tyranny, how ridiculous. Chavez' Venezuela is much, much more free and democratic that most countries of the world, including France and USA.

He's giving free oil to poor people is other countries...I cannot morally oppose it, but if you could see the poor people in this country, HIS country and responsability, you might realize otherwise. Poor people in the UK have a better life style than most poor people here, that get killed by dozens every weekend by crime groups, that have no water, not even food, and no cars to use our cheap oil at all.

But since Chavez is in power, poverty level in Venezuela felt from above 55% to below 37%, which is a 33% decline, in 7 years, something very rare in the world.

One MILLION of illeterrate adults learnt how to read. All kids can go in school, where they receive food for free. People are cured freely. Peasants are given land on which they can work, ...

Chávez have thrown our economy to a trash can, and prizes of normal goods rise every week meanwhile he gives oil and money to people in other countries. Oil is at 70$ and we don't have a single life improvement.

Are you on other planet ? Chavez REDUCED inflation severly since he came to power. He reduced unemployment by a huge margin. And all that despite economical sabotage from the opposition.

His regime is mainly supported by an iron grip in the military, and his popular support is waning.

60% victory on the recall referendum, and the opposition so scared of losing even more badly that they refused to participate to the next elections... I would love to be losing my popular support this way :)

He survived the recalls by sheer and brute electoral corruption, mostly because his party controls the electoral organisms.

But still all international observers, including the Jimmy Carter center, validated the elections; and no single proof of fraud was ever presented.

Chávez stopped being the constitutional president of this nation after 2002, when millions asked by his resign.

That's so ridiculous. Chavez was removed by a COUP in 2002, and put back in power by millions of people who stormed Caracas to have him back. Don't invert it !

I am a journalist.

Paid by the private TV to manipulate images and make Chavez supporters appear to be firing on a demonstration, while they were firing back on snippers how opened fire on them first ? I hope you're not. But that would explain your post.

I know what happened that April 11 of 2002, that you call a coup, I was there every step. Almost a million people, civilian, unarmed people, gathered to present themselves to the presidential palace after a general strike that lasted for more than 3 months and destroyed our already imploding economical status. They were ambushed by paramilitary units trained and prepared by the Chávez regime and 11 were shot to death in minutes, with several dozens wounded. I was steps away, my team took photos, I saw the men with the red caps shooting, I heard the bullets whistling around and the innocents falling.

That's plain lies. The paramilitary were under the orders of the OPPOSITION and opened fire on Chavez SUPPORTERS. On the 11 deads, 9 were Chavez SUPPORTERS. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=478744 for what really happened, this day.

Chávez scared away and commanded the military to start a plan (called the "Ávila plan") aimed to militarize the city and use lethal force to supress the protestors.

I know the Avila plan, it's not killing the protestors, and you must know it too. It's using the military as a police force, as was done by Chavez and his predessor on many occasions, like Bush or the Pope's visit.

The military high officers, displaying a strange show of ethic, refused to use tanks against unamed civilians,

That's so ridiculous. Those officers were the one who didn't hesiate one second to kill thousands during the 1989 Caracazo. They were supported by CAF, the former president who ordered to slaughter the Caracazo.

And they opened fire on protestors who, on April 12 and 13, asked Chavez back.

moved to the presidential palace, and asked Chávez to resign for the good of the people. And HE ACCEPTED, because he was scared.

Another lie. Chavez NEVER resigned. He accepted to surrender himself, because he was FORCED to, refusing to either resign or to give the order to the loyal forces to open fire, because he wanted to avoid a bloodbath.

Noone deposed him, and he was brought back by other military sectors that needed him in power to continue their continual abuse of civilians after several days of a vaccuum of power.

No. He was put back on power by a giant uprising of millions of Venezuelian who stormed Caracas to ask him back, after only 47 hours (less than 2 days), in which the putschist "president" managed to dissolve all democratic institutions.

This goverment has outright eliminated opposers, either by killing them or incarcelating them.

That's absolutely ridiculous too. Do you know who ended up in jail after the 2002 coup ? Not, as you would see in ALL other countries of the world, the ones who tried to remove by force an elected president. But the Chavez supporters who opened fire back to the sharpshooters who were slaying them ! Because Chavez didn't move a finger to protect them - he let justice do its work. No political opponent, be they doing a coup, openly lying in the media, calling for his death, sabotating the economy, ... were thrown in jail.

Stop spreading lies, please.

And stop reading Cuban newspapers...Jesus

I don't read them.

"Helping the poor", "CURING people". You're a propaganda animal

That's what Chavez is doing. All figures show it.

Sure. Helping the poor, curing people, teaching them how to read, that's evil. Wanting the wealth of your country to be used to for the general interest, that's evil. Creating a very democratic system, with recall referendum and people's initiated referendum, that's evil.

Sure. As sure as War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength.

Please, could you stop double-thinking ?
He's anti-communist. Once again, anti-communists will call people evil simply because they are communists. Even if they see the great charity work that communists are doing, they still call them evil. Even if they see that poverty rates, illiteracy rates, starvation rates, disease rates, all of them have dropped in Venezuela since the socialist revolution was over. I think that says something.

It was his fault. It was his responsability. He fired most directors to replace them with military personnel and his supporters (that seemed to be total inepts), it was the logical thing to protest if you are fired with just the justification that a friend of someone important want the job.

He fired people who were responsible for massive fraud and corruption, taking most of the profits of PDVSA in thier own pockets.

And btw, PDVSA is a STATE COMPANY, and therefore the state can decide who will rule it. Like the stock owners can in any private corporations. And states do it everywhere else in the world. Why Chavez shouldn't ?

And the refineries and the rest of oil facilities weren't saboutaged...It is simply that the prepared personnel were replaced by untrained people that caused fires, mistakes and collapse of several structures...Noone saboutaged them...As I said, stop reading cuban news only. Try a venezuelan newspaper for a change

You mean, a newspaper owned by a transational news corporation, called the "Fox News" of South America, who has interests in many American companies like Pizza Hut ? Oh, sure, those corporations will violently oppose Chavez. That's their interest.

WTH? first Chavez is calling the U.S and Britain Imperialists and now he wants to give low price fuel to poor Europeans? whats next week building a hospital and then demolishing it when the patents complain?

He opposes US and UK governements. Not the people.

<Snip>
If this is all true, tell me my good man/woman, how in HELL do you have a computer and internet connection?

WTH? first Chavez is calling the U.S and Britain Imperialists and now he wants to give low price fuel to poor Europeans? whats next week building a hospital and then demolishing it when the patents complain?
He's calling the governments imperialists, not the people. Why should the people suffer because of the governments idiodicy? Apparently Hugo Chavez, I, and other like minded individuals don't think so.

He opposes US and UK governements. Not the people.

Another thing I don't understand is why now?

Considering your a Journalist I thought that you would know that the BBC isn't Cuban! Far from it
Once again, just trying to get communism down, even if it means putting out false facts. Hell, I'm pretty sure she/he doesn't know the ideals of communism/socialism.

Another thing I don't understand is why now?
Why now to give near to free heating to low-income families? It's because everyday is a day to give near to free heating to low-income families. It's called being kind hearted.

Another thing I don't understand is why now?

Well, there are several reasons. One is that Venezuela's economy is now doing well, and he can afford it - something he couldn't really in 2002 with the sabotage done by the opposition. Another one is the level of current oil prices, which are much higher than the ones 5 years ago, making it much more needed.

Now, why now and not 6 months ago, well, I don't know. Probably because he feels more secure now that Bolivia entered Alba. Probably because the EU-SA submit made him visit Europe.

If this is all true, tell me my good man/woman, how in HELL do you have a computer and internet connection?
What Chavez is doing now is what Mexico was doing in the 70s. Individual freedoms are pretty much there (within measure) but the greater aspects of the economy and social life are controlled by the state. So, our friend has access to a computer and can complain all he/she wants because for the state it doesn't make a difference.

This is possible because the government can buy the votes they need either with money, power, or favours. Like a Mexican president of old used to say "No general can withstand a 50,000 pesos canyonade" (back when the peso was really worth something).

The perfect dictatorship, is how Mario Vargas Llosa defined it (and had to leave Mexico City in a hurry).

He's anti-communist. Once again, anti-communists will call people evil simply because they are communists. Even if they see the great charity work that communists are doing, they still call them evil. Even if they see that poverty rates, illiteracy rates, starvation rates, disease rates, all of them have dropped in Venezuela since the socialist revolution was over. I think that says something.

You're right... but it's sad to see people being so blindly calling people evil, when they just do their best to help millions of people.

This is possible because the government can buy the votes they need either with money, power, or favours.

Oh my god ! Chavez is buying the votes of the poors by improving their life condition, curing them, feeding them and teaching them to read ! What an horrible leader ! What a crime ! But but... shouldn't increasing the living conditions of the population the goal of ANY president ?

You're right... but it's sad to see people being so blindly calling people evil, when they just do their best to help millions of people.


WOW, it is ever so EBIL to call political quacks evil, right?

Leftism is to Government what Snake Oil is to Medical Science: malpractise.

Just toss anyone who proclaims their virtue straight into the Looney Bin.


Edit: make that Wormwood Scrubs.

gas is fucking 13 cents a gallon, shit man...

And as a direct result, almost half of Venezuela's gas stations want to close, and massive oil smuggling operations to neighbouring countries have started

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146520227008&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News&pubid=968163964505

This is something that will have to be solved, and Chavez hasn't sufficient courage, intelligence, or love of his people to let the market solve it. He is on a slow road to Soviet style socialism.

If you thought it was bad now, try it later.

, poverty level in Venezuela felt from above 55% to below 37%,

Since "poverty level" can be defined in any way the government likes, all that shows is that the Chavez regime can manipulate statistics.

Jimmy Carter

A well known devotee of democracy and liberty ... who socialises with Castro and Kim Jong-il, and has consistantly favoured tyrants.

I found this short read on Chaves most of it is good stuff but the 'Dangerous demagogue' stuff is err.. Well read it yourself, the only thing that bothers me is the Zimbabwe tribute.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4359924.stm

(speaking about Jimmy Carter)
A well known devotee of democracy and liberty ... who socialises with Castro and Kim Jong-il, and has consistantly favoured tyrants.

Socializes with Castro and Kim Jong-il? WTF are you talking about? Favored Tyrants?

Dude, Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace prize for a reason.

Oh my god ! Chavez is buying the votes of the poors by improving their life condition, curing them, feeding them and teaching them to read ! What an horrible leader ! What a crime ! But but... shouldn't increasing the living conditions of the population the goal of ANY president ?
But is he really? Have conditions in Venezuela really improved that much? And for how long can these improvements go on? What's good for the short term may not be good for the long term. On the other hand, Mexico's PRI stayed in power for 70 years using the same tactics.

But is he really? Have conditions in Venezuela really improved that much?

Undoubtly, yes. Poverty was lowered by 33%, one million learnt how to read, even the poorest kids can go to school and receive free food, peasants have land to work on, ...

And for how long can these improvements go on? What's good for the short term may not be good for the long term.

Chavez is thinking much more on the long term than any recent president of Venezuela did. He's trying to use oil money to prepare the "after oil" era, something none tried to before him. He's reducing Venezuela dependancy to foreign food: before Chavez came to power, Venezuela was buying 80% of its food to other countries, with oil money, while most lands were unusued. Chavez did the agrarian reform, and is using oil money to pay for tools and infrastructure, in order to allow the land to be used to grow food. Same for education: Chavez is using oil money for educating people, which is very good on the long term, and will allow them to create more wealth later on.

Dude, Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace prize for a reason.

Yes, the committee later admitted the award was primarily a protest against President Bush.

Nobel Peace Prizes are awarded according to the political prejudices of the committee. That is why the world's leading terrorist at that time was awarded one.

Stop spreading lies, please.

I take my job very seriously, really. I do not spread lies. To tell me that is to insult my 8 university years and slander my entirely respectable career. Your opinion is welcomed, your despise is not. Most people in my country respect that, even several goverment officers, even our minister of information. I am trying to tell you my truth as a venezuelan citizen.

I do not work for a private media. Surprise!, Surprise! I am specialized in positive journalism for a community radio. I even worked at Telesur. I used to work at a private newspaper, yes, but I resigned.

I was there the April 11th, you saw it in TV. I didn't see any snipers at all, I saw a guy shooting a news photographer in the head, and two another guys shooting US. One of my team techhnical staff got a shot in the chest two steps away from me.I had to crawl under a van. I do not need videos, I have eyes, I saw those police officers you are slandering actually trying to DEFEND people, even risking their lives trying to move the wounded away placing themselves in the line of fire.

I was alive during the Caracazo. February 27th. None of the officers during that episode were active in the Chávez administration.

Actual electoral conditions do not guarantee the secrecy of vote. that violates the purity of the process.

Poverty diminished?. Care to see how many beggars I find on my way to work?, Care to know how many families starve? Care to know how many hours you must work here to buy a piece of meat or anything else than a can of sardines?

The name of the former president is CAP, Carlos Andrés Pérez

We didn't even had a million illiterate adults here...Stop believing the pamphlets. I worked as a music teacher in a public school some years ago, UNDER the Chávez administration when I was still studying. Public education here is really mediocre, with most educational personnel undepayed in favor of cuban "teachers" that come here to just place ideology in their pupils.

I'm not in other planet. I am in the country you are trying to talk about, living, everyday. You are not in other planet for sure, but you are in another country. I go to the supermarket once a week to buy food and goods, I know about inflation, just because a goverment says they reduced inflation it doesn't really means so. Inflation is rampant, and prizes rises fast. Bus transport was 700 bolívares a week ago, now is 1000 bolívares, that's a rise, and a significant one in just one blow. And that's just this week.

60% support in elections with a 75% abstention. That's representative, sure. I'm not part of the current opposition as I find them as inept, or even more, as the goverment, but...please. The electoral system is controlled by the MVR, the goverment party. The rectors of the CNE, the main election institute, are militants of the Chávez movement, that's no secret. I even have T-shirts with Chávez and Jorge Rodríguez hugging each other. Chávez publicy thanked them for their "help".

The observers found many "anomalies", read the reports carefully. They didn't validated the elctions, they actively refused to do that, actually, when the goverment asked to. They just said they didn't had proofs of fraud. Check again.

Millions, aye, sure. I won't say Chávez has no supporters and everyone of us hates him. He has supporters, yes, lots of them, but no MILLIONS went out to the street when he came back in 2002. I were out in the street those days (April 12, 13th) and saw those supporters you keep talking about, you saw a TV report perhaps. Thousands?, a good number. Millions?, most people, from either side, was too scared to be out "protesting" anything. I have photos.

You are accusing me of corrupt when you say I am payed to lie. Place your elaborate flaming away, I'm not biting that fishhook. I am payed to do my job, and I resigned from the "El Nacional" (known newspaper of this country) because they were slandering the goverment without reason, and that's not ethic. And I also resigned from Telesur after some goverment officers tried to convince me of not remarking cetain investigations, like a huge financial fraud of a sugar project in our rural areas. Do not question my integrity or my sense of ethics. I am telling you everyday facts. I am not even emitting my opinion about things I don't know about, like the Danilo Álvarez assasination, but about things I saw with my own eyes.

Are you showing me a thread wrote by you to state I am lying?. I was there, 100 steps from the bridge, and it was the SAME bridge. I won't try to convince you, but I'll state the TRUTH to the rest of the people that read this thread. Chávez supporters fired from the bridge and from under the bridge against unarmed civilians, and that's it. I am not crazy, not corrupt or insane. Stop repeating things you didn't see, you weren't a witness to defend those ideas that hard.

I refused to support the one sided announce of Carmona as a President, if that serves you as a proof of my democratic will and ethics, and I did it publicy. Carmona tried to take advantage of a difficult situation, but the most trusted general of the goverment said "Chávez accepted the resign", and that general is still a friend of Chávez and remained in the administration after your "coup". Weird, don't you think?

You don't know plan Ávila, even ourselves have restricted access to military plans. You just repeat what you saw or heard somewhere.

See please the numbers about Human Rights Watch and Reporters in Distress, Chávez has several opposers in jail without trial, some of them have three years already in jail. Several reporters have DIED thanks to the actions of political supporters of the president. No lies, even the goverment recognized several of them.

You are ideologically identified, fine. I have lived here since my youth, I have been in Cuba, and I love my country over most things in the world. I try to help it in any way I can. As a journalist, my duty is to tell the truth and inform people about it. I am not telling lies.

If this is all true, tell me my good man/woman, how in HELL do you have a computer and internet connection?

We retain civil rights. At least most of them, restricted. This is not Iran, or Lybia. Our political freedoms, in the other hand, are narrow every day.

I am not anti-communist. I actively encourage the free speech and the political diversity. I hold no political allegiances, my work prevents me for doing so.

Conditions in Venezuela have not improved, that's a lie. I invite you to come here ahd check that by yourselves. I'll even serve you as a host to take you to the popular barrios of Caracas. Our people live worst and worst every day.

We are suffering from shortage of food, and we still buy most of it, now from different countries like Brazil or Argentina, but the dependency is still there.

Are you really trying to defend a guy that admires Mugabe?...

60% support in elections with a 75% abstention. That's representative, sure.

Just one lie that is too easy to debuke for me to resist to it:

Recall referendum, 2004

Option Votes %
No: 5,800,629 59.10%
Yes: 3,989,008 40.64%
Abstention: 4,222,269 30.08%


But all the rest is the same level of lies. Stop lying. Thanks.

before Chavez came to power, Venezuela was buying 80% of its food to other countries, with oil money, while most lands were unusued. Chavez did the agrarian reform, and is using oil money to pay for tools and infrastructure, in order to allow the land to be used to grow food.
All that doesn't necessarily mean much. In 1980 Mexico reached self sufficiency in basic grains. Two years later the entire system collapsed under the enormous cost to sustain it all. Agrarian reform started during the revolution continued well into the 90s, in total something like twice the area of the country was redistributed during all those years. None of that made agriculture more sustainable, just increased the farmer's dependency on federal subsidies.

Mexico boasted one of Latin America's highest literacy levels, but most of even its university graduates are functional analphabets.

Even today, one could say that Mexico is doing great because it's had the lowest sustained inflation levels in decades, low unemployment rates, a generally good trade balance, modest but continous growth, poverty has been reduced from 60 to around 50%, and the currency is stable. Those are the figures. The reality is different.

Just one lie that is too easy to debuke for me to resist to it:

Recall referendum, 2004

Option Votes %
No: 5,800,629 59.10%
Yes: 3,989,008 40.64%
Abstention: 4,222,269 30.08%


But all the rest is the same level of lies. Stop lying. Thanks.

Official report. I rest my case.

Do not accuse me of being a liar without further proofs or personal experiences. Second time.

Try different sources. Investigate. Do not accept what is told to you. Think for yourself. Come here and try to talk to people. See, not limit yourself to read.

Is this an effort to enforce some kind of propaganda in the forums? This is not your first attempt, right? And you are not alone in this, right?

Thanks.

I would say, as a fairly extreme leftist, that I support Chavez, and I'm quite glad that someone's helping the poor.

Oh and because I'm a communist, does that mean I'm evil? Even though I used to volunteer in a charity shop?

Am I really that bad a person, simply because I think that all people should be equal?

I would say, as a fairly extreme leftist, that I support Chavez, and I'm quite glad that someone's helping the poor.

Oh and because I'm a communist, does that mean I'm evil? Even though I used to volunteer in a charity shop?

Am I really that bad a person, simply because I think that all people should be equal?

No. You're evil, because you support extreme leftism.

If it makes you feel any better, one could credibly argue that you would be twice as evil if you supported extreme righteism.

Official report. I rest my case.

Validated by all international observers. I rest my case.

Do not accuse me of being a liar without further proofs or personal experiences. Second time.

You're outrightly lying. I will not stop saying it.

Try different sources. Investigate. Do not accept what is told to you. Think for yourself. Come here and try to talk to people. See, not limit yourself to read.

That's exactly why I debuke your lies and act like I do. Because I took the time to investigate, to read different sources, to not accept the propaganda spread in the mainstream media, to think by myself. And the more I did it, the more it was absolutely clear that mass media were lying, the more I became convinced of what I say now. The first times I heard about Chavez, I believed the lies of people like you. But then I discovered it was lies...

Is this an effort to enforce some kind of propaganda in the forums? This is not your first attempt, right? And you are not alone in this, right?

It's not the first time, and not the last, in which I'll stand up against lies and defend one of the few presidents in the world who really improve the living of its people. And yes, I'm not alone, the lies spread by you and the ones like you are easy to debunk. Many did, and saw the truth behind it.

Thanks.[/QUOTE]

Official report. I rest my case.

Could you direct us to site that refutes the official figures?

No. You're evil, because you support extreme leftism.

If it makes you feel any better, one could credibly argue that you would be twice as evil if you supported extreme righteism.

Why do my anarcho-communist views mean that everything else I've ever done for society pales into insignificance?

Why do my anarcho-communist views mean that everything else I've ever done for society pales into insignificance?

*grim nod*

Yet I wish I could freely laud you for the things you've done, rather than have to condemn you for the drive behind those deeds.

*lamentations*

Anarchism could easily be forgiven as a foible - but no human agency can forgive the bloodstained history of the evilness known as communism.

Come here then and see for yourself. I don't know about your sources, and you are not making anyone a favor by taking this crusade for a guy that don't even care for anything else except his own status in the international community.

I am not lying, and I won't stop to say it. I recognize the good points of the goverment, like the amount of houses they have built, or the Mercal policy. (You know about Mercal, right). But I won't stand for points that aren't that defensible, like you do. No goverment makes everything good and fine. No goverment. That is lying, and that is what you have been doing. I am not accusing of Chávez to be a narc dealer, or a thief, because those things, although repeated by some of the media, including "Fox Republican News", are lies. but the truth is the truth, sorry if you don't like it.

I wouldn't try to have a better opinion on the Paris riots than you, for example, because I wasn't there and I didn't see anything. Perhaps you did, unless you have more interest in other countries than in your own. But to call a liar to someone that have more experience and is closer to what happens is just silly, to try to use a soft word, just because you don't agree...

Not validated by all international observers but by some...I rest my case too

Did you discovered the truth about all by sitting in your chair and checking by the internet?. How deep...How much...rapport with the situation. That's what we call...participating investigation, no?

*grim nod*

Yet I wish I could freely laud you for the things you've done, rather than have to condemn you for the drive behind those deeds.

My drive to do such things is that I want to help people. I don't see how that reflects on my political views, really.

Anarchism could easily be forgiven as a foible - but no human agency can forgive the bloodstained history of the evilness known as communism.

What has been done in the name of communism is unpleasant, that's very true, but anarcho-communism is very different from state collectivism.

Could you direct us to site that refutes the official figures?

just an example, a site from a non goverment agency

www.sumate.org

Of course, the goverment says it is an organization creatd and payed by the CIA, but...What do you expect?

but no human agency can forgive the bloodstained history of the evilness known as communism.

Communism is not what was done in USSR or China.

And who can forgive the bloodstained history of the evilness known as capitalism ?

Not validated by all international observers but by some...I rest my case too


What international observers said the elections were not free and fair then? Because as far as I know, everyone said they ran smoothly.

By helping Low-Income European Families, Hugo Chavez is merely fueling the European Communist Juggernaut. Those families woud normally need to take money off of Europe that they could use on their army. I always knew Hugo Chavez was a closest Communist.

Europe's army? :rolleyes:

Communism is not what was done in USSR or China.

And who can forgive the bloodstained history of the evilness known as capitalism ?

There is no communism - except the really existing stuff.

The rest of it is sophistry - arguments to change the nature of truth.

No more leftism - EVER!

The problem is, the European Working Class will be warm. But if Hugo Chavez gives them warmth, it means the Governments of Europe don't have to, and if they don't need to give warmth, they have more money to fuel their Communist system.

Dude, you are so not making sense. There is no true communism in any contry. There is a mixed economy in most countries in Europe, capitalism which includes socialism.

I have a news flash for you: The US also has socialism. Ever heard of Social Security?

FDR adopted many socialist practices into our economy during the great depression.

Come here then and see for yourself. I don't know about your sources, and you are not making anyone a favor by taking this crusade for a guy that don't even care for anything else except his own status in the international community.

I am not lying, and I won't stop to say it. I recognize the good points of the goverment, like the amount of houses they have built, or the Mercal policy. (You know about Mercal, right). But I won't stand for points that aren't that defensible, like you do. No goverment makes everything good and fine. No goverment. That is lying, and that is what you have been doing. I am not accusing of Chávez to be a narc dealer, or a thief, because those things, although repeated by some of the media, including "Fox Republican News", are lies. but the truth is the truth, sorry if you don't like it.

I wouldn't try to have a better opinion on the Paris riots than you, for example, because I wasn't there and I didn't see anything. Perhaps you did, unless you have more interest in other countries than in your own. But to call a liar to someone that have more experience and is closer to what happens is just silly, to try to use a soft word, just because you don't agree...

Not validated by all international observers but by some...I rest my case too

Did you discovered the truth about all by sitting in your chair and checking by the internet?. How deep...How much...rapport with the situation. That's what we call...participating investigation, no?


Realmente não vale a pena tentar convencer a maioria aqui, eles pensam o que eles querem.

Eu perguntaria qual foi a situação de você e da sua família na sociedade antes de Chavez? Você é pobre? Duvido desde que você disse que você é um jornalista (exige graduação no mínimo). Eu acho que você é de classe média, e pra vocês Chavez não tinha sido muito bom, mas a menos que você é um dos pobres, você não tem mais qualificação para falar sobre a situação deles do que você tem para falar sobre os conflitos na Paris.

Espero que você consegue ler português.

Come here then and see for yourself.

That's what I'm actually planing to do.

I don't know about your sources

My sources are many. They include the mainstream media, but also many others. I know several people who went to Venezuela, some who do it on a regular basis. I read books from several journalists I trust who were in Caracas during the coup, including ones from "Le Monde Diplomatique", one of the most serious french newspaper (leftist, but even most of the people who disagree with their views admit they are serious and honest). I read informations from groups like Acrimed, who have a strong, 10-years long reputation of showing the truth behind the mass-media, and no single time they were caught lying - doesn't mean they can't be lying, but making them trustable.

But I won't stand for points that aren't that defensible, like you do.

That's what you do, when lying about what happened on April 11, or by refusing to admit the truth about elections.

Not validated by all international observers but by some...I rest my case too

Show me a single one which didn't validate them.

Did you discovered the truth about all by sitting in your chair and checking by the internet?. How deep...How much...rapport with the situation. That's what we call...participating investigation, no?

Actually, I don't. Internet is full of interesting informations, but is not alone. Newspapers, books, speaking with people, all that is what I use as source of information. And the more I do it, the more I believe in what I say here.

:rolleyes:WTF are you talking about? Chavez is burdening the poor how? Gas is 13 cents a gallon in his country. He keeps it that way so the poor of his country aren't burdened.

Which is more than I can say for our country. Vetalia, why don't you take out the log from your eye before you before you point out the straw in his?

There is no communism - except the really existing stuff.

The rest of it is sophistry - arguments to change the nature of truth.

No more leftism - EVER!

The right wing brings with it the KKK, the Nazis and Pinochet, amongst others. Those regimes/groups were horrible, and brought nothing good to the countries which they were in.

No more right-wingers - EVER!

A fair argument, no?

The right wing brings with it the KKK, the Nazis and Pinochet, amongst others. Those regimes/groups were horrible, and brought nothing good to the countries which they were in.

No more right-wingers - EVER!

A fair argument, no?
Go inoffensive centrist democracies?

Go inoffensive centrist democracies?

No, because they don't do anything good for the common people or the businessman. And both sides will get annoyed, possibly leading to a civil war. And civil wars are BAD.

I personally prefer state socialism to state communism. That's because there's less opportunity for state socialism to go horribly wrong, unlike state communism, which generally empowers quite a horrible dictator. The only communist state I can see which is being ruled in the slightest bit well is Castro's Cuba.

State socialism also allows for some level of economic freedom. That placates the right a bit, but it's mostly about helping the needy, which is the kind of thing that I'm into.

Jorge G. Castañeda writing in the May/June 2006 edition of "Foreign Affairs" magazine made this comparison between Mexico and Venezuela:

"Over the past seven years, Mexico's economy grew by 17.5 percent, while Venezuela's failed to grow at all. From 1997 to 2003, Mexico's per capita GDP rose by 9.5 percent, while Venezuela's shrunk by 45 percent. From 1998 to 2005, the Mexican peso lost 16 percent of its value, while the value of the Venezuelan bolivar dropped by 292 percent. Between 1998 and 2004, the number of Mexican households living in extreme poverty decreased by 49 percent, while the number of Venezuelan households in extreme poverty rose by 4.5 percent. In 2005, Mexico's inflation rate was estimated at 3.3 percent, the lowest in years, while Venezuela's was 16 percent."

Jorge G. Castañeda writing in the May/June 2006 edition of "Foreign Affairs" magazine made this comparison between Mexico and Venezuela:

"Over the past seven years, Mexico's economy grew by 17.5 percent, while Venezuela's failed to grow at all. From 1997 to 2003, Mexico's per capita GDP rose by 9.5 percent, while Venezuela's shrunk by 45 percent. From 1998 to 2005, the Mexican peso lost 16 percent of its value, while the value of the Venezuelan bolivar dropped by 292 percent. Between 1998 and 2004, the number of Mexican households living in extreme poverty decreased by 49 percent, while the number of Venezuelan households in extreme poverty rose by 4.5 percent. In 2005, Mexico's inflation rate was estimated at 3.3 percent, the lowest in years, while Venezuela's was 16 percent."

Who publishes Foreign Affairs, where is it sold, and what political leaning does it have?

No, because they don't do anything good for the common people or the businessman. And both sides will get annoyed, possibly leading to a civil war. And civil wars are BAD.

I personally prefer state socialism to state communism. That's because there's less opportunity for state socialism to go horribly wrong, unlike state communism, which generally empowers quite a horrible dictator. The only communist state I can see which is being ruled in the slightest bit well is Castro's Cuba.

State socialism also allows for some level of economic freedom. That placates the right a bit, but it's mostly about helping the needy, which is the kind of thing that I'm into.
I'm a strong supporter of social democrat measures myself. Capitalism, left unleashed(as in totally free market) will cause untold numbers of problem and be ruthless in trampling poor people's lives and opportunities. Capitalism without checks is the law of the jungle: the bigger, most ferocious animals devour the smaller ones without mercy.

Of course, communism has been shown to be mostly an utopic dream. The ideal has been destroyed by corruption and man's greed. I think the only reason Cuba manages to fare relatively well with communism is because it's a rather smallish state, and is thus still manageable even if the state takes care of everything. I wouldn't wager a cent on it working properly on larger countries or entities.

No, the best certainly is intelligent capitalism: a somewhat free market whose excesses are prevented by a state and its social measures and market legislations.

Who publishes Foreign Affairs, where is it sold, and what political leaning does it have?
How would that affect the figures?

Who publishes Foreign Affairs, where is it sold, and what political leaning does it have?

The author of the article was Mexico's Minister of Foreign Affairs until 2003. Foriegn Affairs magazine is sold in the USA and Canada, although it has Japanese, Russian and Portuguese (Brazilian) editions. The authors who write in the magazine are usually former policymakers. It's political leaning I'd say is neutral, since they publish articles from people all over the political spectrum.
Jorge G. Castañeda self-identifies as a social democrat.

How would that affect the figures?

Because you can spin just about any statistic to say anything.

Oh and Ciea - fair enough, then. But remember that there's more to life than how well the economy's going. The poorest of the poor probably couldn't care less that they're now being included in the "extreme poverty" section, and would be much happier if they were being given food/heating etc. rather than money.

You can't live in a house made of banknotes, nor can you drink them, or eat them. I'd rather live in a country with a poor economy, but a really good social welfare system, than live in a very rich country that does nothing for the people that live in it.

yes, damn him, that evil populace helping man grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

yes, damn him, that evil populace helping man grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Indeed. Is there anything the world has more to fear than the poor being more healthy and able to live the lives that they want to live?

I don't think so....

Oh no... wait...

Because you can spin just about any statistic to say anything.
Yes, but that paragraph quoted nothing but figures. It had no opinion on them. They're open to interpretation, of course, but I guess that's the rest of the article.

You can't live in a house made of banknotes, nor can you drink them, or eat them. I'd rather live in a country with a poor economy, but a really good social welfare system, than live in a very rich country that does nothing for the people that live in it.
Exactly, the economic reality is more than a set of figures, and in this both Mexico and Venezuela are doing badly. We can perhaps say that Venezuela is doing a bit better right now in social spending, but the real test will be to create a sustainable economy that will allow the poor to create wealth for themselves.

Exactly, the economic reality is more than a set of figures, and in this both Mexico and Venezuela are doing badly. We can perhaps say that Venezuela is doing a bit better right now in social spending, but the real test will be to create a sustainable economy that will allow the poor to create wealth for themselves.


Exactly, but the results of that won't be seen for a generation. It takes time to build a society back up. Economic miracles can happen over short periods of time (5, 10 or 15 years) but a rapid social 'upgrade' takes at least a generation to see the effects.

Does anyone else find it rather funny that this "Disraeliland" hack's already in his FIFTH incarnation? One wonders what exactly he spews all over the other boards.

Suspicions aside, the only "argument" the rightists of this discussion can seem to come up with is the classic (or not-so-classic) "COMMUNISM IS TEH EBIL!!1!1!1!111!1" idiocy.

And it's also funny that all of the naysayers of Chavez are of the Conservative cesspool.

Exactly, the economic reality is more than a set of figures, and in this both Mexico and Venezuela are doing badly. We can perhaps say that Venezuela is doing a bit better right now in social spending, but the real test will be to create a sustainable economy that will allow the poor to create wealth for themselves.

And that is exactly what Chavez is doing, by educating people, by giving land and tools to peasants, by supporting cooperative, by encouraging local projects, ...

Chavez is definitely looking at the long term. Just look at how long it took him to do the first major economical reforms: 3 years. Because he took care to plan it, to prepare it, ... Because Chavez' Bolivarian Revolution is, according to him, a 20 to 30 years long process - at least.

All of their leaders oppose Chavez, Guatemala/Carribean/El Salvador/Uruguay are all negotiating free trade agreements directly with the US, and even Alan Garcia of Peru (the former Chavez of South America in the 1980's) is denoucing him as a threat.


of course the flip side of that equation is that about half of south america has been bought out by the US and the other half resists and is denounced as supporting terrorism for example.

While Chavez is the furthest left in SA governments there are many others Brazil included who have similar left wing leanings and oppose and are opposed by the US just not to the same extent of Chavez's govt

Exactly, but the results of that won't be seen for a generation. It takes time to build a society back up. Economic miracles can happen over short periods of time (5, 10 or 15 years) but a rapid social 'upgrade' takes at least a generation to see the effects.

We already seeing a rapid social upgrade in Venezuela. One third cut in poverty, massive reduction of illetteracy, every children having education and food, ...

The problem is, the European Working Class will be warm. But if Hugo Chavez gives them warmth, it means the Governments of Europe don't have to, and if they don't need to give warmth, they have more money to fuel their Communist system.

wow, thats possibly the largest concentration of economic ignorance that I've ever seen. Lol

We already seeing a rapid social upgrade in Venezuela. One third cut in poverty, massive reduction of illetteracy, every children having education and food, ...

The US fears anyone who has a chance of getting a better government than what they already have. :p

The US fears anyone who has a chance of getting a better government than what they already have. :p

Not really. they are not quite that paranoid - yet.

The US fears anyone who has a chance of getting a better government than what they already have. :p

Yeah, true :)

More exactly, they're fearing anyone who could implement a democratic form of socialism - that's their ultimate fear, because they know that if one manage to do it, it'll spread. That's why they killed Allende, and that's why they tried to coup out Chavez. And that's just two examples on so many.

Chavez is definitely looking at the long term. Just look at how long it took him to do the first major economical reforms: 3 years. Because he took care to plan it, to prepare it, ... Because Chavez' Bolivarian Revolution is, according to him, a 20 to 30 years long process - at least.
I know. I just hope he really knows what he's doing, specially that he knows when to let go and let people take over. In Mexico the government didn't know when to let go and start opening the economy again and relied on oil too much.

If Chavez can pull it off, more power to him. I just don't like the way it seems to be going. I can't say his government is undemocratic, but the long term feasibility of his economic reforms worry me.

but no human agency can forgive the bloodstained history of the evilness known as communism.

I hope you refer here to Stalinism, and not to Communism...afterall there is a difference...

I hope you refer here to Stalinism, and not to Communism...afterall there is a difference...

About 30 million deaths. :D

I know. I just hope he really knows what he's doing, specially that he knows when to let go and let people take over. In Mexico the government didn't know when to let go and start opening the economy again and relied on oil too much.

Well, on that I don't agree: the goal is not to open the economy again. It's to get beyond capitalism. "Opening" in the free market term the economy would mean killing the Bolivarian Revolution, and going back to the old good age of massive poverty and exploitation.

But Chavez is "letting the people take over". Look at the factories that were expropriated because the CEOs wanted to close them illegally. Chavez is not controlling them. They belong to the state, but they are runned by the workers, as cooperatives. That's the way to go: less power to stock holders, but not for giving more power to the central governement, but for giving more power to the people.

If Chavez can pull it off, more power to him. I just don't like the way it seems to be going. I can't say his government is undemocratic, but the long term feasibility of his economic reforms worry me.

It doesn't worry me. It seems for me he's doing a great job on preparing a post-capitalist economy. But of course, if for you the goal is a temporary "cure" of socialism to reduce poverty and then back to capitalism, you've to be worried, because it's not at all Chavez' goal.

I know. I just hope he really knows what he's doing, specially that he knows when to let go and let people take over. In Mexico the government didn't know when to let go and start opening the economy again and relied on oil too much.

If Chavez can pull it off, more power to him. I just don't like the way it seems to be going. I can't say his government is undemocratic, but the long term feasibility of his economic reforms worry me.

Yup. The moment he tries to extend his rule, my support for him will wane. So long as he sticks to democracy and their Constitution he's got my support.

Well, on that I don't agree: the goal is not to open the economy again. It's to get beyond capitalism. "Opening" in the free market term the economy would mean killing the Bolivarian Revolution, and going back to the old good age of massive poverty and exploitation.
Except that free market doesn't have to mean massive poverty and exploitation, just like socialism doesn't have to mean equality and social justice. In fact, in many occassions socialism has derived in a form of exploitation by the state or corporatives which become just as brutal as CEO's and corporations.

Look at Germany or Japan. Unions work together with stockholders to decide on marketing and production strategies and they're far more egalitarian and just than any purely socialist economy has ever been. Even cooperatives need a product to sell, marketing strategies, and capital to implement it all, and if they're unsuccessful they'll go broke or will start to suck from the government's teat until it runs out of money.

The problem in Venezuela has never been capitalism, or free markets, on the contrary, there has never been enough of both. The problem has been elitism, which has kept the people from access to both markets and capital. If Chavez gets rid of the dominant class and opens access to the common people to the economy, good for him. But he can't fall in the trap of creating a new ruling class and creating new restrictions for economic participation.

But Chavez is "letting the people take over". Look at the factories that were expropriated because the CEOs wanted to close them illegally. Chavez is not controlling them. They belong to the state, but they are runned by the workers, as cooperatives. That's the way to go: less power to stock holders, but not for giving more power to the central governement, but for giving more power to the people.
If the CEO's wanted to close them, how's that illegal? If the government had bought them from the stockholders and then give it to the workers, or the workers themselves had bought them, that'd be one thing. But taking the factory illegaly from the rightful owners without compensation and then keeping it open just for the sake of it is not a smart policy. It costs money, and it'll come to bite you in the ass in the long run.

It doesn't worry me. It seems for me he's doing a great job on preparing a post-capitalist economy. But of course, if for you the goal is a temporary "cure" of socialism to reduce poverty and then back to capitalism, you've to be worried, because it's not at all Chavez' goal.
That's the thing. Socialism should be used to ameliorate the excesses of capitalism and to distribute the wealth created by a free market more equitatively. But it shouldn't replace free markets or serve as an excuse for government to create a new ruling class.

Hugo Chavez has a notorious habit of adding very little to the debate. He rants and raves about "Mr. Danger." He sits there and calls his political opposition by childish names, names I'd expect to hear on an elementary school playground. He uses the state to stage dramas on television. He plays games with international oil prices. Beyond that he's setting himself up for a Castro-esque run. I would not be surprised if thirty years from now, Hugo Chavez is still the President of Venezuela, and his regular opposition in elections is from people who abstain from voting.

I have no problem with some of the other leftist leaders in Latin America, sure, I feel their policies are ill-advised, but there's more than just that with Hugo Chavez. Some people rant about Morales, I don't. Why? Because from what I've seen, he seems to be the type of fellow who will follow the law. I think da Silva is a good, responsible President of Brazil. Chavez is scary not for the fact that he supports an ideology I disagree with, he's scary because it's perfectly realistic to see him ignoring the Venezuelan Constitution and making himself something akin to Castro.

Realmente não vale a pena tentar convencer a maioria aqui, eles pensam o que eles querem.

Eu perguntaria qual foi a situação de você e da sua família na sociedade antes de Chavez? Você é pobre? Duvido desde que você disse que você é um jornalista (exige graduação no mínimo). Eu acho que você é de classe média, e pra vocês Chavez não tinha sido muito bom, mas a menos que você é um dos pobres, você não tem mais qualificação para falar sobre a situação deles do que você tem para falar sobre os conflitos na Paris.

Espero que você consegue ler português.

Eu compreendo o português consideravelmente bem. Mas eu não posso escrever o português apropriado

¿La situación de mi familia? Probablemente pude haber sido de clase media, mas mi madre murió mientras yo y mis dos hermanos éramos muy jóvenes, por lo que mi padre tuvo que levantar a sus tres hijos con su sueldo de profesor de colegio, pues no teníamos otra familia.

Por lo tanto, aunque no crecimos en una situación de pobreza crítica, no fuimos acomodados. Vivíamos en un apartamento pequeño en una zona humilde, en condiciones mínimas. Con todo, teníamos facilidades, y mi padre se esforzó por tratar de darnos lo mejor que podía, que no era mucho. Si quieres saber si sé lo que es pasar un día sin comer, lo sé. Si quieres saber si tenía mucha ropa, no no tenía. No teníamos automóvil, ni lujo alguno.

Sin embargo nos dieron muchas oportunidades, disfrutamos de varias becas y ayudas estudiantiles por nuestros talentos. Mi hermano destacó y obtuvo un lugar en el programa "Gran Mariscal de Ayacucho", de ayuda estudiantil, y mi hermano menor y yo tuvimos el orgullo de ser fundadores de la Orquesta Nacional Infantil de Venezuela, organización venezolana que ha recibido galardones y premios a nivel mundial, incluso de las Naciones Unidas y de la UNESCO.

Mi hermano mayor, de 30 años, es médico Summa Cum Laude graduado de la Universidad Central de Venezuela, (una universidad pública y por tanto gratuita, reconocida entre las mejores de suramérica) y actualmente estudia una maestría en Inmunología en el Institute Pasteur gracias a una beca (esta vez del gobierno francés). Antes de irse a estudiar trabajó con los indígenas Warao en la erradicación de la tuberculosis, endémica en esa etnia, por más de tres años, investigación que logró obtener los mejores comentarios en círculos especializados en todo el mundo.

Yo tengo 26 años, próxima a los 27. Soy graduada Cum Laude de la Universidad Central de Venezuela en Comunicación Social (en una universidad pública, y por tanto gratuita), y obtuve una beca para un postgrado en Periodismo Internacional en la Universidad Católica Andrés Bello por mi méritos. durante toda mi carrera tuve que trabajar como profesora de música en un colegio público situado en una de los barrios más humildes y peligrosos de Caracas (similares a sus favelas) para pagarme mis libros y todos los materiales que necesitaba. Mi hermano mayor a duras penas trabajaba como profesor particular de inglés y francés para poder tener el dinero necesario.

No, no fue fácil. Chávez no ha sido tampoco bueno. Mi padre se jubiló y hoy a sus 70 años sigue ganando una pobre pensión que no aumenta desde 1996, y que hoy apenas sirve para pagar la cuenta de luz eléctrica. ni nosotros ni nadie, excepto pequeños grupos de favorecidos, disfruta de un beneficio económico estable. Chávez no ayuda a su pueblo, apenas le da limosnas del enorme ingreso petrolero, unos kilos de harina y unas latas de sardinas para que apenas puedan comer.

Nuestra ciudad, Caracas, es sucia y peligrosa, tan peligrosa como su famosa "Cidade do Deus", y cada día que pasa es peor. Más miseria, más niños que piden limosna en la calle, más prostitución y más tráfico de drogas. no es cierto lo de la inflación, la comida cada día es más cara en los mercados, yo soy la mujer de mi casa y es mi responsabilidad ir al mercado.

Yo he salido de mi país, gracias a mi profesión y mis estudios, y me sorprende lo bien que vive la gente en otros países, sin tanta miseria. En Europa su calidad de vida es muy diferente, sumamente mejor que la nuestra, y su poder adquisitivo es varias veces el nuestro.

Yo sé lo que es ser pobre, o al menos estar muy limitado. Quizás si Chávez hubiera ganado antes no nos hubiera ido tan bien, antes no se pasaba tanta miseria como ahora. Ganamos poco, incluso nosotros hoy que somos profesionales, y sé que los obreros y campesinos viven con mucho menos. Tengo acceso a internet gracias a mi trabajo, porque no poseo una computadora. No tengo automóvil, siempre uso el metro. No he podido casarme porque no tengo el dinero suficiente para adquirir una vivienda, pues los precios son muy altos y cobran en dólares.

Espero haber podido ayudarte en ilustrar nuestra verdadera situación. tuve una vez la dicha de visitar tu país, estuve en Manaos y en Brazilia cuando era niña, y vives en un país con muchas carencias, pero muy bello donde la gente es muy especial. Creo que tengo la calificación para hablar de la situación de mi país, pues he pertenecido tanto a la clase media como a la pobre. Nunca he sido muy pudiente, ni he sido "rica". Ni creo la verdad que eso tenga que ver con estar o no cualificada.

Espero que puedas leer en español...

Except that free market doesn't have to mean massive poverty and exploitation,

It does. It's inherent to how free market works.

just like socialism doesn't have to mean equality and social justice. In fact, in many occassions socialism has derived in a form of exploitation by the state or corporatives which become just as brutal as CEO's and corporations.

That was not real socialism.

Look at Germany or Japan. Unions work together with stockholders to decide on marketing and production strategies and they're far more egalitarian and just than any purely socialist economy has ever been.

That's not even true. East Germany was much more egalitarian than West Germany ever was. Sure, there were many other problems in East Germany, like the Stasi, and I don't say I support it. But it was much more egalitarian. And that's why the PDS-Linkspartei does so good scores in eastern part of germany nowadays, because while for some capitalism meant huge increase if living conditions, for many it meant a huge decrease.

But yes, social democracy like Germany or France manages to keep the amount of misery at a relatively low level... inside the borders. But they never managed to grant decent living conditions to everyone, and don't forget the enormous price poor countries are paying to allow us, rich capitalist countries, to enjoy our wealth.

Even cooperatives need a product to sell, marketing strategies, and capital to implement it all, and if they're unsuccessful they'll go broke or will start to suck from the government's teat until it runs out of money.

For the capital, that's were the state goes. With national banks and loans, with micro-credits, with nationalising already existing factories, with initial subventions.

The problem in Venezuela has never been capitalism, or free markets, on the contrary, there has never been enough of both.

That's just false. The South American countries who had more capitalism also had the greatest amount of poverty. Pinochet's Chile is an example, or more recently, look at the Argentina disaster after applying neoliberal reforms.

The problem has been elitism, which has kept the people from access to both markets and capital. If Chavez gets rid of the dominant class and opens access to the common people to the economy, good for him. But he can't fall in the trap of creating a new ruling class and creating new restrictions for economic participation.

Free market inherently creates a ruling class, because of volume effect, marketing power and the core nature of capitalism (the richest you already are, the easier it is to gain a given amount of wealth).

The restrictions for economic participation do not come from governements - they come from the market. That's why more social countries tend to have more active SMEs while less social countries tend to be more dominated by big corporations.

If the CEO's wanted to close them, how's that illegal?

Only in pure, absolute, totalitarian capitalism can a CEO cloe the factory and fire the workers as he please. In every country with a tiny bit of good sense, it's forbidden.

If the government had bought them from the stockholders and then give it to the workers, or the workers themselves had bought them, that'd be one thing. But taking the factory illegaly

The governement, if it acts according to the Constitution, cannot be illegal, by definition.

from the rightful owners

Owing stocks or corporations isn't rightful at all. It's not a freedom nor a right, but a power, a privilege, and the way to steal the work of others. It may be needed evil in some situation, but you can't invoke any "rightful" or freedom to protect that.

without compensation and then keeping it open just for the sake of it is not a smart policy. It costs money, and it'll come to bite you in the ass in the long run.

No. What would be stupid is to give money to corporation or stock owners who just want to destroy your economy by closing profitable factories. Or even worse, to allow them to close.


That's the thing. Socialism should be used to ameliorate the excesses of capitalism and to distribute the wealth created by a free market more equitatively. But it shouldn't replace free markets or serve as an excuse for government to create a new ruling class.

Of course, socialism should replace free markets. Free markets are unefficient, short-sighted, totalitarian, antidemocratic, create a ruling class, waste incredible amounts of ressources in competition and advertising, and inherently inequal. They are the reason behind most of the problems of nowadays world, and the only hope for mankind to solve its problems (wars, half of the world lacking food or water while billions go to advertising or the hand of a few, massive ressource depletion and environemantal damages, ...) is to get rid of free markets and move to a more sane economy: socialism.

Chavez is scary not for the fact that he supports an ideology I disagree with, he's scary because it's perfectly realistic to see him ignoring the Venezuelan Constitution and making himself something akin to Castro.

Chavez is the one behind this Constitution, which is among the most democratic of the world. He's also the one doing all the efforts in order to make Venezuelian aware of the content of the Constitution - something unseen in most other countries (even in France, the governement doesn't do anything to make people read the Constitution, because it proclames rights they don't want to grant us).

He never broke this Constitution. The respect of the Constitution is the one thing he asked to the opposition after the coup of April 11, 2002.

Chavez is the one behind this Constitution, which is among the most democratic of the world. He's also the one doing all the efforts in order to make Venezuelian aware of the content of the Constitution - something unseen in most other countries (even in France, the governement doesn't do anything to make people read the Constitution, because it proclames rights they don't want to grant us).

He never broke this Constitution. The respect of the Constitution is the one thing he asked to the opposition after the coup of April 11, 2002.
He will support the constitution when he sees it to his benefit, he will ignore it when he sees it to his benefit. Chavez is a demagouge, and that's how demagouges have always acted. If he was a rational, sane leader, like da Silva, I wouldn't be worried, but he isn't.

He will support the constitution when he sees it to his benefit, he will ignore it when he sees it to his benefit.

He didn't when the courts released the ones behind the coup attempt of 2002.

Chavez is a demagouge, and that's how demagouges have always acted.

Hum, what about putting it the other way ? "Chavez didn't do it, and since that's what demagogue always do, Chavez is not a demagogue". Why do you say he is one ?

If he was a rational, sane leader, like da Silva, I wouldn't be worried, but he isn't.

He is at least as sane as Lula. Lula is quite a good guy, but he's a bit a coward; he doesn't dare to do what he was elected for, he doesn't dare to move strongly enough against the powers of money. You call that rational, I call that irrational fear. For the sanity, on what point do you say Chavez isn't rational ? Giving the order to the loyal forces to not open fire and surrendering himself to the putschists in order to prevent a bloodbath sounds like a rational, sane and brave leader. That's what Chavez is.

He will support the constitution when he sees it to his benefit, he will ignore it when he sees it to his benefit. Chavez is a demagouge, and that's how demagouges have always acted. If he was a rational, sane leader, like da Silva, I wouldn't be worried, but he isn't.

How do you know what he will do in the future? All you can do is judge him by his actions to date, which DO NOT show him to be the monster you paint him to be.

I swear, are all uber-righties issued Magic 8-balls or something? They seem to instantly know how things will be in the future or how things would have been if an election here or there had gone differently. For example:

"Gore would have surrendered on 9/11 and we'd all be wearing burkhas and everyone would be poor and Gore would kick your dog!"

Espero que puedas leer en español...

Ok. Thank you. I can, with some effort as Portuguese is my second language.

In part writing in Portuguese was one way of ensuring that you were not lying about some things as you have been accused of. (Those who study Spanish as a second language tend to panic when presented with Portuguese.).

I do not know enough about the internal situation in Venezuela to say more than this.

The advent of Chavez seems to have severely polarized the country. It appears to truly be a case of either you support him or you oppose him. Given you autobiographical sketch, it makes sense to me, at least, that you oppose him. For those that had given up hope on ever improving their situation, Chavez is seen as a saviour, someone who can improve what were subhuman living standards. That at least is the image from here. Whereas for those that had busted their balls to improve their own life, his changes to the structure of society are devastating.

Something did have to be done there, and will have to be done here too, about the inequality of life standards. By this I mean the inequality of opportunity, and not of outcome.

My overal view of Chavez is that he is the president of a country that I do not live in, and where I have no say. He appears to have been elected at least as democratically as Bush, and he is not eliminating the opposition or the press as was done here from 64 to 84.

History will be the final judge, as to wheether he was good or bad for Venezuela, not us on an internet forum.

That was a good reply...

I want to clarify that I am not against Chávez socialist model. Au contraire. I approve his ideas, and his speeches, (unless he just insults openly someone, thing he does on a weekly basis), I just have a problem about how is he trying to achieve those altruistic objetives (if he is trying at all to achieve them for real). We're not living better, we are living worst, not just us, the "middle-class", (hardly at the level of the middle class of other countries), but the poor people too.

Those things are not being achieved right now. He is just giving charity money to his people, not true help.

The problem is, the European Working Class will be warm. But if Hugo Chavez gives them warmth, it means the Governments of Europe don't have to, and if they don't need to give warmth, they have more money to fuel their Communist system.

...was your name McCarthy in a past life?

...was your name McCarthy in a past life?

This is really funny to me because I actually know who you are talking about. :D

i say we just nuke the bastard....we've got 20,000 i think that should pretty much cover it.....

i say we just nuke the bastard....we've got 20,000 i think that should pretty much cover it.....

Typical American solution. Can't solve it? Nuke it! :D

How do you know what he will do in the future? All you can do is judge him by his actions to date, which DO NOT show him to be the monster you paint him to be.

I swear, are all uber-righties issued Magic 8-balls or something? They seem to instantly know how things will be in the future or how things would have been if an election here or there had gone differently. For example:

"Gore would have surrendered on 9/11 and we'd all be wearing burkhas and everyone would be poor and Gore would kick your dog!"
I love the fact that I'm being painted as an Ueber-righty. That's really nice of you. What I see in Chavez is a populist demagouge, and my judgement of populist demagouges tends to lead me to believe that he will have increasing conflicts with the Venezuelan Constitution. It's intuition.

and to the gay little frenchie....uhh he's a leftist dictator who oppresses his people and inflates oil prices to people who desperately need it...so yeah who cares if he supported a constitution....i make my decisions with my wallet...not the state of some poor people who are going to end up as raft scum on the florida coast in three years.

and to the gay little frenchie....uhh he's a leftist dictator who oppresses his people and inflates oil prices to people who desperately need it...so yeah who cares if he supported a constitution....i make my decisions with my wallet...not the state of some poor people who are going to end up as raft scum on the florida coast in three years.


Hey, it's flamebait!

Sorry, no one is biting.

This is really funny to me because I actually know who you are talking about. :D
And so do I.

Here's your gold star, would you like a smiley face?

How do you know what he will do in the future? All you can do is judge him by his actions to date, which DO NOT show him to be the monster you paint him to be.

Human Rights Watch would disagree with that:
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu

Hardly the mark of an open, free society. Also, don't forget his moves on making Bolvia his puppet state, the thousands of people unemployed by his collapsing of the oil industry, or the millions pushed in to poverty caused by high prices that stem partially from Chavez's mismanagement of the oil industry.

And so do I.

Here's your gold star, would you like a smiley face?

Sure. :)

It does. It's inherent to how free market works.

That was not real socialism.
Yup. And exploitation is not real free market.

That's not even true. East Germany was much more egalitarian than West Germany ever was. Sure, there were many other problems in East Germany, like the Stasi, and I don't say I support it. But it was much more egalitarian. And that's why the PDS-Linkspartei does so good scores in eastern part of germany nowadays, because while for some capitalism meant huge increase if living conditions, for many it meant a huge decrease.
Ok, ok, did you say this was socialism or that this isn't socialism? Can you work within your own set of operative definitions or are you just making them up as you go along?

But yes, social democracy like Germany or France manages to keep the amount of misery at a relatively low level... inside the borders. But they never managed to grant decent living conditions to everyone, and don't forget the enormous price poor countries are paying to allow us, rich capitalist countries, to enjoy our wealth.
You will never manage to grant decent living conditions to everyone. No matter what you do some will be in the lowest income percentile. That's just a fact of life. What you're supposed to do is allow those people in the lowest percentile some mobility, so that they are able to climb up the economic scale. Sure, others will fall in that percentile, but as long as it's not the same people, it's ok.

The poor countries keep paying thanks to a policy of post-colonial interventionism that most of Europe has never been willing to let go of, not necessarily capitalism.

That's just false. The South American countries who had more capitalism also had the greatest amount of poverty. Pinochet's Chile is an example, or more recently, look at the Argentina disaster after applying neoliberal reforms.
We said that's not capitalism. Chile and Argentina didn't have a free markets policy, ie. no capital was available to the poor to start a small company, or access markets. Most capital, political power, and wealth were concentrated in a tiny minority and there was little to no social mobility. That's elitism, the same problem that Venezuela (and most of Latin America) has.

Free market inherently creates a ruling class, because of volume effect, marketing power and the core nature of capitalism (the richest you already are, the easier it is to gain a given amount of wealth).
But it also creates social mobility, and the role of the state becomes one to ensure that mobility and prevent such enormous concentration of wealth and power. In Latin American countries, rulers traditionally come from that elite, so it's difficult to impossible to break up those monopolies.

The restrictions for economic participation do not come from governements - they come from the market. That's why more social countries tend to have more active SMEs while less social countries tend to be more dominated by big corporations.
That's right. And it should be the state's role to ensure they all compete on a level ground under the same rules, and not to become a monopolising power in itself or create economic favoritisms.

Only in pure, absolute, totalitarian capitalism can a CEO cloe the factory and fire the workers as he please. In every country with a tiny bit of good sense, it's forbidden.

The governement, if it acts according to the Constitution, cannot be illegal, by definition.
So do the CEO's. If they're acting according to the law in the liquidation of the company (ie. paying salaries, compensations, liquidating debt and taxes, selling off remaining assets, etc.) then they're acting legally. By definition. Every country with a bit of sense allows people to handle their money as they see more convenient, providing they have taken care of their obligations. No country will force you to keep losing money.



Owing stocks or corporations isn't rightful at all. It's not a freedom nor a right, but a power, a privilege, and the way to steal the work of others. It may be needed evil in some situation, but you can't invoke any "rightful" or freedom to protect that.
But the good thing about this system is that workers can be stockholders too. They can buy a piece of the company they work for (or, if they're lazy, of one of their competitors). If they get enough shares they can even run the company! That's free market! That's social mobility! That's socialism!


No. What would be stupid is to give money to corporation or stock owners who just want to destroy your economy by closing profitable factories. Or even worse, to allow them to close.Now you really are making no sense at all. I bet you would have kept whip factories open long after buggies went out of style just so that people kept their jobs. That's a very nice sentiment, but it clashes with the harsh realities of economy.

Of course, socialism should replace free markets. Free markets are unefficient, short-sighted, totalitarian, antidemocratic, create a ruling class, waste incredible amounts of ressources in competition and advertising, and inherently inequal. They are the reason behind most of the problems of nowadays world, and the only hope for mankind to solve its problems (wars, half of the world lacking food or water while billions go to advertising or the hand of a few, massive ressource depletion and environemantal damages, ...) is to get rid of free markets and move to a more sane economy: socialism.
What you are proposing in not socialism (the ownership of the means of production by the workers), but statism (economy centrally planned by the government). The difference is that in the first one the workers assume the risks of owning and running a profitable business in a free, open market. In the second one it's the state that tries to adjust the environmental variables to maintain the economy going. This method has proven impractical and even more wasteful than capitalism.

Human Rights Watch would disagree with that:
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu

Hardly the mark of an open, free society. Also, don't forget his moves on making Bolvia his puppet state, the thousands of people unemployed by his collapsing of the oil industry, or the millions pushed in to poverty caused by high prices that stem partially from Chavez's mismanagement of the oil industry.
Now, go to the HRW page on America. 62 pages of stuff... Nothing on the Venezuelan page comes from 2006, as opposed to two and a half pages on America. Britain has more reports, and it's definitely a free open society. And it's not a case of Venezuela being too closed to allow HRW work freely, or too small to be worthy of attention. Yes, there are some abuses, but there aren't many countries without any.

Originally Posted by Legendary Rock Stars
The US fears anyone who has a chance of getting a better government than what they already have.


ok.....lets just say this....theres no worry there...nobody has or can have a better government...we havent changed our in close to 250 years unlike some of you people who have changed like 5 times in 200 years.....(france) (germany) (russia) and you canadians who just suck anyways.....

ok.....lets just say this....theres no worry there...nobody has or can have a better government...we havent changed our in close to 250 years unlike some of you people who have changed like 5 times in 200 years.....(france) (germany) (russia) and you canadians who just suck anyways.....

The one that doesn't change to adapt, dies.

Now, go to the HRW page on America. 62 pages of stuff... Nothing on the Venezuelan page comes from 2006, as opposed to two and a half pages on America. Britain has more reports, and it's definitely a free open society. And it's not a case of Venezuela being too closed to allow HRW work freely, or too small to be worthy of attention. Yes, there are some abuses, but there aren't many countries without any.
At the same time, the US pages are primarily composed of three things.

1.) Calls for the US to condemn other countries poor human rights records
2.) Charges involving Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo (which are repeatedly filed
3.) Things involving homosexual marriage, which is a state issue, not federal

The problem is, the European Working Class will be warm. But if Hugo Chavez gives them warmth, it means the Governments of Europe don't have to, and if they don't need to give warmth, they have more money to fuel their Communist system.

Haha... sorry but uhm, could you even name a european country?

Calling european countries communist these days is like calling martha stewart the long lost final member of the manson family...

But I'm sure a basic health care system available to almost everyone (and not just those who can afford the assurance-premiums) is just screaming Gulag-mentality to you

The one that doesn't change to adapt, dies.


right...and we havent seen much need for change in those 250 years now have we.....

Now, go to the HRW page on America. 62 pages of stuff... Nothing on the Venezuelan page comes from 2006, as opposed to two and a half pages on America. Britain has more reports, and it's definitely a free open society. And it's not a case of Venezuela being too closed to allow HRW work freely, or too small to be worthy of attention. Yes, there are some abuses, but there aren't many countries without any.

A good number of the reports in the US are laudatory as well as critical, and many of the abuses are rectifiable by the people, something that is becoming less and less possible in Venezuela.

Basic violations of human rights are a stepping stone to far greater ones, which is why Venezuela's record is much more severe than ours; we can correct our abuses, but a society in which free expression is increasingly stifled it becomes nearly impossible.

Venezuela's are about things as basic as political rights and freedom of speech; nowhere in the US does a person run the risk of being arrested on treason charges for expressing their opinion. We also don't force laws through Congress that intentionally weaken the Court in order to turn it in to a rubber stamp to trash the Constitution, and we don't imprison people for using foreign money to fund a legal voting drive.

right...and we havent seen much need for change in those 250 years now have we.....

*Yawn*

I can. For starters, your healthcare system sucks.

*Yawn*

I can. For starters, your healthcare system sucks.


OK...well mr socialist....the united states is a capitalist democracy dominated by a right wing party, lead by one of the most right wing presidents outside of reagan. now republicans arent very into government regulation of the economy...thats called...what is it...huh huh mr gold star....socialism...GOOD JOB... which....contrary to popular belief is...not capitalism....which is not america......so if the old people cant buy their sugar pills...which is really all it is.....thats not the governments fault...its the pharmacutical companies....bush doenst have any room to controll business....its....undemocratic....

what else you got.....

*Yawn*

I can. For starters, your healthcare system sucks.
I contend that it doesn't.

OK...well mr socialist....the united states is a capitalist democracy dominated by a right wing party, lead by one of the most right wing presidents outside of reagan. now republicans arent very into government regulation of the economy...thats called...what is it...huh huh mr gold star....socialism...GOOD JOB... which....contrary to popular belief is...not capitalism....which is not america......so if the old people cant buy their sugar pills...which is really all it is.....thats not the governments fault...its the pharmacutical companies....bush doenst have any room to controll business....its....undemocratic....

what else you got.....
Coherent sentences, please.

OK...well mr socialist....the united states is a capitalist democracy dominated by a right wing party, lead by one of the most right wing presidents outside of reagan. now republicans arent very into government regulation of the economy...thats called...what is it...huh huh mr gold star....socialism...GOOD JOB... which....contrary to popular belief is...not capitalism....which is not america......so if the old people cant buy their sugar pills...which is really all it is.....thats not the governments fault...its the pharmacutical companies....bush doenst have any room to controll business....its....undemocratic....

what else you got.....

Oh, boy. I'm feeling that urge again.
Sorry, everyone, I couldn't hold back. :D

Would it KILL you to at least try a half-hearted attempt at spelling and using proper grammar? I mean, come on. Do everyone on this forum a favor and type in a manner that is pleasant to the eyes and doesn't have to force people to downgrade their English skills so that they can actually comprehend what you are trying to say. If you want for other people to take you seriously, put some efforts into your posts. Although, my money is betting on the fact that you are a troll, in which case, you're not going to last very long.

Typical American solution. Can't solve it? Nuke it! :D


forgot to mention this...AT LEAST WE HAVE NUKES....

Oh, boy. I'm feeling that urge again.
Sorry, everyone, I couldn't hold back. :D


aww your killin me smalls....i've gotta use my IM language....

I contend that it doesn't.

I meant the fact that you have to pay for it. It probably doesn't suck, if you have the money to pay for it. :p

Oh, boy. I'm feeling that urge again.
Sorry, everyone, I couldn't hold back. :D
My dear friend, I'd be delighted if he could string them into coherent sentences, let alone get the grammar right.

forgot to mention this...AT LEAST WE HAVE NUKES....

Yeah. Just too scared to actually use them.
News flash: The US isn't the only country that has nukes. :eek:

ok.....lets just say this....theres no worry there...nobody has or can have a better government...we havent changed our in close to 250 years unlike some of you people who have changed like 5 times in 200 years.....(france) (germany) (russia) and you canadians who just suck anyways.....
Yes, you have. The difference is that you came up with a way to change government gradually and democratically without the need of a bloody revolution every so many years. It's worked so well, in fact, that other countries have adapted it with varying degrees of success.

Not that you came up with the idea all by yourselves, but anyway, points for implementation.

I meant the fact that you have to pay for it. It probably doesn't suck, if you have the money to pay for it. :p
Well, you have to pay for nationalized healthcare as well, just instead of paying at the counter, you pay when you do your taxes. Which would be a nuisance to me, because at this point in my life I have virtually no need of the medical system, and if I had to pay for something I didn't need, I'd be pretty fucking pissed.

Yeah. Just too scared to actually use them.
News flash: The US isn't the only country that has nukes. :eek:

newsflash...weve got the most....
newsflash...weve used them...
...not pansies.

Well, you have to pay for nationalized healthcare as well, just instead of paying at the counter, you pay when you do your taxes. Which would be a nuisance to me, because at this point in my life I have virtually no need of the medical system, and if I had to pay for something I didn't need, I'd be pretty fucking pissed.



PSSST....i dont pay taxes.....i really couldn't care less

Yes, you have. The difference is that you came up with a way to change government gradually and democratically without the need of a bloody revolution every so many years. It's worked so well, in fact, that other countries have adapted it with varying degrees of success.

Not that you came up with the idea all by yourselves, but anyway, points for implementation.


it took some skill.....not gonna lie....

I shall begin typing my sentences in coherant, and proper English. I sincerely appoligize to every person whom I have offended with my poor excuse for language.

ok...bored....psychology final tomorrow.....WANNA GRADUATE IN 4 YEARS UNLIKE ROOMMATE....

I shall begin typing my sentences in coherant, and proper English. I sincerely appoligize to every person whom I have offended with my poor excuse for language.

ok...bored....psychology final tomorrow.....WANNA GRADUATE IN 4 YEARS UNLIKE ROOMMATE....

Quitter! You stopped halfway through! :D

newsflash...weve got the most....
newsflash...weve used them...
...not pansies.

Come on, America might be able to eradicate life on earth 5 times and Russia only four times, but does that actually matter? What are you going to nuke after, little green men?

It was his fault. It was his responsability. He fired most directors to replace them with military personnel and his supporters (that seemed to be total inepts), it was the logical thing to protest if you are fired with just the justification that a friend of someone important want the job.

And the refineries and the rest of oil facilities weren't saboutaged...It is simply that the prepared personnel were replaced by untrained people that caused fires, mistakes and collapse of several structures...Noone saboutaged them...As I said, stop reading cuban news only. Try a venezuelan newspaper for a change
Haven't you heard. These guys think Venezuelan Newspapers are all anti Chavez propaganda machines that are funded entirely by the "evil" Bush administration.
Since you said you were a reporter, mind if I ask how much money Bush has given you guys? (Rhetorical question, I think we both already have an idea what the answer is but I'm not sure about the Chavez supporters here).

Also, you guys down there have my utmost moral support.

Human Rights Watch would disagree with that:
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=venezu

HRW, close to the Democrat Party of USA.

Amnesty, much more trustable source, does have some "human right violations" against Venezuela, but they have against nearly all countries of the world, including USA, France, ... and no more against Venezuela than against USA or France. And for Venezuela, most are either uncertain, or not directly the fault of Chavez, but more of the heated climate, in which people from both side sometimes "cross the line".

Also, don't forget his moves on making Bolvia his puppet state,

Evo Morales isn't and will not be the puppet of anyone. He agrees with Chavez on many points, not on others, but he's definitely not a puppet of anyone.

the thousands of people unemployed by his collapsing of the oil industry,

http://www.latin-focus.com/latinfocus/countries/venezuela/venunemp.htm

As you can see, unemployment in Venezuela started to lower when Chavez reach power in 1998. It went up a lot in 2002 thanks to the economical sabotage, coup attempt, patronal strikes, ... of the opposition, but Venezuela recovered quickly, and has now the lowest unemployment rate it ever had in history. And the figures for 2006 are even better than the ones of 2005.

or the millions pushed in to poverty caused by high prices that stem partially from Chavez's mismanagement of the oil industry.

Poverty in Venezuela went done from above 55% to about 35% during the 7 years of Chavez' presidency. That's a very good score.

Sure. Helping the poor, curing people, teaching them how to read, that's evil. Wanting the wealth of your country to be used to for the general interest, that's evil.
Those things are generally very good if done rationally with plans in mind to keep the systems running in the long term.
Creating a very democratic system, with recall referendum and people's initiated referendum, that's evil.

Political systems are morally ambiguous, it’s results that matter and Chavez is getting results.
Sure. As sure as War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength.

Please, could you stop double-thinking ?
And could you stop referencing Orwell? It's annoying. Your own words are always more effective.

And to all the right-wing dunderheads, Chavez is not a communist, nor is he evil. He is a populist who uses capitalism to his and his people's benefit. He is as morally ambiguous as the political system he has established.

Yup. And exploitation is not real free market.

It is. It is totally inherent to it. Freedom in market is the freedom to exploit, and it mathematically lead to a few big corporations exploiting everyone.

Ok, ok, did you say this was socialism or that this isn't socialism? Can you work within your own set of operative definitions or are you just making them up as you go along?

I said that it was not real socialism; but it was, in some respect, close to socialism. And btw, I were refering to your sentence, which implied that socialist countries existed, and therefore you used the "ussr block" definition of socialism, so I replied with your own defintion.

You will never manage to grant decent living conditions to everyone. No matter what you do some will be in the lowest income percentile. That's just a fact of life.

That's just utterly false. Be it in former DDR or in Cuba, everyone had/has decent living conditions. Sure, there are other problems, but you CAN grant everyone housing, food, education, healthcare, ...

What you're supposed to do is allow those people in the lowest percentile some mobility, so that they are able to climb up the economic scale.

No. I don't care about climbing up. I don't care about a game in which some get rich and other stay poor, even if everyone has a chance to become rich. What I struggle for is a society free from misery, exploitation, and needless suffering. And such a society IS possible.

Sure, others will fall in that percentile, but as long as it's not the same people, it's ok.

No. It's not ok to have people suffering from poverty, while we have so much wealth.

The poor countries keep paying thanks to a policy of post-colonial interventionism that most of Europe has never been willing to let go of, not necessarily capitalism.

No, but it's what allow the western countries to behave better than other countries.

We said that's not capitalism.

You said it. It was much more capitalism than everything else.

Chile and Argentina didn't have a free markets policy, ie. no capital was available to the poor to start a small company, or access markets.

Free market doesn't imply such thing necesserly exist. It doesn't imply giving capital to the poors. Free market, by its inner logics of concentration and looping, will _always_ create a wealth concentration, and leave many with nothing. Only control over market (workers' rights protection, consumer protection, antitrust laws, free education, ...) can make it look acceptable at a first glance - and even then, it comes with a huge amount of misery.

Most capital, political power, and wealth were concentrated in a tiny minority and there was little to no social mobility.

That's a natural consequence of free market capitalism, totally inherent to it because of its intrinsic structure.

But it also creates social mobility, and the role of the state becomes one to ensure that mobility and prevent such enormous concentration of wealth and power.

If the state ensures that the market doesn't lead to too much concentration, it's no longer really a "free market".

That's right. And it should be the state's role to ensure they all compete on a level ground under the same rules, and not to become a monopolising power in itself or create economic favoritisms.

If you say that, you're not even arguing for free market, but for a controlled market. But I don't even agree with that. I don't want people to compete against each other, I want them to cooperate together. I don't want people to have a chance to be rich and a chance to suffer in poverty, even if the chance would be roughly the same for all (something that's not even possible, anyway).

So do the CEO's. If they're acting according to the law in the liquidation of the company (ie. paying salaries, compensations, liquidating debt and taxes, selling off remaining assets, etc.) then they're acting legally. By definition. Every country with a bit of sense allows people to handle their money as they see more convenient, providing they have taken care of their obligations. No country will force you to keep losing money.

Those companies that were expropiated were making profits. And firing workers when you are making profits is something (more or less) forbidden in most countries, so they were breaking the law.

But the good thing about this system is that workers can be stockholders too. They can buy a piece of the company they work for (or, if they're lazy, of one of their competitors). If they get enough shares they can even run the company! That's free market! That's social mobility!

Sure, they can buy a tiny share of it, which will grant them no power because they'll never have enough money to buy a significant share. And they'll act as an airbag in case of crash, like for Enron, the stock owned by the workers allowing the big owners to save most of their money while the workers lose at the same time their job and their economy ! Wonderful !

That's socialism!

That's the exact opposite of socialism. In socialism, you CANNOT BUY POWER.

Now you really are making no sense at all. I bet you would have kept whip factories open long after buggies went out of style just so that people kept their jobs. That's a very nice sentiment, but it clashes with the harsh realities of economy.

Once again, I'm speaking of the sane laws forbidding to fire people when you make profits. I'm speaking of forcing people to commit economical suicide.

What you are proposing in not socialism (the ownership of the means of production by the workers), but statism (economy centrally planned by the government).

Look back at the start of the thread. I was defending Chavez expropriating the corporations and giving them to the workers. That's not statism.

Some statism can be good, for network based services (communication, transports, electricity, ...), for example. But I don't say the state should control everything.

And btw, statism, is the state is controlled by workers (like in a real democracy), is a form of socialism.

Why I'm advocting, as short/medium term, what I call "socialism" (as the original Marxist meaning: the transitition from "capitalism" to "communism"), is a system in which services needed huge infrastrcture or critical ones (housing, transports, energy, healthcare, education, banks, ...) are controlled by the "state" (or more exactly, by state owned democratic entities) and handled for free or nearly for free; while more local economy is formed of cooperatives, owned and controlled by the workers, in which one worker = one voice. With different shades of grey in the middle: some companies could be controlled partly by the workers, partly by the users, partly by state, ...

And strong social help, of course.

The difference is that in the first one the workers assume the risks of owning and running a profitable business in a free, open market.

No. In socialism, there is no free market, because you cannot own/buy/sell any means of production. Property as we now it doesn't even exist, so you cannot speak of free market at all.

In the second one it's the state that tries to adjust the environmental variables to maintain the economy going. This method has proven impractical and even more wasteful than capitalism.

Really ? Why is French healthcare system much more efficient than USA one then ? Why are our electricity and transport networks among the best of the world ? Hey, because the... state runs them !

I don't say it can be applied to everything. But that it does work very well for most critical or network-based service.

A good number of the reports in the US are laudatory as well as critical, and many of the abuses are rectifiable by the people, something that is becoming less and less possible in Venezuela.

Rectifiable by the people, in USA ? What do you wait to rectifiate Guatanamo Bay ? Or the tortures of Abu Graib ?

Basic violations of human rights are a stepping stone to far greater ones, which is why Venezuela's record is much more severe than ours; we can correct our abuses, but a society in which free expression is increasingly stifled it becomes nearly impossible.

Free expression, stifled, in Venezuela ?

Try to call for the murder of Bush on a USA TV channel. The day you do it, and manage to get out with it, we'll speak again of that. Oh, you can chose France if you prefer: try to call for the murder of Chirac here.

The TV in Venezuela is more violently against Chavez than any media can be in most of the world, including nearly all the countries we call "democracies".

Oh, btw, try to speak of the consequences on health of Monsato's bovine growth hormone on USA TV. The last journalists who tried to got fired. And their documentary was buried. That's freedom of speach ?

Venezuela's are about things as basic as political rights and freedom of speech; nowhere in the US does a person run the risk of being arrested on treason charges for expressing their opinion.

If there opinions is calling for Bush murder, or supporting Ben Laden, they'll be. Oh, and should I remind you that in some states of USA, the McCarthy laws making communist propaganda illegal are still valid ?

But hey, in Venezuela, you can say what you want. Support a coup. Call for the president murder. Insult him. Lie openly. Whatever you want. You'll get away with it.

Well, you have to pay for nationalized healthcare as well, just instead of paying at the counter, you pay when you do your taxes. Which would be a nuisance to me, because at this point in my life I have virtually no need of the medical system, and if I had to pay for something I didn't need, I'd be pretty fucking pissed.

In France, we spend 9% of our GDP in healthcare, and everyone is covered for at least life critical diseases (which are usually the most expensive). In USA, they spend 14% of it (and they have a higher GDP/capita), while 20% of the population is without any coverage. And guess what ? Our health system works better than yours ! We have a lower childdeath rate, a longer life expectency, ...

So well, sure we've to pay it. But our system is much more efficient, AND leaves now one behind.

Well, at least, we used to... since the recent "reforms" it's going downwards very quickly...

Chavez should not provide cheap oil to Europeans. If he does, this will slow down the motivation to achieve sustainable, renewable energy sources. Chavex wants to keep us on the oily teat. We must wean ourselves off oil.

Haven't you heard. These guys think Venezuelan Newspapers are all anti Chavez propaganda machines that are funded entirely by the "evil" Bush administration.

No. I say MOST of the media in Venezuela belongs to big media trusts, comparable to Fox News, and which have strong interest in global capitalism.

VeneVision, the first TV channel of Venezuela, belongs to Gustavo Cisneros, who owns TV channels, radio stations and newspapers in most of South America, and also has strong economical interests in AOL, Coca-Cola, Pizza Hut and PlayBoy.

Most of the media in the world, not only in Venezuela belongs to such groups. In France, the situation isn't much better, with 70% of the printed newspaper belonding to... the weapon industry.

But in Venezuela, it's particulary true.

Hopefully, there are free media in Venezuela: the community media, especially the community radios. Guess who created them ? Chavez ! Guess who control them ? No, not Chavez. But... the people ! Directly. But sure, he's a dictator.

Since you said you were a reporter, mind if I ask how much money Bush has given you guys? (Rhetorical question, I think we both already have an idea what the answer is but I'm not sure about the Chavez supporters here).

Since he's a reporter, and has the opinion he says here, I strongly suspect him of working for one of such transational groups. Therefore, he has personal interests to LIE against Chavez. Being in the higher class, is also has some. While I don't have any.

No. I say MOST of the media in Venezuela belongs to big media trusts, comparable to Fox News, and which have strong interest in global capitalism.
So does Chavez.
Seriously, people. He isn't some sort of socialist icon. No reasonable leader would be.
He seems to legitimately care for his people and he's got that whole benevolent dictator thing going on (yes, a dictator can be elected and dictatorship isn’t necessarily a bad thing), but my God commies, calm down.
He loves capitalism, and so should every Venezuelan. Without the sale of oil, they would have nothing.

The TV in Venezuela is more violently against Chavez than any media can be in most of the world, including nearly all the countries we call "democracies".

Yeah, but if you try to register people to vote against Chavez or criticise on your own, you get arrested on trumped up charges of treason. The criticism from the Venezuelan media is only tolerated to make Chavez look like a scapegoat, and once they are no longer needed they will be summarily repressed. That's already happening, though.

Oh, btw, try to speak of the consequences on health of Monsato's bovine growth hormone on USA TV. The last journalists who tried to got fired. And their documentary was buried. That's freedom of speach ?

They could still distribute it if they wanted to. Seeing as how it was never picked up by major news agencies, it was probably nothing more than a fabrication or exaggeration. If something is unfactual, there is no reason why a company dedicated to journalistic integrity should not punish journalists that violate it.

Freedom of speech does not mean people cannot regulate content on privately held property.

If there opinions is calling for Bush murder, or supporting Ben Laden, they'll be. Oh, and should I remind you that in some states of USA, the McCarthy laws making communist propaganda illegal are still valid ?

But hey, in Venezuela, you can say what you want. Support a coup. Call for the president murder. Insult him. Lie openly. Whatever you want. You'll get away with it.

As long as you don't actually try to make anything out of it; once you cross the line and start working against Chavez beyond the limits he sets for propaganda purposes, he arrests you on trumped up charges of treason.

Chavez should not provide cheap oil to Europeans. If he does, this will slow down the motivation to achieve sustainable, renewable energy sources. Chavex wants to keep us on the oily teat. We must wean ourselves off oil.

You're hitting the nail right on the head. What Chavez is doing is creating a market dependent on him for cheap oil; demand will grow faster than supply, driving up prices and making the poor dependent on him. Once he's got them, he'll start putting pressure on them to tote his line and he'll have a forced pool of supporters in Europe.

This is petrodiplomacy, and nothing more. But then again, 1973 and 1979 taught oil producers that petrodiplomacy fails regardless of the situation.

HRW, close to the Democrat Party of USA.

Does that make the information invalid?

Amnesty, much more trustable source, does have some "human right violations" against Venezuela, but they have against nearly all countries of the world, including USA, France, ... and no more against Venezuela than against USA or France. And for Venezuela, most are either uncertain, or not directly the fault of Chavez, but more of the heated climate, in which people from both side sometimes "cross the line".

Unless you can disprove that the things mentioned on HRH are invalid and did not happen, the reputability is not of any question. And I hardly consider peoples' lives being put in jeopardy or disappearing after protesting power plant construction a minor violation.

This doesn't look too minor:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-ven/index

Evo Morales isn't and will not be the puppet of anyone. He agrees with Chavez on many points, not on others, but he's definitely not a puppet of anyone.

I'm certain that all of those visits to Bolivia were totally in good faith and had nothing to do with natural gas delas between Bolivia and Venezuela. It's also odd that nationalization proclamations are timed quite closely to Chavez's visits to Bolivia, but that's also speculative.


http://www.latin-focus.com/latinfocus/countries/venezuela/venunemp.htm

As you can see, unemployment in Venezuela started to lower when Chavez reach power in 1998. It went up a lot in 2002 thanks to the economical sabotage, coup attempt, patronal strikes, ... of the opposition, but Venezuela recovered quickly, and has now the lowest unemployment rate it ever had in history. And the figures for 2006 are even better than the ones of 2005.

How much of that growth is sustainable and is not make-work created by the government and dependent on high oil prices? There's no data for the composition of unemployment, so that number could be all government driven rather than any real gain.

Anyone can lower unemployment and expand government services if they have a lot of money, and that's what is happening in Venezuela. Their economy is 80% dependent on oil, so a 600% rise in oil prices will produce increases in revenue regardless of government policy and that money can be

The plunge in oil production and massive investment shortfall in the Venezuelan oil industry seems to suggest the economy is far less healthy than it appears, and if they can't get the money they need the oil industry will collapse.

Poverty in Venezuela went done from above 55% to about 35% during the 7 years of Chavez' presidency. That's a very good score.

And oil prices rose 600%, giving Chavez the money necessary to pay for it without having to do any real planning or economic diversification. I wonder what poverty will be when the oil industry collapses or prices for his oil fall...or even worse, no one wants it anymore? After all, the US has 84% of the refining capacity necessary to refine Venezuelan oil and we're one of their largest customers...and we have alternatives for his heavy crude, especially from Canada.

No. I say MOST of the media in Venezuela belongs to big media trusts, comparable to Fox News, and which have strong interest in global capitalism.

VeneVision, the first TV channel of Venezuela, belongs to Gustavo Cisneros, who owns TV channels, radio stations and newspapers in most of South America, and also has strong economical interests in AOL, Coca-Cola, Pizza Hut and PlayBoy.

Most of the media in the world, not only in Venezuela belongs to such groups. In France, the situation isn't much better, with 70% of the printed newspaper belonding to... the weapon industry.

But in Venezuela, it's particulary true.

Hopefully, there are free media in Venezuela: the community media, especially the community radios. Guess who created them ? Chavez ! Guess who control them ? No, not Chavez. But... the people ! Directly. But sure, he's a dictator.

Since he's a reporter, and has the opinion he says here, I strongly suspect him of working for one of such transational groups. Therefore, he has personal interests to LIE against Chavez. Being in the higher class, is also has some. While I don't have any.

1.- First, Gustavo Cisneros met Hugo Chávez and began an agreement with him. therefore, right now Venevisión has very nice relationships with your hero. It looks like you need to update your information. The networks actually having troubles with Chávez are Radio Caracas Radio and Globovisión, lesser networks not associated with any transnational power. Reload your internet sites again, or call your "journalists" friends.

2.-Did you read when I say I worked for a community radio?. Can you try to read something else than yourself and the pair of rotten intellectuals that write third class newspapers fro the likes of you? I don't work for any big consortium, I just worked in a small newspaper, in TELESUR! (guess who owns Telesur?, guess it, YEAH, the Venezuelan amongst other goverments!, that means your patron saint, Hugo), but I quitted because they deny the truth! Both of them, the newspaper AND the TV network of your personal superhero. And Chávez didn't make the community radios, that's your greatest lie. It was we, the people, free and sovereign.

3.-I am a she, a woman. I guess you even didn't take the taste of trying to translate what I did say. So I guess you don't even speak spanish or even try to, although you "admire" us. I am then supposing you have never, or perhaps once, talked with a venezuelan, or read a venezuelan newspaper. I hope you do this just for the sake of arguing, if not, you're just plainly flamebaiting.

4.- I am not rich, I have never been rich. Again, I write for nothing, as you didn't take the problem to read what people tell you. If you please pay attnetion of what I have truly said...Maybe you could be able to understand, if your brain retain enough capacity for that. Higher class, please...Higher class around here, like your Cisneros family, do not have to work like us.

5.-I have never received a dime from a transnational, or the american goverment. I received an honest salary based in how many hours I worked, and sometimes they were many. They still are, and I earn 5000 bolívares the hour, more or less 2$ (even after being a graduate, studying 5 years in an state free university). Guess how much most people here are earning, less fortunate than me...

6.- To all those who are reading this thread. I am venezuelan, I live here and most of the information Kilobugya is presenting you here are vain and pompous lies, twisted information designed to be Agitation and Propaganda. I guess because he's either flamebaiting someone that really cares, like me, or he's just a fanatic. (Even worst, he has interests with what happens here)

You live in Europe, you don't know what is to live here, you don't know what is to be pointed with a gun or being express kidnapped for money. You don't know what hunger means after a day and a half without having food, or lack of sleep for having to work ten times the normal schedule to try to gather some money, or even worst, three days without water, a hospital without bandages or pills, abusive cops that try to touch women if you cross them after 6:00pm, or more than 500 steps to go home. Believe me or not, I know, I have been here all this years, and I have seen and suffered all.

You have just read what is supposed to happen here and think you know all about it. You insult us with your grandelocuence, and you still have the guts to tell me in my face that I am lying because you read in some foreign newspaper that Chávez was the perfect crusader for liberty and equality. Last week a guy intercepted me, pointed a gun at me and stole my purse...Where were your superhero? Bus tickets are now 1000 bolívares and last month were 700, even as gas here is almost free. Is that not inflation?, after all, we normal people do not own cars, so why would we care about gas?

We don't live well. At least never better than you. I exchange my normal day here in Venezuela with a day of you in France, USA or any corner of the first world, anytime. Including work and salary. And cubans live even worst, they do not have nothing and leave in perpetual fear of what could happen to them, when they are not selling themselves to the tourists for some change. But how you would know?, you have never been here or in Cuba, just have read about it or talked with someone that went there in an ideological tour promoted by the oppressive goverments.

Stop calling me liar. You are the liar, you don't know anything about this country or this people or the guy that is taking advantage of us. You're a fanatic close to the centroid, that deem false every statement that is contrary to your imaginary beliefs. Thanks to people like you our country went down the toilet, I just hope someday you can realize the meaning of misery so you can grasp the significance of what I have been trying to say to you.

No. I say MOST of the media in Venezuela belongs to big media trusts, comparable to Fox News, and which have strong interest in global capitalism.

VeneVision, the first TV channel of Venezuela, belongs to Gustavo Cisneros, who owns TV channels, radio stations and newspapers in most of South America, and also has strong economical interests in AOL, Coca-Cola, Pizza Hut and PlayBoy.

Most of the media in the world, not only in Venezuela belongs to such groups. In France, the situation isn't much better, with 70% of the printed newspaper belonding to... the weapon industry.

But in Venezuela, it's particulary true.

Hopefully, there are free media in Venezuela: the community media, especially the community radios. Guess who created them ? Chavez ! Guess who control them ? No, not Chavez. But... the people ! Directly. But sure, he's a dictator.



Since he's a reporter, and has the opinion he says here, I strongly suspect him of working for one of such transational groups. Therefore, he has personal interests to LIE against Chavez. Being in the higher class, is also has some. While I don't have any.
Are you in Venezuela? If I am correct you earlier referred to yourself being France. If that is the case, I will take her word over yours and the other Chavez supporters here because she is actually in Venezuela.
Being successful enough to accumulate wealth is not a crime. Hell the situation in South America is getting so bad that US federal courts are now ordering the INS to consider whether persecution on the basis of wealth can be used to grant political asylum in the US. Particularly when people in Venezuela and other latin countries are being killed and persecuted precisely because of their wealth.

I say let them come. We have always opened our doors to the persecuted.

Just one lie that is too easy to debuke for me to resist to it:

Recall referendum, 2004

Option Votes %
No: 5,800,629 59.10%
Yes: 3,989,008 40.64%
Abstention: 4,222,269 30.08%


But all the rest is the same level of lies. Stop lying. Thanks.


Well...not to be real nitpicky..but your percents dont make any sense.

5.8 mil would be 41.7%
3.9 mil would be 28.05%
4.2 mil would be 30.31%

Now the vast majority of those absentions were people who did not vote out of protest. If Aelosia is a liar, you are bad at math.

Now going to Chavez and his "democratic" tendencies, he's publically jailed popular opposition leaders whenever an election cycle is about to take place for fear of his party losing, or he himself facing stiff opposition.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040901102.html

That is from the Washington Post, they arent exactly a paragon of right wing support. Furthermore his economic policies in the long run arent going to help Venezula. Hardcore economists have said that sure while putting that oil money into programs for the poor is a nice sentiment, without infustructure, without back up industries, without an education system capable of transforming that poor from his gibbering masses into a capable workforce that bandaid isnt going to stop the bleeding. Lets face it, Chavez is a populist. Not a visionary. Not even a good socialist as most of his reforms are targeted at half the nation while alienating the other half of the nation in forms of the middle class, and smaller upper class.

His recently recruitment of a 1 million person milita to "defend" against an invasion of the US is another example of how much this guy is a dictator..those million people were drawn up from his supporters. Not a wide base of people, these are folks he'll call out to surpress an election, to intimidate voters. Because honestly the US isnt going to invade Venezula unless they do something really stupid. Like opennly support FARC in an attempt to overthrow the Columbian government. Or get caught attempting to influence elections in multiple south american countries for people who would oppose the US...or support a terrorist organization..heck..he's done all of that...and we havent bothered to invade him.

As for the comment that his nation is more democratic than the US and France...thats a laugh riot. Really, it is. But I wont go further into this fact because common sense dictate this reality and if you think otherwise you lack common sense.

It is. It is totally inherent to it. Freedom in market is the freedom to exploit, and it mathematically lead to a few big corporations exploiting everyone.
No, it stops being a free market because it has fallen under the control of big corporations. It's not free any more.

I said that it was not real socialism; but it was, in some respect, close to socialism. And btw, I were refering to your sentence, which implied that socialist countries existed, and therefore you used the "ussr block" definition of socialism, so I replied with your own defintion.
Did I? Just where did I do that? I believe it was you who first used it that way.


That's just utterly false. Be it in former DDR or in Cuba, everyone had/has decent living conditions. Sure, there are other problems, but you CAN grant everyone housing, food, education, healthcare, ...
That's right. Keep moving the goal posts...



No. I don't care about climbing up. I don't care about a game in which some get rich and other stay poor, even if everyone has a chance to become rich. What I struggle for is a society free from misery, exploitation, and needless suffering. And such a society IS possible.

No. It's not ok to have people suffering from poverty, while we have so much wealth.

No, but it's what allow the western countries to behave better than other countries.
Get your hands off Africa then. France is the biggest exploiter there and the money gotten from that continent is what the French use to power their industry and life-long jobs.

How is exploitation of third world countries, dumping agricultural products, trade in blood diamonds, supporting dictators in exchange for natural resources "better behaviour"? The west doesn't behave better than anyone, they just use a different kind of cruelty. Your job, your services, your way of life is supported by past and present colonialism and exploitation.


Free market doesn't imply such thing necesserly exist. It doesn't imply giving capital to the poors. Free market, by its inner logics of concentration and looping, will _always_ create a wealth concentration, and leave many with nothing. Only control over market (workers' rights protection, consumer protection, antitrust laws, free education, ...) can make it look acceptable at a first glance - and even then, it comes with a huge amount of misery.
Free market capitalism will tend to concentrate wealth in few hands, which will lead to corporationism and not a free market anymore. By stirring the pot from time to time the state ensures that access to markets remain free, and wealth more or less properly distributed.

That's a natural consequence of free market capitalism, totally inherent to it because of its intrinsic structure.
Not up to date in modern economic theories, are you?

If you say that, you're not even arguing for free market, but for a controlled market. But I don't even agree with that. I don't want people to compete against each other, I want them to cooperate together. I don't want people to have a chance to be rich and a chance to suffer in poverty, even if the chance would be roughly the same for all (something that's not even possible, anyway).
And how are you going to create the wealth to achieve all that? Where are the resources going to come from?

Those companies that were expropiated were making profits. And firing workers when you are making profits is something (more or less) forbidden in most countries, so they were breaking the law.
Please quote the Venezuelan law where it says that.

Sure, they can buy a tiny share of it, which will grant them no power because they'll never have enough money to buy a significant share. And they'll act as an airbag in case of crash, like for Enron, the stock owned by the workers allowing the big owners to save most of their money while the workers lose at the same time their job and their economy ! Wonderful !
You are aware that Enron was a fraud, a criminal action, right? Nothing to do with the market or the economic system at all.

That's the exact opposite of socialism. In socialism, you CANNOT BUY POWER.
Suuuure...


Look back at the start of the thread. I was defending Chavez expropriating the corporations and giving them to the workers. That's not statism.
Can you vouch that the state does not intervene at all in these companies?

Some statism can be good, for network based services (communication, transports, electricity, ...), for example. But I don't say the state should control everything.

And btw, statism, is the state is controlled by workers (like in a real democracy), is a form of socialism.
I agree. Some basic services benefit from government control, especially when there are clear rules, low corruption and a solid democratic system in place. Because of the costs and low returns involved, plus the sensitivity in some cases, private companies are not the best way to provide them. That I agree with.

Why I'm advocting, as short/medium term, what I call "socialism" (as the original Marxist meaning: the transitition from "capitalism" to "communism"), is a system in which services needed huge infrastrcture or critical ones (housing, transports, energy, healthcare, education, banks, ...) are controlled by the "state" (or more exactly, by state owned democratic entities) and handled for free or nearly for free; while more local economy is formed of cooperatives, owned and controlled by the workers, in which one worker = one voice. With different shades of grey in the middle: some companies could be controlled partly by the workers, partly by the users, partly by state, ...
It's pretty much my view on socialism, and possibly how things will have to be after the oil crash, since the system of locally managed micro-economies works much more efficiently than giant corporations moving resources half way around the world. However, this is not necessarily where Chavism is leading. The big question is how much will he allow power to be concentrated and how wealth will be distributed.


Really ? Why is French healthcare system much more efficient than USA one then ? Why are our electricity and transport networks among the best of the world ? Hey, because the... state runs them !

I don't say it can be applied to everything. But that it does work very well for most critical or network-based service.

Exactly! The French government, for starters, doesn't try to control the entire economy. In second place, it receives a lot of money from overseas, therefore allowing to spend more on its people at the expense of others, and thirdly, it's not that big of an accomplishment to have a better healthcare system than the US.

Those things are generally very good if done rationally with plans in mind to keep the systems running in the long term.

Political systems are morally ambiguous, it’s results that matter and Chavez is getting results.

And could you stop referencing Orwell? It's annoying. Your own words are always more effective.

And to all the right-wing dunderheads, Chavez is not a communist, nor is he evil. He is a populist who uses capitalism to his and his people's benefit. He is as morally ambiguous as the political system he has established.

Chavez is no capitalist.

Neither does he use it-he takes what it creates and uses it for his own schemes.

In France, we spend 9% of our GDP in healthcare, and everyone is covered for at least life critical diseases (which are usually the most expensive). In USA, they spend 14% of it (and they have a higher GDP/capita), while 20% of the population is without any coverage. And guess what ? Our health system works better than yours ! We have a lower childdeath rate, a longer life expectency, ...

So well, sure we've to pay it. But our system is much more efficient, AND leaves now one behind.

Well, at least, we used to... since the recent "reforms" it's going downwards very quickly...

Your socialists are better at hiding costs and better at socialisting things.

Dump healthcare...leave it to private industry.

Originally Posted by Kilobugya
In France, we spend 9% of our GDP in healthcare, and everyone is covered for at least life critical diseases (which are usually the most expensive). In USA, they spend 14% of it (and they have a higher GDP/capita), while 20% of the population is without any coverage. And guess what ? Our health system works better than yours ! We have a lower childdeath rate, a longer life expectency, ...

So well, sure we've to pay it. But our system is much more efficient, AND leaves now one behind.

Well, at least, we used to... since the recent "reforms" it's going downwards very quickly...

Its actually 15.7% of the population is without health insurance. With the rate of those getting health insurance outpacing those without it by about 2%a year. Your universal healthcare coverage is nice and all, but in reality our private based system is rated the best in the world depending on what health care coverage you have and what you are able to afford. Frankly I'd take my own private healthcare coverage over something universal. And my taxes arent ridiculiously high so I get to keep more of my money. As for efficency that can be debated, are you comparing your public system with ours or our private system with your public system since there are different tiers. And withen the private tier are you comparing GHI coverage, Blue Cross coverage, the coverages of companies, or municipalities which are handled by private companies but I can garuntee you my parents who work in the civil sector get better health coverage than you.

As for your recent reforms, what did you expect? Your nation cant sustain the level its at now. Christ, your economy is almost as bad as Germanys and you expect to keep at the rate you're going? Wake up and smell the coffee. The US might be in debt but our economy is still growing faster than the EUs two top nations. Socialisim is a nice concept but when it reaches level that are unsustainable, then its detremental to the entire nation.

Well...not to be real nitpicky..but your percents dont make any sense.

5.8 mil would be 41.7%
3.9 mil would be 28.05%
4.2 mil would be 30.31%

Now the vast majority of those absentions were people who did not vote out of protest. If Aelosia is a liar, you are bad at math.
I'm guessing the Yes/No percentages are of the votes count, and the abstention percentage is of the voter register. Any small discrepancies can probably be accounted for by spoiled votes and the like.

He loves capitalism, and so should every Venezuelan. Without the sale of oil, they would have nothing.


It is impossible, within the framework of the capitalist system to solve the grave problems of poverty of the majority of the world's population. We must transcend capitalism. But we cannot resort to state capitalism, which would be the same perversion of the Soviet Union. We must reclaim socialism as a thesis, a project and a path, but a new type of socialism, a humanist one, which puts humans and not machines or the state ahead of everything. That's the debate we must promote around the world, and the World Social Forum is a good place to do it.

Sure, that's loving capitalism.

And for the sale of oil, hey, do you know from whom he gets the most fundemantal ressources of his social programs ? From Cuba ! Cuba's doctors and teachers.

But else, yes, he does trade with many capitalist countries, including USA... not because he likes or needs capialist countries, but because that's what most of the world is.

Well...not to be real nitpicky..but your percents dont make any sense.

In most countries, the percent of votes are given on voters. On the French "Ministère de l'Intérieur" website, you've similar results: abstention percentage computed on the total amount of voters on the list, and percentages for the various options given on the total amount of valid vote (and yes, the number don't match exactly, because the "invalid" votes were discarded in my figures).

Now the vast majority of those absentions were people who did not vote out of protest. If Aelosia is a liar, you are bad at math.

Or Chavez supporters who didn't vote because they were sure Chavez would won, as all the polls showed before.

For the rest of your post, it was debunked so many times that I'm tired of doing it once again.

I hope you refer here to Stalinism, and not to Communism...afterall there is a difference...

There is the really existant communism. And nothing else. Difference? It is a distinction without a difference.

One either denounces communism in each and every possible form - or one is an accessory ( perhaps after the fact ) of every filthy rotten thing ever done by the practionisers of communism - regardless of whether it was Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Deng, Kim, Che, Castro, whatever.

i need to make some petrol

Its actually 15.7% of the population is without health insurance. With the rate of those getting health insurance outpacing those without it by about 2%a year. Your universal healthcare coverage is nice and all, but in reality our private based system is rated the best in the world depending on what health care coverage you have and what you are able to afford. Frankly I'd take my own private healthcare coverage over something universal. And my taxes arent ridiculiously high so I get to keep more of my money. As for efficency that can be debated, are you comparing your public system with ours or our private system with your public system since there are different tiers. And withen the private tier are you comparing GHI coverage, Blue Cross coverage, the coverages of companies, or municipalities which are handled by private companies but I can garuntee you my parents who work in the civil sector get better health coverage than you.

As for your recent reforms, what did you expect? Your nation cant sustain the level its at now. Christ, your economy is almost as bad as Germanys and you expect to keep at the rate you're going? Wake up and smell the coffee. The US might be in debt but our economy is still growing faster than the EUs two top nations. Socialisim is a nice concept but when it reaches level that are unsustainable, then its detremental to the entire nation.
Perhaps you can take a moment away from your chest thumping about how great the US healthcare system is to actually read something that actually suggests that your system is "sick (http://www.kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php)"?

Nearly 46 million Americans have no health care and over 40 million more have only minimal coverage. In 2005 some 41% of moderate and middle income Americans went without health care for part of the year. Even more shocking is that 53% of those earning less than $20,000 went without insurance for all of 2005. In fact, the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 Americans die each year because they have no health insurance.

The American health system is quite sick. Pulitzer Prize journalists Donald Barlett and James Steele, in their stunning analysis of the health care industry, Critical Condition (2006 Broadway Books), insist that "... U.S. health care is second-rate at the start of the twenty-first century and destined to get a lot worse and much more expensive."

There is the really existant communism. And nothing else. Difference? It is a distinction without a difference.

One either denounces communism in each and every possible form - or one is an accessory ( perhaps after the fact ) of every filthy rotten thing ever done by the practionisers of communism - regardless of whether it was Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Deng, Kim, Che, Castro, whatever.

Wouldn't that make capitalists culpable for every rotten thing capitalism has done? Child labor. The slave trade. Indentured servitude. Debtor's prisons.

Wouldn't that make capitalists culpable for every rotten thing capitalism has done? Child labor. The slave trade. Indentured servitude. Debtor's prisons.

No. Why?

For the rest of your post, it was debunked so many times that I'm tired of doing it once again.


Oh I'm quite interested in seeing how you debunk the fact Chavez arrests opposition leaders near election seasons. Because having read through the pages you really havent. Nor have you given any credible reason as to how Venezuela will prosper once the oil runs out, or the world begins to swing away from oil or begins to rely less on oil enough to hurt the economies of oil producing nations.

Many economists who study Venezuela agree, while Chavez pumping money into the poor areas is nice for his poll numbers, they generally hurt in the long run because infustructure is being neglected as is the development of new industries(foreign investment in Venezuela is down, and local investment is stagnant preventing growth of new industries). But I havent seen you debunk either of these positions...so either you cant, or wont..but whatever.

Its actually 15.7% of the population is without health insurance. With the rate of those getting health insurance outpacing those without it by about 2%a year. Your universal healthcare coverage is nice and all, but in reality our private based system is rated the best in the world depending on what health care coverage you have and what you are able to afford. Frankly I'd take my own private healthcare coverage over something universal. And my taxes arent ridiculiously high so I get to keep more of my money. As for efficency that can be debated, are you comparing your public system with ours or our private system with your public system since there are different tiers. And withen the private tier are you comparing GHI coverage, Blue Cross coverage, the coverages of companies, or municipalities which are handled by private companies but I can garuntee you my parents who work in the civil sector get better health coverage than you.

Do you and other Americans realise that you can maintain your mainly private [I say mainly because there is PLENTY of government involvement in the form of Medicaid, Medicare, the Department of Veteran Affairs, tax credits for companies to provide insurance to their employees, community hospitals, etc...] health care system and still achieve universal access?? I'm still in the process of moving to Japan, but from what I've read and been told by the company, Japanese health care is organised similar to American health care. Most people receive their health care through private insurance offered by their employers. The government provides insurance for the elderly, as the US government does, BUT it also provides insurance for the self-employed and unemployed. Japan spends only 8% of GDP on health care, which is less than Canada or Germany or France, even though it is a predominantly private-sector based health care system, and everyone has coverage. If the US wants to maintain a mainly private health system and expand health coverage, it should copy the Japanese model.

Perhaps you can take a moment away from your chest thumping about how great the US healthcare system is to actually read something that actually suggests that your system is "sick (http://www.kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php)"?

Nearly 46 million Americans have no health care and over 40 million more have only minimal coverage. In 2005 some 41% of moderate and middle income Americans went without health care for part of the year. Even more shocking is that 53% of those earning less than $20,000 went without insurance for all of 2005. In fact, the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 Americans die each year because they have no health insurance.

The American health system is quite sick. Pulitzer Prize journalists Donald Barlett and James Steele, in their stunning analysis of the health care industry, Critical Condition (2006 Broadway Books), insist that "... U.S. health care is second-rate at the start of the twenty-first century and destined to get a lot worse and much more expensive."


I'm sorry if your trusting a man who was mayor of a city where pollution got so out of control a river burned you're rather gullible. I didnt say all of the US health care system was good. I was saying the private sector is doing far better than given credit for. The WHO takes in all factors including those who dont have health coverage. Its the fact that 15% of the population doesnt recieve the best care in the world that drag US numbers back. On average Americans spend less time in the hospital than those in other nations(especially in Canada). Of course when one looks at Canada one has to ask, with an aging population, how much more do you think you can increase tax before the system breaks? How much longer in other European nations with universal healthcare? In the US with an aging population it means the private sector will pick up the slack if the government doesnt get involved.

But this is all besides the point...this thread is supposed to be devoted to why Hugo Chavez is a dictator and a bastard.

Wouldn't that make capitalists culpable for every rotten thing capitalism has done? Child labor. The slave trade. Indentured servitude. Debtor's prisons.

The slave trade existed before capitalism and will more than likely exist after capitalism.

No. Why?
Double standards then. If communists are culpable for everything that Stalin, Mao, and all the rest did, then capitalists are culpable for everything that every capitalist did.
As for the slave trade existing before capitalism, selling slaves requires money and a market economy, and therefore some sort of 'capitalist'-style system.

I think he should be congratulated for standing to that bastard bush, no one like him anymore, at least Chavez is helping the poor in his country and abroad, can Bush say that? I don't think so...And I feel alot of people feel this way also.

If this is all true, tell me my good man/woman, how in HELL do you have a computer and internet connection?
How Interesting indeed, I'm going to be looking through your posts, All : 3,379 of them, if Even one of them says something Contrary to you saying you live in Venezuela I will come at you like a Freight Train. I doubt I'll find anything but it doesn't hurt to check right?

I'm not going to Argue on if Venezuela is F'ed up or not, I doubt it's completely in ruins like you seem to say, I'm sure it's not a perfect nation though.

I do think it's strange that you say all Hospitals are closed Aelosia.

As for the slave trade existing before capitalism, selling slaves requires money and a market economy, and therefore some sort of 'capitalist'-style system.

No it doesn't. The first slaves were usually captured in battle and became the property of the warriors who captured them; buying and selling of slaves came later than the actual concept of slavery.

I think he should be congratulated for standing to that bastard bush, no one like him anymore, at least Chavez is helping the poor in his country and abroad, can Bush say that? I don't think so...And I feel alot of people feel this way also.

It's ironic that Chavez's helping of the poor is only possible due to the rise in oil prices, and that rise has pushed more people in to poverty worldwide than live in the nation of Venezuela.

social security sucks in the US please...

LOL. Did you follow the previous "America's Submit" ? Bush was nearly alone with his puppet Vincente Fox (who will lose the coming elections)

Yeah, those one-term limits are a bitch, eh? :rolleyes:

Yeah, those one-term limits are a bitch, eh? :rolleyes:
What's interesting is that he ignores the fact that other countries, like Ecuador and Nicaragua have also charged, rightly, that Hugo Chavez was illegally interefering in their country's internal affairs.
What America needs to do, is tell Chavez this:
Either you stop interfering in other nation's internal affairs, or the US will remove the threat posed by your regime.
I can already see, that due to Chavez illegal interference in other nation's affairs, that the US, in the future will have no choice but to deploy troops to places such Nicaragua and Colombia to help those nations defend themselves and Chavez supported and funded insurgents seeking to destroy democracy in those nations.

I think he should be congratulated for standing to that bastard bush, no one like him anymore, at least Chavez is helping the poor in his country and abroad, can Bush say that? I don't think so...And I feel alot of people feel this way also.


well hes lowered the poverty line from 50% of the people in the contry to 37% which is pretty good in fact hes set up a literacy drive, heal clinics in slum areas, aid to single mothers, free treatment to hiv.aids sufferes, special tuition for school leavers and evening classes for adults. He's even offering theseanti poverty programs to the poor in other contrys! how can such a man be such a basterd and why have the west labled him as such an evil dictator? just because some one is a socalsit dosnt make them evil

Either you stop interfering in other nation's internal affairs, or the US will remove the threat posed by your regime.


Thereby interfering in the internal affairs of Venezuela. Nice one.

No, Cesar Chavez actually cared about the poor and didn't use them as a tool to put himself in as dictator of South America.

No he put himself in as a dictator in Keene instead

Oh my! The evil Chavez is stealing my cold! i dont want none of his cheap heating! Oh my! some brave soul must protect me from the evil that is this socialist cretin.


:rolleyes: yeah right. he is the best leftist pres. south america has ever been given the honor to bear.

The US shouldn't waste its time trying to intervene in Venezuela...they will burn themselves out sooner or later, and given the huge investment shortfalls in the oil industry it seems to be on a more immediate footing than a later one.

Intervening will do nothing but harm our reputation further and give Chavez's ideology more time than it would have were we to leave him alone. In a globalized world, you achieve your goals best by not doing anything. If Chavez wants to follow a failed path, we shouldn't move to stop him. Whenever a nation wants to make its own decisions, it has to deal with the consequences those decisions will entail.

Oh my! The evil Chavez is stealing my cold! i dont want none of his cheap heating! Oh my! some brave soul must protect me from the evil that is this socialist cretin.

You mean the cheap heating that is necessary because of high oil prices...those same price hikes whose consequences are directly related to declining oil production in Venezuela.

Besides, the main motive behind offering cheap oil is to stimulate demand and make the people dependent on it by simultaneously driving increases in the wholesale price. That forces its recipients to either go along with Chavez or pay vastly higher heating bills...it's a devious political move, not generosity.

The US shouldn't waste its time trying to intervene in Venezuela...they will burn themselves out sooner or later, and given the huge investment shortfalls in the oil industry it seems to be on a more immediate footing than a later one.

Intervening will do nothing but harm our reputation further and give Chavez's ideology more time than it would have were we to leave him alone. In a globalized world, you achieve your goals best by not doing anything. If Chavez wants to follow a failed path, we shouldn't move to stop him. Whenever a nation wants to make its own decisions, it has to deal with the consequences those decisions will entail.
why couldn't we have thought of that during Iran, Iraq, Bosnia...:confused:

Besides, the main motive behind offering cheap oil is to stimulate demand and make the people dependent on it by simultaneously driving increases in the wholesale price. That forces its recipients to either go along with Chavez or pay vastly higher heating bills...it's a devious political move, not generosity.

I wish I had the direct acces to Chavez's though process that you seem to have.

I wish I had the direct acces to Chavez's though process that you seem to have.

If he really gave a shit about the poor in other countries, he would be exceeding his OPEC quota to lower prices and wouldn't be asking for a price floor of $50 per barrel just to increase his influence in OPEC. That price is manageable for the West and parts of Asia, but not for the hundreds of millions of people in Africa or Asia who can't afford it and get priced out of it more and more with each year of higher prices. Either that, or he would be doing things to reduce oil demand, not subsidizing gas in his own country while importing oil from Russia to meet his quotas to the rest of the world.

If he really wanted to lower poverty worldwide, he wouldn't be offering token sums of it to a handful of people while simultaneously divesting refining capacity, which drives up refined products prices like diesel or heating oil...that 600% rise in oil prices might benefit him and other producers, but totally screws the poor in other nations.

He has indeed lowered the poverty line and has visibly improved the conditions for the poor in Venezuela. It is also worth noting that Chavez has been elected (and as far as the international observes are regarded he was elected fairly unlike George Bush, the US is not even a democracy) by the working peoples of the country.

There is talk of Chavez shotting up oil prices. This may be the case, and this may be affecting the middle classes of the US but he has benefited the working peoples' of the US. As he points out, the world cannot survive on the American Dream, that eveyone can have two cars. That will destory the worlds energy. I live a fairly middle class life in Scotland but even still the American wealthy pay far less for their oil then moan on and on about how terrible it is if it rises a few cents. As if they are suffering! As if they are suffering more than those who barely have enough (sometimes they DON'T have enough) money to even afford basic heating.

The person who said that there oppinion was turning against Chavez in South America was partly right. Cuba and Bolivia are still close allies. However countries previously close, like Brazil, or no longer so. Is this because of a sudden radical change in policy in Venezuala? Of course not, it is because of self interest and US pressure.

I'm sure most of use are aware of the US ban on arms dealing with Venezuela. And why? Apparenlty because Chavez is not being fully cooperative with their so-called "war on terror". Another example of the US policing the world. They decide to create this so-called war then use it as an excuse to suppress regimes they do not like. Even if the war on terror was a proper war (if you will excuse the crude terminology) then so what if countries do not cooperate. It is no THEIR war. Since when was a country no longer allowed to decide to its own foreign policy?

We see example's of people-supported countries being oppressed by the US all the time. Lets take Palestine. The Hammas government was fairly elected by an overwhelming majority. The people WANT it. But US does not like it so it begins its bullying. Yes Hammas can be held responsible for killings but that does not make the US the police of the world. An extremist party was elected because US-backed Isreal sh*ts on the Palestinian people.

But anyway you get my point. Furthermore I am not saying that Chavez is perfect, but the US which acts as Gods messenger (when really it is just a self-absorbed utilitarian communitarian state) most certainly is not. South America has been treated like the US' backgarden for too long. It is no wonder that someone like Chavez has been elected. At least he offers the poor, who have been oppressed for so long, the chance of a better world.

*snip.

True, every word.

The US shouldn't waste its time trying to intervene in Venezuela...they will burn themselves out sooner or later, and given the huge investment shortfalls in the oil industry it seems to be on a more immediate footing than a later one.

Intervening will do nothing but harm our reputation further and give Chavez's ideology more time than it would have were we to leave him alone. In a globalized world, you achieve your goals best by not doing anything. If Chavez wants to follow a failed path, we shouldn't move to stop him. Whenever a nation wants to make its own decisions, it has to deal with the consequences those decisions will entail.
If we leave Germany alone, Hitler's Nazism will fail on its own.
If we ignore the persecution of the jews in Germany, it will prevent a holocaust from happening.
If we stay out of Germany's right to annex Austria and Hungary, it will stop him from invading his other neighbors.

Yeah right. :rolleyes:

If we stay out of Germany's right to annex Austria and Hungary, it will stop him from invading his other neighbors.

Yeah right. :rolleyes:

I have news for you, the USA did stay out of it when Hitler invaded Austria and Hungary.

If Chavez invades a neighboring country, then you will havew every right to react as you see fit. While all he is doing is deciding how he wishes to use the resources of the country that he was elected to govern, the US has no right to intervene in any way.

He has indeed lowered the poverty line and has visibly improved the conditions for the poor in Venezuela. It is also worth noting that Chavez has been elected (and as far as the international observes are regarded he was elected fairly unlike George Bush, the US is not even a democracy) by the working peoples of the country.

There is talk of Chavez shotting up oil prices. This may be the case, and this may be affecting the middle classes of the US but he has benefited the working peoples' of the US. As he points out, the world cannot survive on the American Dream, that eveyone can have two cars. That will destory the worlds energy. I live a fairly middle class life in Scotland but even still the American wealthy pay far less for their oil then moan on and on about how terrible it is if it rises a few cents. As if they are suffering! As if they are suffering more than those who barely have enough (sometimes they DON'T have enough) money to even afford basic heating.

The person who said that there oppinion was turning against Chavez in South America was partly right. Cuba and Bolivia are still close allies. However countries previously close, like Brazil, or no longer so. Is this because of a sudden radical change in policy in Venezuala? Of course not, it is because of self interest and US pressure.

I'm sure most of use are aware of the US ban on arms dealing with Venezuela. And why? Apparenlty because Chavez is not being fully cooperative with their so-called "war on terror". Another example of the US policing the world. They decide to create this so-called war then use it as an excuse to suppress regimes they do not like. Even if the war on terror was a proper war (if you will excuse the crude terminology) then so what if countries do not cooperate. It is no THEIR war. Since when was a country no longer allowed to decide to its own foreign policy?

We see example's of people-supported countries being oppressed by the US all the time. Lets take Palestine. The Hammas government was fairly elected by an overwhelming majority. The people WANT it. But US does not like it so it begins its bullying. Yes Hammas can be held responsible for killings but that does not make the US the police of the world. An extremist party was elected because US-backed Isreal sh*ts on the Palestinian people.

But anyway you get my point. Furthermore I am not saying that Chavez is perfect, but the US which acts as Gods messenger (when really it is just a self-absorbed utilitarian communitarian state) most certainly is not. South America has been treated like the US' backgarden for too long. It is no wonder that someone like Chavez has been elected. At least he offers the poor, who have been oppressed for so long, the chance of a better world.
South America is within our shere of influence. No one can trade with them or put troops there without consulting with us first. Just like, when we sent troops to Central Asia, we consulted with Russia first because Central Asia was under Russia's sphere of influence. We even consulted China and Pakistan as regards Afghanistan because Afghanistan falls under those nations' sphere of influence.
Why are we talking to China about North Korea? Because North Korea is under Chinese sphere of influence. Therefore anything we do in regards to North Korea, we have to consult China on. Or anything we do in Southeast Asia for that matter.
Whether you like it or not, there is one world superpower that is the United States and there is only two nations that are even close to catching up to the US in terms of might: China and Russia in that order.
Those 3 alone have the power to determine the fate of the rest of the world. The opinions of the rest of the world notwithstanding. If they decide they wanted to partition the world, there is not much the rest of the world could do. I mean what are you going to do against the world's 3 strongest nations, who have a combined nuclear arsenal of over 8,000 nuclear tipped ICBM's not to mention the world's biggest chemical weapons arsenals? Not a thing.

If we leave Germany alone, Hitler's Nazism will fail on its own.
If we ignore the persecution of the jews in Germany, it will prevent a holocaust from happening.
If we stay out of Germany's right to annex Austria and Hungary, it will stop him from invading his other neighbors.

Yeah right. :rolleyes:

Roll your eyes in another direction...like towards the bit where it says "Germany annexed...." and read it again.

South America is within our shere of influence. No one can trade with them or put troops there without consulting with us first. Just like, when we sent troops to Central Asia, we consulted with Russia first because Central Asia was under Russia's sphere of influence. We even consulted China and Pakistan as regards Afghanistan because Afghanistan falls under those nations' sphere of influence.
Why are we talking to China about North Korea? Because North Korea is under Chinese sphere of influence. Therefore anything we do in regards to North Korea, we have to consult China on. Or anything we do in Southeast Asia for that matter.
Whether you like it or not, there is one world superpower that is the United States and there is only two nations that are even close to catching up to the US in terms of might: China and Russia in that order.
Those 3 alone have the power to determine the fate of the rest of the world. The opinions of the rest of the world notwithstanding. If they decide they wanted to partition the world, there is not much the rest of the world could do. I mean what are you going to do against the world's 3 strongest nations, who have a combined nuclear arsenal of over 8,000 nuclear tipped ICBM's not to mention the world's biggest chemical weapons arsenals? Not a thing.

You are horribly, horribly wrong. Any country with long range nuclear missiles is essentially a superpower. Fine, they might not have as much financial power as the US, but it only takes one nuclear weapon to horribly ruin any country. Even the US, China or Russia could be humbled easily.

You might think that the USA is the centre of the world, but you are wrong. People will trade with Venezualia even if the USA bitches and gripes about it, because nobody really takes the US seriously any more. See Cuba. A lot of countries trade with Cuba - I've been on holiday there and it was great.

And that's right under the US' "circle of influence".

In ten years' time, the US will be a dead superpower. The sooner the oil runs out, the more buggered you are. Russia's fine, it's got vast oil reserves, and is a smaller consumer. China's use of oil is cutailed by the use of public transport, and both of those countries are also putting billions into research into alternative energies, whereas all I can see USian scientists doing is trying to deny the fact that people have influenced global warming.

And it's not like there aren't any other countries with veto-ing power in the UN. Britain is going to turn very anti-US in about 3 years when David Cameron wins the next general election. France has no love for the US as it is.

How Interesting indeed, I'm going to be looking through your posts, All : 3,379 of them, if Even one of them says something Contrary to you saying you live in Venezuela I will come at you like a Freight Train. I doubt I'll find anything but it doesn't hurt to check right?

I'm not going to Argue on if Venezuela is F'ed up or not, I doubt it's completely in ruins like you seem to say, I'm sure it's not a perfect nation though.

I do think it's strange that you say all Hospitals are closed Aelosia.

Go through them. They are mostly RP posts. People that actually know me by mIRC and outside NS will concur that I am venezuelan. My IP says so.

I already wrote a post in perfect spanish depicting the situation in Venezuela, but you didn't read, I guess.

I have an internet connection, yes. Work, I am a journalist, we have internet connection at the office because we must check international news services.

"I will come at you as a Freight Train", what's that suppose to mean?. Are you going to hit me? Are you going to insult me? Check everything you want to, you'll find just the truth.

Jódete, mi pana. No tienes ni idea de lo que estás hablando.

Hospitals aren't closed. They have no resources. Read well what people writes. I said "Hospitals with no bandages, pills or medicines", I never said closed. If you don't believe me, check this.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0fZbSYitWCk&search=politica%20peje%20venezuela%20chavez

It's a report of TV2, from Norway, an unaligned country with a socialist goverment, about a venezuelan hospital. The english speaking doctor in that video is an acquitance of mine, and he's an honest man, who works overtime trying to help people in need. Check what he says, check what you see and then check Chávez speech and reaction about that. And then tell me we're not poor, and that Chávez has been good for this country.

If we leave Germany alone, Hitler's Nazism will fail on its own.
If we ignore the persecution of the jews in Germany, it will prevent a holocaust from happening.
If we stay out of Germany's right to annex Austria and Hungary, it will stop him from invading his other neighbors.

Yeah right. :rolleyes:

And Chevez is so like Hitler.

Yeah right. :rolleyes:

And Chevez is so like Hitler.

Yeah right. :rolleyes:

No one said Chavez is like Hitler. He's just saying you cant ignore world problems and expect the issue to go away on its own quietly. Big difference. Granted the analogy was flawed slightly, but there is a point to it.

And Chevez is so like Hitler.

Yeah right. :rolleyes:

Apparently,everyone's like Hitler.:D

Otherwise,people wouldn't use Hitler so much in arguements.

I have news for you, the USA did stay out of it when Hitler invaded Austria and Hungary.

Ooooh, slapped him upside the head with history.

Apparently,everyone's like Hitler.:D

Otherwise,people wouldn't use Hitler so much in arguements.

It's the snazzy uniforms, no one can resist them.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A1AAB827-2F19-492C-9204-CF933D734338.htm

What a bastard.:rolleyes:

Don't worry, his days are already ending. I've personally ordered his assassination.

Don't worry, his days are already ending. I've personally ordered his assassination.

You're up early, Mr. Cheney.

True, every word.

Thank you.


I am getting sick of this comparison between Chavez and Hitler. This is becomming an absurd cliche started by the US government.

Does anyone here actually see a parallel between Chevez and Hitler other than they were both elected? Hitler was a man responsible to a large extent for the persecution of Communists, gypies, the disabled, free thinkers and a lot more. He gave orders to execute six million Jews and it is arguable he is responsible for starting a war which took many more millions of lives.

Where is the parallel? The current American government is arugably responsible for the death of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Over the last few decades they have bombed innocents in every country from Panema to Libya. If any parallel is to be drawn with a facsist regime it is with the US.

It seems that what it boils down to here is that many people feel that if there is a democracy THEY do not like, or trust, they have the right to change it. The US advocates their democracy (if you can really call it that) as some kind of universal truth as the ultimate politican system then as soon as a party is elected that THEY do not like, the try to change it.

The US should learn that with their rights as a superpower, comes responsiblity.


South America is within our shere of influence. No one can trade with them or put troops there without consulting with us first. Just like, when we sent troops to Central Asia, we consulted with Russia first because Central Asia was under Russia's sphere of influence. We even consulted China and Pakistan as regards Afghanistan because Afghanistan falls under those nations' sphere of influence.
Why are we talking to China about North Korea? Because North Korea is under Chinese sphere of influence. Therefore anything we do in regards to North Korea, we have to consult China on. Or anything we do in Southeast Asia for that matter.
Whether you like it or not, there is one world superpower that is the United States and there is only two nations that are even close to catching up to the US in terms of might: China and Russia in that order.
Those 3 alone have the power to determine the fate of the rest of the world. The opinions of the rest of the world notwithstanding. If they decide they wanted to partition the world, there is not much the rest of the world could do. I mean what are you going to do against the world's 3 strongest nations, who have a combined nuclear arsenal of over 8,000 nuclear tipped ICBM's not to mention the world's biggest chemical weapons arsenals? Not a thing.

Well you seem to be wrong. People ARE doing something. Countries like Venezuela are doing something.

Where did you get this "sphere of influence" stuff from? Are you really supposing that because one country is more powerful than its neighbours it really has the right to bully them? Also, the reason why the US consults China about North Korea is because China is the nearest "ally" (in an economic sense mostly) to North Korea. The US has its (very incompetent) military spread too thinly and threatening a country like NK is different from raping the poor Middle East, precautions are needed.

I think my little bit about rights and responsiblities also covers your point. Also, I would rather be part of country defending my honour and being nuked than following the US like a cowardly sheep.

Fabula Civitas, I agree with you in every word regarding the American goverment and the Bush administration...What I don't understand is why people like you who want to oppose USA have to side with Chávez. He's not the knight in shiny armor you libertarians of the world think he is. Bush perhaps cheated in his elections, for sure is leading his country to an unnecessary and stupid war, and is unfair with the rest of the world in almost every sense.

Yet that doesn't mean that Chávez is a fair freedom fighter. The Chávez administration labels all opposers as enemies of the state and pursues them, giving them imaginary judicial charges, nightime beatings, and firing them from their jobs. Our votes are not secret anymore, under possible attempts of "fraud" by the opposition and now people is too scared to vote for anyone else or to vote at all.

We are poorer than we used to be five years ago, no matter what have you seen (that by the way is what Chávez administration shows you). Our health system is collapsing, and the education have improved just in the ideologization and political way. Personal security is in the worst state ever, and kidnappings, thievery and assassinations are everyday's fear of the common citizen.

Chávez is at least as bad as Bush, please do not join his side just because you think you share a common enemy with him.

Our votes are not secret anymore, under possible attempts of "fraud" by the opposition and now people is too scared to vote for anyone else or to vote at all.

Your elections were both free and fair, according to international observers.

Check our last legislative elections...75% of abstention and a total victory of the goverment after several electoral scandals regarding the international observers of CAPEL...People is really voting for Chávez?

Please inform yourself before trying to look fair and wise. December 2005 for you.

Fabula Civitas, I agree with you in every word regarding the American goverment and the Bush administration...What I don't understand is why people like you who want to oppose USA have to side with Chávez. He's not the knight in shiny armor you libertarians of the world think he is. Bush perhaps cheated in his elections, for sure is leading his country to an unnecessary and stupid war, and is unfair with the rest of the world in almost every sense.

Yet that doesn't mean that Chávez is a fair freedom fighter. The Chávez administration labels all opposers as enemies of the state and pursues them, giving them imaginary judicial charges, nightime beatings, and firing them from their jobs. Our votes are not secret anymore, under possible attempts of "fraud" by the opposition and now people is too scared to vote for anyone else or to vote at all.

We are poorer than we used to be five years ago, no matter what have you seen (that by the way is what Chávez administration shows you). Our health system is collapsing, and the education have improved just in the ideologization and political way. Personal security is in the worst state ever, and kidnappings, thievery and assassinations are everyday's fear of the common citizen.

Chávez is at least as bad as Bush, please do not join his side just because you think you share a common enemy with him.

I appreciate your honesty.

Perhaps you are right, perhaps I am merely assuming an ally. Perhaps you are right (and of any of us you are bound to have the most knowledge although, and please do not take this in the wrong way, could be the most biased). Even if Chavez is an extremist I think he is quite inevitable. When countries are oppressed they always looks for strenght of character, like Hamas in Palestine.

I tell you what, I will not assume Chavez is such a great guy. However at the same time I will not assume what you are saying is correct either. I will have to look at the situation more objectively. Thank you for pointing my attention to the situation.

Check our last legislative elections...75% of abstention and a total victory of the goverment after several electoral scandals regarding the international observers of CAPEL...People is really voting for Chávez?

Please inform yourself before trying to look fair and wise. December 2005 for you.

Beause the American backed opposition all boycotted the elections. Rather than run and lose they stayed out and cried foul. Just like you're doing now, in fact. Hugo may not be perfect, but hes trying to do the right thing. Unlike the leeching elite that wants him gone.

And what about before Chavez?Why was the oil wealth unfairly distributed? Why an abysmal standard of healthcare for the people? Why the poverty in whats ostensibly a wealthy country?

"American backed opposition"...Where did you read that?. Well, it's better if you don't tell me...

Check this out of human logic...If the goverment is so sure of having an enormous majority and we, a "leeching elite", are so few...then why are they refusing to countdown manually the votes and accepting the checking of the automatic system?.

Before Chávez we had a bad goverment, almost as bad as the current one. We aren't a wealthy country, the wealth of a country is measured by the wealth of its citizens, we just have the resources to be wealthy. The problem is that the Action Democratist elite that was keeping the money with them is now replaced by the Chavist elite, and the money is still not distributed fairly. You're not here to see if the money is distributed accordingly, and the awful healthcare was bad before him, now it is really abysmal, with the hospitals in the worst shape in our history.

"American backed opposition"...Where did you read that?. Well, it's better if you don't tell me....

Its the same opposition that held talks with the Americans before the coup attempt and sheltered there after. In Miami. And presumably not in a hostel. Life as right wing exile is so harsh....

"
Check this out of human logic...If the goverment is so sure of having an enormous majority and we, a "leeching elite", are so few...then why are they refusing to countdown manually the votes and accepting the checking of the automatic system?.....

Your elections and referenda concerning Chavez were pronounced free and fair by a very large repetoire of international, respected groups. I suggest you either rethink your position or drop the right wing line.

"
Before Chávez we had a bad goverment, almost as bad as the current one. We aren't a wealthy country, the wealth of a country is measured by the wealth of its citizens, we just have the resources to be wealthy. The problem is that the Action Democratist elite that was keeping the money with them is now replaced by the Chavist elite, and the money is still not distributed fairly. You're not here to see if the money is distributed accordingly, and the awful healthcare was bad before him, now it is really abysmal, with the hospitals in the worst shape in our history.

So you keep saying. Yet the poor keep voting for him. If he had fucked them over, they've had not only the elections but the referendum to put him out, and they didn't.

Its the same opposition that held talks with the Americans before the coup attempt and sheltered there after. In Miami. And presumably not in a hostel. Life as right wing exile is so harsh....

Umm...those folks that initated the coup were military officers. Although Chavez has little stand complaining about military coups. He himself having participated in an earlier attempt against an elected president.

Infact the 2002 coup attempt was borne out of a refusal by military officers to carry out what is known as Plan Avalia, in which the military is used to quell civil unrest in the capital if it becomes out of control. Military officers not loyal to Chavez then staged the coup, only to find that the guy they placed in charge bungled the job. They then quickly lost support and army officers still loyal to Chavez put him back in power.

Look up the facts, the majority of the organizers still live in Venezuela. Only a handful of people fled, none of them the major conspiritors.


So you keep saying. Yet the poor keep voting for him. If he had fucked them over, they've had not only the elections but the referendum to put him out, and they didn't.

The fact that the poor keep voting for him is a simplistic statement, yes he has initiated progams for the poor, but in truth the level of poverty in Venezuela has actually increased during his tenure, as has violent crime. Of course the poor wouldnt realize they are becoming poorer because Chavez passed a law banning any statements which are negative about those in government and their policies, so as far as they know a literature program here, a new clinic there, and the country is improving.

Its the same opposition that held talks with the Americans before the coup attempt and sheltered there after. In Miami. And presumably not in a hostel. Life as right wing exile is so harsh....

I am opposed to the President Chávez. I am not payed by the "American" goverment, nor I am living in Miami. I'm not even right wing, pleease...The opposition I am talking about didn't have involvement with the April 11th, they are the current candidates running for President against Chávez in december.

Your elections and referenda concerning Chavez were pronounced free and fair by a very large repetoire of international, respected groups. I suggest you either rethink your position or drop the right wing line

Again I repeat, Im not in a right wing line. Is this always happens to be a "With us or against us" argument? Tell Chávez to drop his Nationalsocialism (sounds like a right wing policy, right?). Please, watch the 255th program "Aló presidente" of this sunday may 21th. there Chávez speaks of his "nationalsocialist" program for Venezuela. then you can speak about right wing lines...

So you keep saying. Yet the poor keep voting for him. If he had fucked them over, they've had not only the elections but the referendum to put him out, and they didn't.

With how many venezuelan poors have you talked to? none, or perhaps a few, I can guess. I talk with many of them every day, you can even count me in, if you want to. You should try to speak with some degree of coherence if you try to talk about preferences of a people. In the international courts were introduced several demands against such electoral processes without a decision.

Chávez keeps giving people cheap corn and sardines to buy votes, not achieving a righful distribution of the inmense income of the nation. Those desperate enough keep voting for him, or the leftist fanaticsthat are loyal ideologically to him. Most of this country were with Chávez in 1998. most of us voted for him back then, but now they stopped being the majority of this country, although our biased electoral proccesses do not show it...yet.

Beause the American backed opposition all boycotted the elections. Rather than run and lose they stayed out and cried foul. Just like you're doing now, in fact. Hugo may not be perfect, but hes trying to do the right thing. Unlike the leeching elite that wants him gone.

And what about before Chavez?Why was the oil wealth unfairly distributed? Why an abysmal standard of healthcare for the people? Why the poverty in whats ostensibly a wealthy country?

"American backed opposition" Outside of your own mind ...where do you find any proof what so ever ?

Other credable "America is evil" poster child :rolleyes:

Chavez is a loon . he's no better than any of the other south American dictatorgeads the US has supported in the PAST...See " THE PAST " ...Chavez was fine with the US until we showed no support for him .
So now I guess he'll show us ....meh..another tin pot blow hard...he'll join the rest of them soon enough .

Umm...those folks that initated the coup were military officers. Although Chavez has little stand complaining about military coups. He himself having participated in an earlier attempt against an elected president.

Infact the 2002 coup attempt was borne out of a refusal by military officers to carry out what is known as Plan Avalia, in which the military is used to quell civil unrest in the capital if it becomes out of control. Military officers not loyal to Chavez then staged the coup, only to find that the guy they placed in charge bungled the job. They then quickly lost support and army officers still loyal to Chavez put him back in power. .

Really? Thats news to me. Probably because its not true. A few questions are raised too -

Why does it say in a CIA intellgence briefing dated 11th March 2002 that "Business leaders" and certain elements in the military are against Chavez if it was just soldiers reacting to an order?

Why does a briefing dated 1st April 2002 report that officers are "still planning" a coup if the coup attempt was in fact a reaction to an order given by Chavez? Did they read tea leaves and see him making the order in advance?


Look up the facts, the majority of the organizers still live in Venezuela. Only a handful of people fled, none of them the major conspiritors.



The fact that the poor keep voting for him is a simplistic statement, yes he has initiated progams for the poor, but in truth the level of poverty in Venezuela has actually increased during his tenure, as has violent crime. Of course the poor wouldnt realize they are becoming poorer because Chavez passed a law banning any statements which are negative about those in government and their policies, so as far as they know a literature program here, a new clinic there, and the country is improving.

So they're just stupid then, and can't tell they're worse off....bit elitist that attitude.

I

Chávez keeps giving people cheap corn and sardines to buy votes, not achieving a righful distribution of the inmense income of the nation. Those desperate enough keep voting for him, or the leftist fanaticsthat are loyal ideologically to him. Most of this country were with Chávez in 1998. most of us voted for him back then, but now they stopped being the majority of this country, although our biased electoral proccesses do not show it...yet.

Presuming who I've spoken too and haven't is rather a wild shot in the dark. And as I said, your elections were put under a far harsher microscope than most and passed. You are committing the sin Australians refer to as "whingeing". Cease.

Really? Thats news to me. Probably because its not true. A few questions are raised too -

News to you? No surprise to me, from the simplistic statements, and your counters to points made it doesnt seem you have a real firm grasp on reality of what occured in the Aftermath of the 2002 coup. Of course I'm sure you know the conspiritors had a military tribunal rule they didnt need to go to trial, of which a year or so later the Supreme Court(after some rearranging by Chavez) ruled the tribunal unconstitutional(even if it was a right assureded to military officers under the constitution). However Chavez pretty much pardoned them by saying no witchhunt would be conducted. Yes some conspiritors fled of this I acknowledged but wheres the proof they went to Miami again? Or it was the majority of some 400 people?


Why does it say in a CIA intellgence briefing dated 11th March 2002 that "Business leaders" and certain elements in the military are against Chavez if it was just soldiers reacting to an order?

Why does a briefing dated 1st April 2002 report that officers are "still planning" a coup if the coup attempt was in fact a reaction to an order given by Chavez? Did they read tea leaves and see him making the order in advance?

I want a link to the CIA documents,and not a report about the CIA documents on some obscure website. As for the tea leaves, the officers engaged in the coup stated themselves they refused to follow the order given by Chavez known as Plan Avila, but hey news to you right?




So they're just stupid then, and can't tell they're worse off....bit elitist that attitude.

Simplistic statement out of you? I never figured you would :rolleyes: Ever heard of propoganda? Again, Chavez opens a clinic, starts a program to educate the poor, and this being more than previous Presidents mean the people arent going to vote him out even if poverty increases at a level they cant possibly notice in full. Or care about because Chavez claims the opposition is constantly lying and out to destroy him. But all this is news to you right?

News to you? No surprise to me, from the simplistic statements, and your counters to points made it doesnt seem you have a real firm grasp on reality of what occured in the Aftermath of the 2002 coup. Of course I'm sure you know the conspiritors had a military tribunal rule they didnt need to go to trial, of which a year or so later the Supreme Court(after some rearranging by Chavez) ruled the tribunal unconstitutional(even if it was a right assureded to military officers under the constitution). However Chavez pretty much pardoned them by saying no witchhunt would be conducted. Yes some conspiritors fled of this I acknowledged but wheres the proof they went to Miami again? Or it was the majority of some 400 people? ?

"Venezuelan coup plotter 'in Miami' by David Adams
In the aftermath of Venezuela's failed coup, the United States faces further potential embarrassment after the discovery that several alleged coup leaders fled to Miami.
They include Isaac Pérez Recao, 32, a reputed arms-dealer and heir to a Venezuelan oil fortune. With a group of armed bodyguards, Señor Pérez Recao played a highly visible role in the April 12-13 coup, according to reports in Caracas. As the coup unraveled, he is said to have jumped into a private helicopter and escaped to the Caribbean island of Aruba.

He and his brother and business partner, Vicente Pérez Recao, were seen later in Miami, where they own properties. They did not return telephone calls to their $500,000 beachfront flat in Key Biscayne, a wealthy island suburb of Miami.

Under US law, the Secretary of State has the power to deny entry visas or revoke their issuance to persons deemed to have "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States". This power has been used in recent cases against Haitian military officers and civilians alleged to have been involved in plotting a coup. It was also applied to President Chávez after he led an unsuccessful coup attempt in 1992.

The Venezuelan Government has asked the US for clarification of its response to the failed coup, which Washington appeared at first to welcome, but it has yet to make any official comment about the presence of the Pérez Recao family on US soil.

Close advisers to President Chávez have called on the US to take swift action. "They should be taking the same position with these people as they did with us," Lieutenant- Colonel Wilmer Castro, a former air force officer who helped to restore Señor Chávez to power, said.

US officials declined to discuss the involvement of Señor Pérez Recao, saying that they are still investigating what went on during the coup. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-277341,00.html

No mention of Soldiers there. Cushy exile though.


I want a link to the CIA documents,and not a report about the CIA documents on some obscure website. As for the tea leaves, the officers engaged in the coup stated themselves they refused to follow the order given by Chavez known as Plan Avila, but hey news to you right?

My o my. Righteous aggression of David Perle proportions. The documents are all released under FOIA. Have a read (or deny they're real).

http://www.venezuelafoia.info/ciaa4.html

http://www.venezuelafoia.info/ciab4.html



Simplistic statement out of you? I never figured you would :rolleyes: Ever heard of propoganda? ?

Even were I a stranger to the phenomena, I feel your posts would awaken my awareness of its existence.


Or care about because Chavez claims the opposition is constantly lying and out to destroy him. But all this is news to you right?

Well, he seems to be correct on that score at least.

Its the same opposition that held talks with the Americans before the coup attempt and sheltered there after. In Miami. And presumably not in a hostel. Life as right wing exile is so harsh....



Your elections and referenda concerning Chavez were pronounced free and fair by a very large repetoire of international, respected groups. I suggest you either rethink your position or drop the right wing line.



So you keep saying. Yet the poor keep voting for him. If he had fucked them over, they've had not only the elections but the referendum to put him out, and they didn't.
Wow. You are so Anti Bush that you would back Hitler himself and maybe even the anti christ.

"i'm not a bastard, we just don't know who Dad is."

Wow. You are so Anti Bush that you would back Hitler himself and maybe even the anti christ.

Where the hell did that come from...?!

You are really clutching at straws to defend your shaky points now.

Presuming who I've spoken too and haven't is rather a wild shot in the dark. And as I said, your elections were put under a far harsher microscope than most and passed. You are committing the sin Australians refer to as "whingeing". Cease.

1.- I presume you have talked to few because you seem to be far away removed from our current situation. I mean, in facts, not in opinions. It's not a wild shot in the dark, it's a reasonable assumption. If I am wrong, please enlight me and clarify the point. If I am right, no need to make such a fuss. Have you been in Venezuela? Have you visited our barrios? Have you talked with a buhonero? Have you ever ride a camionetica? Have you had breakfast in an arepera? If you know those things, then you know about Venezuela. If you don't, you haven't spoken to enough venezuelans, so stop acting wise trying to know more about a foreign country than a native, ok?

2.- I can explain those foreign terms if you want to, so please if you are going to refer to an act known by australians only as "whingeing" please explain what is the act known as "sin" you are talking about. Otherwise is extremely rude to do so. I could assing several venezuelan terms that exactly describe your attitude and yet I don't because I want you to understand me, not to confuse you. I think an explanation about "whingeing" is in order

3.-
http://www.venezuelafoia.info/ciaa4.html
http://www.venezuelafoia.info/ciab4.html

Pleease. You're not making that on purpose, right? Eva Golinger is a goverment officer. Everyone knows that here in Venezuela, and internationally too. That's not different from the version of our administration, easily heard in "Aló, presidente" every sunday at 11:00 am. She's the voice of Chávez in USA, she works for Venezolana de Televisión, the state channel controlled by the Chávez administration. If that's the only source you can muster, then you are pretty much disinformed.

It's like believing in something Fox Nebush (Fox News) tells you about the american goverment, or believing the word of the mother of a convict rapist about his innocence...Extremely compromised or politically aligned sources are not exactly trustworthy. I tell you that as an experienced investigator. I could post several nicks directly related to the venezuelan opposition, and yet that wouldn't be fair. Please be a little bit more serious about what you investigate and present as "truth"

Wow. You are so Anti Bush that you would back Hitler himself and maybe even the anti christ.

I know you read the "National enquirer" style right wing web sites, but Hitler is dead, and the anti-christ would require the existence of (a) the supernatural and (b) a certain interpretation of that being correct. Now back under your rock.

1.- I presume you have talked to few because you seem to be far away removed from our current situation. I mean, in facts, not in opinions. It's not a wild shot in the dark, it's a reasonable assumption. If I am wrong, please enlight me and clarify the point. If I am right, no need to make such a fuss. Have you been in Venezuela? Have you visited our barrios? Have you talked with a buhonero? Have you ever ride a camionetica? Have you had breakfast in an arepera? If you know those things, then you know about Venezuela. If you don't, you haven't spoken to enough venezuelans, so stop acting wise trying to know more about a foreign country than a native, ok?
"

Wow. Am I intimidated now...

2.- I can explain those foreign terms if you want to, so please if you are going to refer to an act known by australians only as "whingeing" please explain what is the act known as "sin" you are talking about. Otherwise is extremely rude to do so. I could assing several venezuelan terms that exactly describe your attitude and yet I don't because I want you to understand me, not to confuse you. I think an explanation about "whingeing" is in order

Your elections have been certified fair and square beyond reasonable doubt. Yet you keep harping on about it instead of taking it on the chin and getting on with it. Thats whingeing. Please stop it.

3.-
http://www.venezuelafoia.info/ciaa4.html
http://www.venezuelafoia.info/ciab4.html

Pleease. You're not making that on purpose, right? Eva Golinger is a goverment officer. Everyone knows that here in Venezuela, and internationally too. That's not different from the version of our administration, easily heard in "Aló, presidente" every sunday at 11:00 am. She's the voice of Chávez in USA, she works for Venezolana de Televisión, the state channel controlled by the Chávez administration. If that's the only source you can muster, then you are pretty much disinformed.

It's like believing in something Fox Nebush (Fox News) tells you about the american goverment, or believing the word of the mother of a convict rapist about his innocence...Extremely compromised or politically aligned sources are not exactly trustworthy. I tell you that as an experienced investigator. I could post several nicks directly related to the venezuelan opposition, and yet that wouldn't be fair. Please be a little bit more serious about what you investigate and present as "truth"

Are the documents obtained under FOIA genuine or not? If you say not, kindly elaborate on your position. And I note you don't comment on the buisiness people fleeing to miami, or the contents of the documents. Why?

1.- I presume you have talked to few because you seem to be far away removed from our current situation. I mean, in facts, not in opinions. It's not a wild shot in the dark, it's a reasonable assumption. If I am wrong, please enlight me and clarify the point. If I am right, no need to make such a fuss. Have you been in Venezuela? Have you visited our barrios? Have you talked with a buhonero? Have you ever ride a camionetica? Have you had breakfast in an arepera? If you know those things, then you know about Venezuela. If you don't, you haven't spoken to enough venezuelans, so stop acting wise trying to know more about a foreign country than a native, ok?

2.- I can explain those foreign terms if you want to, so please if you are going to refer to an act known by australians only as "whingeing" please explain what is the act known as "sin" you are talking about. Otherwise is extremely rude to do so. I could assing several venezuelan terms that exactly describe your attitude and yet I don't because I want you to understand me, not to confuse you. I think an explanation about "whingeing" is in order

3.-
http://www.venezuelafoia.info/ciaa4.html
http://www.venezuelafoia.info/ciab4.html

Pleease. You're not making that on purpose, right? Eva Golinger is a goverment officer. Everyone knows that here in Venezuela, and internationally too. That's not different from the version of our administration, easily heard in "Aló, presidente" every sunday at 11:00 am. She's the voice of Chávez in USA, she works for Venezolana de Televisión, the state channel controlled by the Chávez administration. If that's the only source you can muster, then you are pretty much disinformed.

It's like believing in something Fox Nebush (Fox News) tells you about the american goverment, or believing the word of the mother of a convict rapist about his innocence...Extremely compromised or politically aligned sources are not exactly trustworthy. I tell you that as an experienced investigator. I could post several nicks directly related to the venezuelan opposition, and yet that wouldn't be fair. Please be a little bit more serious about what you investigate and present as "truth"


I think I love you .:D :fluffle: Unless your a guy...then I just really like you ...;)


"i'm not a bastard, we just don't know who Dad is."

Bumper sticker .

Wow. Am I intimidated now...


Your elections have been certified fair and square beyond reasonable doubt. Yet you keep harping on about it instead of taking it on the chin and getting on with it. Thats whingeing. Please stop it.

3.-
http://www.venezuelafoia.info/ciaa4.html
http://www.venezuelafoia.info/ciab4.html


Are the documents obtained under FOIA genuine or not? If you say not, kindly elaborate on your position. And I note you don't comment on the buisiness people fleeing to miami, or the contents of the documents. Why?

They are not genuine. They haven't been recognized by any international court, the american goverment or actually any instance outside the Chávez administration. Even I could fabricate some similar documents easily.

You seem to be the one "whingeing" when someone contradict your Lord Hero Hugo Rafael.

Business people asociated with Carmona, the guy that tried to take advantage of the power void left by the Chávez resign, indeed left our country. They should be in jail for what they did, they tried to violate the constitution and place Venezuela under another unlegitimate regime. I'm not against what you said regarding the Recao brothers and the others, but that's not the point.