NationStates Jolt Archive

You like Chavez? The soon-to-be total dictator who is going to run his country in to the ground? Wow, and I though W. was bad...Chavez is about 1000 times worse than he'll ever be.

Besides, who cares? He's the leader of a has-been oil state with falling production and a shitty economy...I'm as scared of him as I am of Djibouti.

Yes, that's right. Hugo Chavez has officially told the United States to "Go to hell, gringos!"

He also called Condi "My little girl." He has very poor taste in woman.

...I like Chavez. But is he trying to paint a bigass "BOMB ME!" sign on his country, or what?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/World/Rest_of_World/Chavez_tells_US_to_go_to_hell/articleshow/1385852.cms

He must have a small penis or something. His attenion whoring tactics seem to point that way.

Yes, that's right. Hugo Chavez has officially told the United States to "Go to hell, gringos!"

He also called Condi "My little girl." He has very poor taste in woman.

...I like Chavez. But is he trying to paint a bigass "BOMB ME!" sign on his country, or what?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/World/Rest_of_World/Chavez_tells_US_to_go_to_hell/articleshow/1385852.cms

He's been painting a "BOMB ME" since 2004. He has a personal grudge against Bush and he loves telling EVERYONE about it.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/old.gif Yeah... um...

Link? http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/pcwhack.gif

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/old.gif Yeah... um...

Link? http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/pcwhack.gif

I knew I forgot something. Dammit. There's a link now.

he's a bit late. the US is already on it's way there.

Wow, what an attention whore. :rolleyes:

Very silly of him. Makes him look childish.

I suppose he thinks it'll make him popular back home - standing up to the "big bad Americans" and such.

I respect Chavez in some ways, but his populism can be irritating.

What a way to up the level of international dialogue.

Jesus, Chavez is like a twelve year old with identity issues shouting crappy insults at the big kid on the playground.

He's been painting a "BOMB ME" since 2004. He has a personal grudge against Bush and he loves telling EVERYONE about it.

Yeah, but doesnt it seem like he's trying harder lately? Almost like a child testing the limits of their parents patience.

What a way to up the level of international dialogue.

Jesus, Chavez is like a twelve year old with identity issues shouting crappy insults at the big kid on the playground.

Bad analogy. You should've covered your ass. This analogy lets me point out that the big kid on the playground is 1: An asshole 2: crazy.

Bad analogy. You should've covered your ass. This analogy lets me point out that the big kid on the playground is 1: An asshole 2: crazy.

Of course, the big kid is neither an asshole, nor is he crazy. He just pisses off the crazies.

If he were an asshole or crazy, he'd go and pummel the little kid shouting the insults.

Of course, the big kid is neither an asshole, nor is he crazy. He just pisses off the crazies.

If he were an asshole or crazy, he'd go and pummel the little kid shouting the insults.

Instead he spreads rumors about the little kid. So this bully, who we've been assuming to be male, demonstrates properties more typically associated with female bullies. So he is probably a she.

Yeah, Lady Liberty's a bitch.

Instead he spreads rumors about the little kid. So this bully, who we've been assuming to be male, demonstrates properties more typically associated with female bullies. So he is probably a she.

Yeah, Lady Liberty's a bitch.

What sort of rumors is the US spreading about Chavez?

Of course, the big kid is neither an asshole, nor is he crazy. He just pisses off the crazies.

If he were an asshole or crazy, he'd go and pummel the little kid shouting the insults.
You mean much the way he did to that weird obnoxious al-Qaeda kid, who was always shouting insults at him?
Went right over there and pummeled al, dint he? And al got such a scare, he stopped yelling insults and,...oh wait a minute.

Instead he spreads rumors about the little kid. So this bully, who we've been assuming to be male, demonstrates properties more typically associated with female bullies. So he is probably a she.

Yeah, Lady Liberty's a bitch.

NEWS JUST IN: Political debate reached a new high today when NS General n00b, Zarakon, called America a 'big girl'.

He kind of said what everybody's thinking...

Hey!, Chávez might be an attention whore, and we're on bad shape, but you can keep your insults to yourself. For all I know, you come from a country with a shitty culture, and shitty intellectual level regarding its population. Let's not start pointing fingers at things, because you might find one finger poking your eye.

I wish people would be honest about our country...the level of denial in some places is incredible. We have a lousy public educational system, massive income inequality, and a tacky culture.

But seriously, Venezuela has some huge problems, the least of which is its oil production and its weak economy.

"axis of evil", "either your with us or your with the terrorists", "bring it on"...oh ya GWB is so much more mature than Hugo...

You like Chavez? The soon-to-be total dictator who is going to run his country in to the ground? Wow, and I though W. was bad...Chavez is about 1000 times worse than he'll ever be.

Besides, who cares? He's the leader of a has-been oil state with falling production and a shitty economy...I'm as scared of him as I am of Djibouti.


Hey!, Chávez might be an attention whore, and we're on bad shape, but you can keep your insults to yourself. For all I know, you come from a country with a shitty culture, and shitty intellectual level regarding its population. Let's not start pointing fingers at things, because you might find one finger poking your eye.

What sort of rumors is the US spreading about Chavez?

Well, we're basically saying he's an evil horrid dictator.

All of his power was gained democratically. His rule-by-decree is democratic, since the representatives the people elected to represent them voted to give him rule-by-decree.

You mean much the way he did to that weird obnoxious al-Qaeda kid, who was always shouting insults at him?
Went right over there and pummeled al, dint he? And al got such a scare, he stopped yelling insults and,...oh wait a minute.

Except the weird, obnoxious al Qaeda kid was throwing rocks, not insults.

NEWS JUST IN: Political debate reached a new high today when NS General n00b, Zarakon, called America a 'big girl'.

Nah, I merely pointed out the inherent problems in trying to use a schoolyard analogy. I technically did not call it a "big girl". I merely stated that if we are using little kid/big kid, the big kid (America) is demonstrating bullying tactics more commonly associated with female bullies, rather than male ones.

Well, we're basically saying he's an evil horrid dictator.

All of his power was gained democratically. His rule-by-decree is democratic, since the representatives the people elected to represent them voted to give him rule-by-decree.

If you even bothered to read what the State Department has said, you'd realize they're criticizing his undemocratic steps, not calling him a dictator.

Beyond that, rule-by-decree is always undemocratic. It eliminates debate from the system, and even with a rubberstamp parliament, that level of openness is preferable.

I wish people would be honest about our country...the level of denial in some places is incredible. We have a lousy public educational system, massive income inequality, and a tacky culture.

But seriously, Venezuela has some huge problems, the least of which is its oil production and its weak economy.

Well, not really, our economy is not going that bad, specially regarding oil production. Thanks to that the pirate captain has enough money to both appease his mates, and also to distribute wealth to the beggars so they can vote for him.

With old oil prices, at 7$, Chávez would had been forced to resign years ago. With the amount of money he has now, he's unstoppable.

Actually he sent the US to the "cipote".

Venezuela is not doing too bad economically, thanks to oil prices. Unfortunately that's all the economy has going for it. Inflation is high and the industrial base is relatively undiversified.

Well, not really, our economy is not going that bad, specially regarding oil production. Thanks to that the pirate captain has enough money to both appease his mates, and also to distribute wealth to the beggars so they can vote for him.

With old oil prices, at 7$, Chávez would had been forced to resign years ago. With the amount of money he has now, he's unstoppable.

Chavez offered to sell us oil at a discount, you do know that, don't you?

Chavez offered to sell us oil at a discount, you do know that, don't you?

That is only to serve his own self interests. You do know that, don't you?

That is only to serve his own self interests. You do know that, don't you?

His own self interest to not be bombed into a post-colonial cess pool, yes.

His own self interest to not be bombed into a post-colonial cess pool, yes.

You don't need to sell "below market" oil to not get bombed. Venezuela is doing perfectly fine selling oil at market rates. Without any problems.

You don't need to sell "below market" oil to not get bombed. Venezuela is doing perfectly fine selling oil at market rates. Without any problems.

Leftist presidents in Latin America have close to a seventy percent mortality rate because of American meddling. He's warding off the bombs, trust me.

Well, we're basically saying he's an evil horrid dictator.

All of his power was gained democratically. His rule-by-decree is democratic, since the representatives the people elected to represent them voted to give him rule-by-decree.

Zarakon, would you be saying the same thing if the Republicans had given President Bush the same powers? LOL.

Does anyone else want to comment on this one?

Zarakon, would you be saying the same thing if the Republicans had given President Bush the same powers? LOL.

Does anyone else want to comment on this one?

You hit the nail on the head. People try to defend the manner in which Chavez acquired his power, however if the same events transpired here in the United States, the same people would be after Bush's head.

You hit the nail on the head. People try to defend the manner in which Chavez acquired his power, however if the same events transpired here in the United States, the same people would be after Bush's head.

No shit!

The double standard makes my head hurt. :(

Well done Chavez, you tell those corporate imperialists where to go, and to take their blood money with them. US has no right whatsoever to talk to any SA country regarding their politics, the US's only history is supporting bloody murderous rightist tyrants, and raping their national resources for the gain of exploitive gas and oil firms, keeping the people in poverty. That little girl should watch herself.

Yes, that's right. Hugo Chavez has officially told the United States to "Go to hell, gringos!"

He also called Condi "My little girl." He has very poor taste in woman.

...I like Chavez. But is he trying to paint a bigass "BOMB ME!" sign on his country, or what?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/World/Rest_of_World/Chavez_tells_US_to_go_to_hell/articleshow/1385852.cms

He can go to hell and if he starts shit we will send him to hell riding on a bomb.

Well done Chavez, you tell those corporate imperialists where to go, and to take their blood money with them. US has no right whatsoever to talk to any SA country regarding their politics, the US's only history is supporting bloody murderous rightist tyrants, and raping their national resources for the gain of exploitive gas and oil firms, keeping the people in poverty. That little girl should watch herself.



:rolleyes:


You are every leftist dictators wetdream.

Gee. Is that all? If a government had tried to coup me out, I'd not be telling them to go to Hell, I'd be rightfully trying to assassinate its leader!

Go to hell, Emmanuel Goldstein!!!! War is peace! Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength!

*"Two Minutes Hate" proceeds*

America isn't even CLOSE to Goldstein. It has forced coups in South America before, it believes in complete surveillance and, guess what, Oceania was neither socialist nor capitalist. It was a dystopian system that used the worst of BOTH.

Will you please refrain from trying to mislead people using the book I did my monography on? It will help your argument in that it won't be that easy to debunk it.

Well done Chavez, you tell those corporate imperialists where to go, and to take their blood money with them. US has no right whatsoever to talk to any SA country regarding their politics, the US's only history is supporting bloody murderous rightist tyrants, and raping their national resources for the gain of exploitive gas and oil firms, keeping the people in poverty. That little girl should watch herself.

Go to hell, Emmanuel Goldstein!!!! War is peace! Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength!

*"Two Minutes Hate" proceeds*

Zarakon, would you be saying the same thing if the Republicans had given President Bush the same powers? LOL.

Does anyone else want to comment on this one?

In previous threads concerning Chavez, the comparison between Bush's signing statements and Chavez's executive powers was made, but I don't think it helps debate to compare the two. The history and subsequent cultures of North and South America makes this like comparing apples and oranges.

As for the OP, I can honestly say that I am not in the least bit surprised that Chavez has used fiery rhetoric in a public speech.

Except the weird, obnoxious al Qaeda kid was throwing rocks, not insults.

So we bombed the shit out of someone two doors down...

Now we look less like a bully, and more like a psychopath...

In previous threads concerning Chavez, the comparison between Bush's signing statements and Chavez's executive powers was made, but I don't think it helps debate to compare the two. The history and subsequent cultures of North and South America makes this like comparing apples and oranges.

As for the OP, I can honestly say that I am not in the least bit surprised that Chavez has used fiery rhetoric in a public speech.

I've never understood the equivalence between the signing statements and Chavez's 'dictatorship'.

The signing statements are extra - judicial. Chavez was given those powers by the representatives of the people.

You hit the nail on the head. People try to defend the manner in which Chavez acquired his power, however if the same events transpired here in the United States, the same people would be after Bush's head.

That is indeed true.

As to the article, I have this to say:

"Go to hell Chavez. You have loads to learn about diplomacy you bumbling fool."

So we bombed the shit out of someone two doors down...

Now we look less like a bully, and more like a psychopath...


We might do better if others perceived us as psychopaths.

The bully label hasnt suited us so well.

Gee. Is that all? If a government had tried to coup me out, I'd not be telling them to go to Hell, I'd be rightfully trying to assassinate its leader!

That would really bring on the bombs for if he tried that, we would return the favor executive order or not telling the new president he can't do that.

I've never understood the equivalence between the signing statements and Chavez's 'dictatorship'.

The signing statements are extra - judicial. Chavez was given those powers by the representatives of the people.

I totally agree. And there are many other differences as well. Some make Bush look better, while some make Chavez appear the more democratic one.

I prefer not to compare the two.

Looking at Chavez by himself, I see a man who is doing two related things:

1. Turning Venezuela more socialist. I think this is a good thing, and more importantly, I feel the majority of Venezuelans support this.

2. Removing checks and balances to the power of his office. I think this is a bad thing, and more importantly, I feel the majority of Venezuelans do not support this.

But these two things are related. Any socialist experiment in Latin America is going to come under overt or covert attack by the USA and other foreign powers who want to protect their economic interests in the region. Therefore, in order to safeguard the sovereignty of the 'socialist' nation, the government must have the resources required to mount a defense against these attacks.

Now, the trouble with the paragraph above is that even if the USA is not attacking or supporting coups or financing opposition parties, Chavez can simply claim that the Evil Gringos are planning to do so, and that he should be given these powers.

He is not in an enviable position. I hope his social reforms outlast him.

Of course, the big kid is neither an asshole, nor is he crazy. He just pisses off the crazies.

If he were an asshole or crazy, he'd go and pummel the little kid shouting the insults.

He's to busy trying to pummel the little kid who made fun of his mommy....

(okay, so that was not quite apropiate, but it was just so easy...)

That would really bring on the bombs for if he tried that, we would return the favor executive order or not telling the new president he can't do that.


You are correct. The reactions of the USA, if Venezuela supported an attempted coup against the POTUS, would be harsh and probabaly involve terms like 'carpet bombing' and 'collateral damage'. If the USA supported an attempted coup against the Venezuelan President, it might be mentioned in a few newsapapers, but Venezuela would not take any retaliatory action.

This is why I say that comparing the USA to Venezuela is like comparing apples to oranges.

...I like Chavez.

:headbang:

You like Chavez? The soon-to-be total dictator who is going to run his country in to the ground? Wow, and I though W. was bad...Chavez is about 1000 times worse than he'll ever be.

Besides, who cares? He's the leader of a has-been oil state with falling production and a shitty economy...I'm as scared of him as I am of Djibouti.

You really have no idea who Hugo Chavez is, do you? What makes you think he's a "soon to be total dictator"? Health care is free for his people and he's subsidized the country's food supply, with regular reduced rates of 80%. You think he's a dictator because he's socialist? Or because Sean Hannity tells you so. Last time I checked, George Bush:

a) Left millions of children behind. Hugo Chavez's main political goal is to fight for the rights of the poor and their children.
b) Made huge tax cuts for the rich. Chavez has raised the living conditions for his poor more than any of his predecessors.
c) Bombed two countries, killing hundreds of thousands. Hugo Chavez donated his oil to New York's poor because their own government couldn't do it.
d) Bush took the largest surplus in US history and managed to make it the largest deficit in hsitory. By nationalizing his country's oil supply, Chavez has turned his country into one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

And that's just a few! I have no idea where you're getting these patently false statements! How about you read up on the man first before you open your mouth. Troll.

I've never understood the equivalence between the signing statements and Chavez's 'dictatorship'.

The signing statements are extra - judicial. Chavez was given those powers by the representatives of the people.

Nice move.

That would really bring on the bombs for if he tried that, we would return the favor executive order or not telling the new president he can't do that.

My point is, the US government tried to coup Chavez out, and some people here complain when he only tells America to go to Hell and calls that tart of a secretary of state "little girl"? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

You are correct. The reactions of the USA, if Venezuela supported an attempted coup against the POTUS, would be harsh and probabaly involve terms like 'carpet bombing' and 'collateral damage'. If the USA supported an attempted coup against the Venezuelan President, it might be mentioned in a few newsapapers, but Venezuela would not take any retaliatory action.

This is why I say that comparing the USA to Venezuela is like comparing apples to oranges.

Which, of course, gives Chavez the right to do the same. He didn't because he couldn't, or because he's the bigger man here and, unlike Bush, doesn't enjoy murdering the innocent.

America isn't even CLOSE to Goldstein. It has forced coups in South America before, it believes in complete surveillance and, guess what, Oceania was neither socialist nor capitalist. It was a dystopian system that used the worst of BOTH.

Will you please refrain from trying to mislead people using the book I did my monography on? It will help your argument in that it won't be that easy to debunk it.

Right, you're right. That was a little extreme, and I apologize, but.... don't you consider it slightly unnerving that Chavez is in the perfect position to become the unquestioned dictator of Venezuela?

Eh, that's just me overreacting for a second. I lost my head for a moment, forgive me. Napoleon--I mean, CHAVEZ--is always right.

Right, you're right. That was a little extreme, and I apologize, but.... don't you consider it slightly unnerving that Chavez is in the perfect position to become the unquestioned dictator of Venezuela?

Depends if you call Bush a dictator for his signing statements trick. I don't care for Chavez all that much, but the US did try to coup him, an elected leader, out. So...

Eh, that's just me overreacting for a second. I lost my head for a moment, forgive me. Napoleon--I mean, CHAVEZ--is always right.

:rolleyes:

Eh, that's just me overreacting for a second. I lost my head for a moment, forgive me. Napoleon--I mean, BUSH--is always right.

Oh lookie. I can also build strawmen.

My point is, the US government tried to coup Chavez out, and some people here complain when he only tells America to go to Hell and calls that tart of a secretary of state "little girl"? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

There is no independently confirm able evidence that the US had anything to do with the coup. In fact, there's evidence that the US Embassy warned Chavez about the coup, and about assassination plots against him at various points in time.

Which would be perfectly coherent with the US government actively recognizing the usurpers as a legitimate government? First country to do so?

We knew about the coup ahead of time, and after it happened we said "screw it" and recognized them. It's pretty simple. Chavez ignored our warning and when he got bit in the ass, we didn't give a rats ass.

There is no independently confirm able evidence that the US had anything to do with the coup. In fact, there's evidence that the US Embassy warned Chavez about the coup, and about assassination plots against him at various points in time.

Which would be perfectly coherent with the US government actively recognizing the usurpers as a legitimate government? First country to do so?

Zarakon, would you be saying the same thing if the Republicans had given President Bush the same powers? LOL.

Does anyone else want to comment on this one?there is one key difference here:
Chavez was elected by the People. every time. multiple times.

Chavez party got more than 3/4 of the Congress.

Which would be perfectly coherent with the US government actively recognizing the usurpers as a legitimate government? First country to do so?

The US government knew it was coming, and they let Chavez know. When he failed to stop it, the US decided that there was no incentive to actively try to stop them, so they recognized them.

He's just hilarious. Pure comic gold...

I think that after this term, Chavez should step down and let someone else carry on his legacy. His revolution in Venezuela can't just be based on his cult of personality, it must be an idea that will live on long after his death.

I totally agree. And there are many other differences as well. Some make Bush look better, while some make Chavez appear the more democratic one.

I prefer not to compare the two.

Looking at Chavez by himself, I see a man who is doing two related things:

1. Turning Venezuela more socialist. I think this is a good thing, and more importantly, I feel the majority of Venezuelans support this.

2. Removing checks and balances to the power of his office. I think this is a bad thing, and more importantly, I feel the majority of Venezuelans do not support this.

But these two things are related. Any socialist experiment in Latin America is going to come under overt or covert attack by the USA and other foreign powers who want to protect their economic interests in the region. Therefore, in order to safeguard the sovereignty of the 'socialist' nation, the government must have the resources required to mount a defense against these attacks.

Now, the trouble with the paragraph above is that even if the USA is not attacking or supporting coups or financing opposition parties, Chavez can simply claim that the Evil Gringos are planning to do so, and that he should be given these powers.

He is not in an enviable position. I hope his social reforms outlast him.

I'm not too keen on Socialism I have to say. Nor do I like out and out rampant capitalism. What I find in both systems to be unpalatable is the greed inherent in both.

I also find the taking of absolute power to be anathema. Chavez is a populist. Nothing more nothing less. And he will most likely drive his nation into the ground. I hope I am proved wrong but history is on my side with regards to this.

Nice move.

I hate prevaricating. ;)

You are correct. The reactions of the USA, if Venezuela supported an attempted coup against the POTUS, would be harsh and probabaly involve terms like 'carpet bombing' and 'collateral damage'. If the USA supported an attempted coup against the Venezuelan President, it might be mentioned in a few newsapapers, but Venezuela would not take any retaliatory action.

This is why I say that comparing the USA to Venezuela is like comparing apples to oranges.

Agreed with you 100%.

My point is, the US government tried to coup Chavez out, and some people here complain when he only tells America to go to Hell and calls that tart of a secretary of state "little girl"? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

And the people on here complain when Americans retort to the insults that Chavez levels.

Welcome to International Politics. Insults are our specialty.

There is no independently confirm able evidence that the US had anything to do with the coup. In fact, there's evidence that the US Embassy warned Chavez about the coup, and about assassination plots against him at various points in time.

So indeed true but then Chavez tells the world that we were behind it. Who is the world going to believe :mad:

Yes, that's right. Hugo Chavez has officially told the United States to "Go to hell, gringos!"

He also called Condi "My little girl." He has very poor taste in woman.

...I like Chavez. But is he trying to paint a bigass "BOMB ME!" sign on his country, or what?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/World/Rest_of_World/Chavez_tells_US_to_go_to_hell/articleshow/1385852.cms
FFS, he's really descending into demagogical idiocy.

there is one key difference here:
Chavez was elected by the People. every time. multiple times.

Chavez party got more than 3/4 of the Congress.

And the American President was elected as well except for a couple of times where the Congress had to do it pursuient to the Constitution of the United States. :rolleyes:

Yes, that's right. Hugo Chavez has officially told the United States to "Go to hell, gringos!"

He also called Condi "My little girl." He has very poor taste in woman.

...I like Chavez. But is he trying to paint a bigass "BOMB ME!" sign on his country, or what?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/World/Rest_of_World/Chavez_tells_US_to_go_to_hell/articleshow/1385852.cms

He's nuts.

What he is doing is kicking the hornet nest. He will get stung and badly if he doesn't cease immediatly.

The US will 'recognize' Chavez's government when he lets them continue raping his countries natural resources so the US corporatists can line their pockets via the poor. This will never happen under socialism so the US will continue their tirade that no one cares about.

And the US has no right to preach to anyone about correct democratic government, Republicans especially, Republicans for a Texas Majority anyone? Shall I go on. The US is a corporatist statist/fascist state in which the power of corporations and government have become almost a single entity.

The US will 'recognize' Chavez's government when he lets them continue raping his countries natural resources so the US corporatists can line their pockets via the poor. This will never happen under socialism so the US will continue their tirade that no one cares about.

And the US has no right to preach to anyone about correct democratic government, Republicans especially, Republicans for a Texas Majority anyone? Shall I go on. The US is a corporatist statist/fascist state in which the power of corporations and government have become almost a single entity.

Troll much?

Troll much?

No, doesn't look like it.

Go away troll. No one cares about your tripe. Oh and this is not even close to be accurate.

Why is it on NSG anyone who doesn't agree with you is a troll?

Although some people are widely accepted to be trolls (MTAE) just trying to get a rise out of people. However, often we have the problem that innocent posters have "troll" stamped on them just because they express opinions you consider stupid.
And if he was a troll, you just fed him by giving him a rise.

I am right and you are wrong, cause my buddy Dubya said so.
Thanks for your contribution, and validated my statement by randomly trolling as opposed to answering my statement. In fact many observers and political commentators have often talked about the direction of the US in relation to a Mussolinist corporatist model.
Go away troll.

The US will 'recognize' Chavez's government when he lets them continue raping his countries natural resources so the US corporatists can line their pockets via the poor. This will never happen under socialism so the US will continue their tirade that no one cares about.

And the US has no right to preach to anyone about correct democratic government, Republicans especially, Republicans for a Texas Majority anyone? Shall I go on. The US is a corporatist statist/fascist state in which the power of corporations and government have become almost a single entity.

Go away troll. No one cares about your tripe. Oh and this is not even close to be accurate.

The problem I do find with these threads is that most people taking part of them are absolutely ignorant from the very start, perhaps due to the misinformation given by their relatively partial and usually nasty translated news. Before I end this rant, I must clarify that there is exceptions to what I am going to say, but I have already realized that they are a minority.

Yes, both sides are ignorant. You, the people that are bashing Chávez in this thread, are absolute ignorants. You are behaving like gringos all the way, and you deserve to be called that way in the peyorative sense by Chávez. Try to behave like United States citizens and not gringos next time, and perhaps you could start to earn respect from the people outside your borders. If you don't want or don't care, then don't complain by the lack of respect some officials in foreign countries show to your system. "He is against our noble american goverment so he must be some Trópico dictator like the videogame"...That kind of position is lame and shows both a lack of information, an excess of ignorance and the will of writing without pondering or thinking, and also letting others know that your knowledge about latin american politics come from a videogame. Please!, he didn't even said "Go to Hell, Gringos". That translation is lame, and that set of words is completely wrong.

And yes, you, the people that are defending Chávez in this thread, are absolute, or at least deluded, ignorants. For most of you, ideology has clouded your senses, specially the "common" one, and makes you take positions not exactly easy to sustain in favor of some foreign official, just because you identify with the vague ideology he SEEMS to be defending. Most of you have no means at all to know if Chávez's promises and statements are real or hypocritical, yet you seem to be fanatics of the boy, just because he claims to be a "socialist". There is more in goverment management than theorical politics. Have you ever asked about the postulates of the "XXI Century Socialism" he promotes? Have you checked if those agree with your own views about socialism? I advise you to do so before spitting more nonsense about the goverment you defend, and you barely know of. Perhaps you will find out that he's not as good as you all think he is.

Thanks, my dos bolívares (and that's two cents for you) about this issue. Take or leave it.

He's been painting a "BOMB ME" since 2004. He has a personal grudge against Bush and he loves telling EVERYONE about it.

A grudge towards the head of the administration of a rogue nation that encouraged, supported and then embarassed themselves publicly by recognising as legitimate the coup leaders who tried to oust the democratically elected president of a democratic country whose first action was to suspend the constitution.


A grudge doesn't really seem unreasonable.

If we spun it around and it had been some other country doing that to the
states,
I'm thinking they would be still killing the men,women and children of that country in retaliation.

So indeed true but then Chavez tells the world that we were behind it. Who is the world going to believe :mad:

When the US was the only country to recognise the coup leaders as the legitimate government of Venezuela, in the tiny window of opportunity there was to do so before Chavez was reinstated, that was when the US told the world that they were behind it.

One of the few things that Chavez and the US administration agreed upon.

One side unfortunately doesn't have backbone to admit to their part in failure after the event.

I think he’s got style, and I hardly think the decrees he’ll come up with will be any better or worse that what the Venezuelan legislature would come up with themselves.

What he is doing is kicking the hornet nest. He will get stung and badly if he doesn't cease immediatly.

Ohohohohohohohohohoho!

Kicking the hornet's nest? By doing what? By making policies in HIS country that ELECTED him that are against the interests of the USA? Or by deservedly insulting the US government that tried to coup him out? You have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to threaten him.

I think he’s got style, and I hardly think the decrees he’ll come up with will be any better or worse that what the Venezuelan legislature would come up with themselves.

I belive that aswell.

We have been hearing alot about how he is destroying the freedom of the press , he's a tinpot dictator, etc ... all of which are completely inconsistent with the facts.

To my knowledge, the periodicals who where strongly supportive of the 2002 coup are still running and continue their bitter attacks on the government, Sumate ( us funded oposition and subversion organization ) is still functioning and manuel rosales, also a strong suporter of the 2002 coup even ran as a candidate in the last year elections. I guess all of this combined with the sharp venezuelan public support for chavez's government is pretty much the reason why he's called a dictator , " a new stalin" etc ... this has happened before ...

I used to live in canada but i live in europe now.The overall sense is some sort of expectation ... half of the world is waiting to see if some common sense still exists among the US population and activist pool ( the ones who can have the most dramatic effect on the industries responsible for stuff like this "chaves=tinpot dictator" crap ). Keep letting the world down and not even your infernal war machine will be able to save you from the consequences of allowing antidemocratic/genocidal policies to be carried out in your name.

This said, i hope the venezuelan leadership and government successfully evade some of their own authoritharian tendencies, for which i think there is a justification, namely, resistance to US-led multi-level interference.

When the US was the only country to recognise the coup leaders as the legitimate government of Venezuela, in the tiny window of opportunity there was to do so before Chavez was reinstated, that was when the US told the world that they were behind it.

Wrong definition of the phrase behind it. We did not organize it, we did not do anything to precipitate it. Hell, we even WARNED CHAVEZ it was coming.

Wrong definition of the phrase behind it. We did not organize it, we did not do anything to precipitate it. Hell, we even WARNED CHAVEZ it was coming.

:rolleyes:

2001: Hydrocarbon Law enacted on Nov 13. It went into effect January 2002. Exxon, BP, and Shell from that point on would keep only 70% of the sales revenue from the crude they sold, as opposed to 84% in the past.

2002: Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemispheric Affairs, Otto Reich, met with Venezuelan billionaires. Not too long after that, on April 11, 2002, Chavez was kidnapped and Pedro Carmona, Commerce Chamber president and oil industry lawyer, becomes President for a day.

, Oceania was neither socialist nor capitalist. It was a dystopian system that used the worst of BOTH.

Proof? Please suggest from the text what means of production in Oceania were privately owned?

Proof? Please suggest from the text what means of production in Oceania were privately owned?

Owned by the government, yes, but still there were traits of capitalism, such as the fact that there are things that can be considered luxury readily available and frequent in use (Victory Gin), whereas in socialism the government tends to keep the citizens with way less of what can be seen as luxury.

Then again, I may have mis-expressed myself: Orwell has warned that his system was not dependant on economy, but on politics; it could happen in a capitalist society (I even started a dystopian novel ABOUT something like it happening in a capitalist system...).

who can't people realize that all world leaders are fundamentally bad. doesn't matter if its chavez, bush, or idi amin. they are all egotistical, maglomaniac, and rotten bastards. the only thing we should be discussing is the degree.

all leaders would be tyrannical facist opressors if given the chance imo.

:rolleyes:

Same to you. You still have not proved that we organized or precipitated it. You forgot the fact that we warned him. Now that we got that cleared up, go away.

Owned by the government, yes, but still there were traits of capitalism, such as the fact that there are things that can be considered luxury readily available and frequent in use (Victory Gin), whereas in socialism the government tends to keep the citizens with way less of what can be seen as luxury.

A socialism is defined as a system where the state owns the means of production, transiting into communism where the means of production are commonly-owned by the proletariat.

At least if I remember my Marx right.

A socialism is defined as a system where the state owns the means of production, transiting into communism where the means of production are commonly-owned by the proletariat.

At least if I remember my Marx right.

Some of my sources said there were capitalistic elements in 1984. I'm assuming it's the luxuries. Regardless, Orwell did say that it was a warning against a totalitarian system, regardless of who has the means of production.

Okay, now can we all go and discuss how to best overthrow Chavez?

P.S. I suggest US invasion.

Okay, now can we all go and discuss how to best overthrow Chavez?

P.S. I suggest US invasion.

As badly as I would love to see the bastard be overthrown, it's not our job to do so.

Okay, now can we all go and discuss how to best overthrow Chavez?

P.S. I suggest US invasion.

Depends, could we also invade the US for the innumerable criminal actions Bush undertook? Among which trying to coup out the man who "dared" to say Bush should go to Hell, as opposed to actually trying to SEND him there?

As badly as I would love to see the bastard be overthrown, it's not our job to do so.

Same goes to Bush.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

I always wondered why all those demonstrators were calling for Chavez's return to his legitimately elected office if he was so widely despised....

You didn't hear? It's Chavez's mind control rays! Apparently, the Administration and its supporters think that whoever disagrees with them are undemocratic and/or under the effect of mind control rays.

Same to you. You still have not proved that we organized or precipitated it. You forgot the fact that we warned him. Now that we got that cleared up, go away.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

I always wondered why all those demonstrators were calling for Chavez's return to his legitimately elected office if he was so widely despised....

As badly as I would love to see the bastard be overthrown, it's not our job to do so.

Actually... last I checked, the US military's job is to do what it's citizens say.

So, supposing *I* (a non-American) persuaded an American to support the issue, and he magically persuaded enough other Americans to back the policy, this WOULD be the job of the US Army.

Depends, could we also invade the US for the innumerable criminal actions Bush undertook?

Sure, once Bush descends to suspending Congress and declaring himself a ruler.

Same goes to Bush.

True.

What sort of rumors is the US spreading about Chavez?
No need too Chavez does a pretty good job of making an ass out of himself without help

Actually... last I checked, the US military's job is to do what it's citizens say.

So, supposing *I* (a non-American) persuaded an American to support the issue, and he magically persuaded enough other Americans to back the policy, this WOULD be the job of the US Army.

That means we can also overthrow other governments by simple majority in OTHER nations? Good, I'll remember that when we're talking about a ruler you agree with.

Sure, once Bush descends to suspending Congress and declaring himself a ruler.

That means we'll talk about it once Chavez ACTUALLY does the same. Very well.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

I always wondered why all those demonstrators were calling for Chavez's return to his legitimately elected office if he was so widely despised....

I could have some guesses but then that is all they will be.

I don't agree with Rand on a lot of thing, but I rather like her ideas on foreign policy.


Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany, and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of it's own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.

This right, however, is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society inn a conquered country.

A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if uncrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when the conquerors establish a free social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights.

Since there is no fully free country today, since the so-called "Free World" consists of various "mixed economies," it might be asked whether every country on earth is morally open to invasion by every other. The answer is: No. There is a difference between a country that recognizes the principle of individual rights, but does not implement it fully in practice, and a country that denies and flouts it explicitly. All "mixed economies" are in a precarious state of transition which, ultimately, has to turn to freedom or collapse into dictatorship. There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule — executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses — the nationalization or expropriation of private property — and censorship. Any country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw.

Snip.

Venezuela doesn't have the traits you mentioned (at least not all, or not the ones that REALLY identify a dictatorship).

I could have some guesses but then that is all they will be.

LOL ! I knew you'd ignore the link ;)

LOL ! I knew you'd ignore the link ;)

Supporting a coup is by no means the same as executing it. We did not execute it. We merely recognized those behind it. Big difference.

Supporting a coup is by no means the same as executing it. We did not execute it. We merely recognized those behind it. Big difference.

Please...you know as well as I do what we are talking about. Of course you're not going to see the 101st Airborne on the streets of Caracas...

Supporting a coup is by no means the same as executing it. We did not execute it. We merely recognized those behind it. Big difference.

Let's assume that for a moment. Wouldn't it STILL be reasonable to tell Bush to go to Hell for supporting the coup?

Have you ever asked about the postulates of the "XXI Century Socialism" he promotes? Have you checked if those agree with your own views about socialism? ...
Thanks, my dos bolívares (and that's two cents for you) about this issue. Take or leave it.

If you could provide a link that discusses this, I would be grateful. If it is in English or shows all sides of the debate, that would be better. No me importa si esta en español, but I think others here would also like to read it, and they may not enjoy struggling through a complicated spanish text.

Si no, quizas me puedes sugerir un libro?

Wrong definition of the phrase behind it. We did not organize it, we did not do anything to precipitate it. Hell, we even WARNED CHAVEZ it was coming.

I always wondered where this meme came from. I did some research, as you failed to provide a link.

The wiki article mentions the supposed warning:
According to William Brownfield, ambassador to Venezuela, the U.S. embassy in Venezuela warned Chávez about a coup plot in April 2002.[49]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#2002:_Coup_and_strike.2Flockout

The footnote provides this link:
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/venezuela/2897.html

Here we are:
On Tuesday, the current U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, William Brownfield, admitted that "Vice President Rangel is telling the truth. On two occasions, Ambassador Shapiro informed the Venezuelan authorities of actions against the current administration." Brownfield did not clarify the origin of these actions.

"The first time was in April 2002, when he spoke to the (Venezuelan) president about the possibilities of a coup," said Brownfield.

On Apr. 11, 2002, Chávez was ousted in a short-lived coup, and business leader Pedro Carmona was named de facto president.

Now, Bloomfield is a little vague about the details. But all we know is that Ambassador Shapiro informed Chavez about the possibilities of a coup, sometime in April, 2002.

If this conversation occured after the 11th, the information was useless, so let's assume it occured prior to the 11th. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that at exactly midnight on April 1st, Shapiro immediately rushed to Chavez and told him that a coup may be possible.

I think that by then, Chavez may already have realised that a coup 'may be possible', as he is not a complete moron. So this information was also useless, unless it provided information to Chavez that would help him defend himself against the coup. We have no proof that such a thing occured.

To me, it looks more like the US was covering its ass.

*snip*

Never use wikipedia for research.

Never use wikipedia for research.

Yeah. Use JACK instead of a page that was proven to be mostly reliable.

Yeah. Use JACK instead of a page that was proven to be mostly reliable.

I know of several college professors who will flunk you if you use Wikipedia. These are both History and Political Science Professors.

Chavez is the blatant puerile international troll. I wonder who his puppet is though...

Never use wikipedia for research.

I find your reticence enlightening.

However you are right about wiki for the most part. It is not a be all and end all. Hence the link to the Observer article I posted and the Global Exchange link posted by Gift of God.

I notice you ignore those and have a go at wiki.

Your credibility is swiftly vanishing.

Never use wikipedia for research.

I mentioned the wikipedia article only because it provided the actual source I used.

This one
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/venezuela/2897.html

The wikipedia article, and its questionable veracity, have nothing to do with this article, or Brownfield's statements.

Seeing as you did not provide any link at all for your claim about Chavez, I suggest you may not be the best person to question other people's abilities to cite their sources.

I know of several college professors who will flunk you if you use Wikipedia. These are both History and Political Science Professors.

Why I said mostly. Regardless, wikipedia.com still beats jackshit.com...

I find your reticence enlightening.

Imagine how much that means to me.

However you are right about wiki for the most part. It is not a be all and end all. Hence the link to the Observer article I posted and the Global Exchange link posted by Gift of God.

I notice you ignore those and have a go at wiki.

Because Wiki is not all that much credible.

Your credibility is swiftly vanishing.

:rolleyes:

Imagine how much that means to me.

Probably very little...which means that you are not interested in debate.



Because Wiki is not all that much credible.

Yes. As I mentioned. It seems however that you are using it as an excuse to invalidate a source separate from wiki. So...I guess in your mind this means that any source quoted on wiki is also suspect. Interesting how your logic works.


:rolleyes:

Quite.

So...you asked for evidence and it was given to you. Instead of debating the evidence you are ignoring it and attacking wiki instead.

hmmmmm Are you related to Shrub?

Never use wikipedia for research.

Poisoning-the-Well is a logical fallacy.

If you can prove the story untrue, do so.

If you can prove the source is wrong, do so.

But, to say the story must be false, because of the nature of the source? Not an 'acceptable' debate tactic.

Also - I'm under the impression that the score is currently:

Them = 1 source (whether or not it is a 'good source' - oh, 2 sources really - if you look at the wiki source, it cites it's references)

v's

You = no sources at all... am I right?

Poisoning-the-Well is a logical fallacy.

If you can prove the story untrue, do so.

If you can prove the source is wrong, do so.

But, to say the story must be false, because of the nature of the source? Not an 'acceptable' debate tactic.

Also - I'm under the impression that the score is currently:

Them = 1 source (whether or not it is a 'good source' - oh, 2 sources really - if you look at the wiki source, it cites it's references)

v's

You = no sources at all... am I right?

when debating I don't use links because links used support the view of the debater so are either biased or suspect...so if using a link is just a extention of my point of view why use it, it carries no more weight than the posters opinion....

Wikipedia sucks because it is unreliable, the contributors who write the articles often include evidence to support their personal beliefs and ignore others that do not...many Uni profs will often give zero credit to students using Wiki as source for research...

I use links only to inform posters of interesting articles...

that's just me,many don't like it but they'll have to live with it...

there is a new website being constructed that will address Wiki's shortcomings, only those who have expertise on a subject will be allowed to edit and contribute...and all their articles must pass a peer review before being posted...

Poisoning-the-Well is a logical fallacy.

If you can prove the story untrue, do so.

If you can prove the source is wrong, do so.

But, to say the story must be false, because of the nature of the source? Not an 'acceptable' debate tactic.

Also - I'm under the impression that the score is currently:

Them = 1 source (whether or not it is a 'good source' - oh, 2 sources really - if you look at the wiki source, it cites it's references)

v's

You = no sources at all... am I right?

Nope.

Nope.

Allegheny, I would like you views or comments on this:

On Tuesday, the current U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, William Brownfield, admitted that "Vice President Rangel is telling the truth. On two occasions, Ambassador Shapiro informed the Venezuelan authorities of actions against the current administration." Brownfield did not clarify the origin of these actions.

"The first time was in April 2002, when he spoke to the (Venezuelan) president about the possibilities of a coup," said Brownfield.

On Apr. 11, 2002, Chávez was ousted in a short-lived coup, and business leader Pedro Carmona was named de facto president.

Now, Brownfield is a little vague about the details. But all we know is that Ambassador Shapiro informed Chavez about the possibilities of a coup, sometime in April, 2002.

If this conversation occured after the 11th, the information was useless, so let's assume it occured prior to the 11th. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that at exactly midnight on April 1st, Shapiro immediately rushed to Chavez and told him that a coup may be possible.

I think that by then, Chavez may already have realised that a coup 'may be possible', as he is not a complete moron. So this information was also useless, unless it provided information to Chavez that would help him defend himself against the coup. We have no proof that such a thing occured.

To me, it looks more like the US was covering its ass.

when debating I don't use links because links used support the view of the debater so are either biased or suspect...so if using a link is just a extention of my point of view why use it, it carries no more weight than the posters opinion....

Wikipedia sucks because it is unreliable, the contributors who write the articles often include evidence to support their personal beliefs and ignore others that do not...many Uni profs will often give zero credit to students using Wiki as source for research...

I use links only to inform posters of interesting articles...

that's just me,many don't like it but they'll have to live with it...

there is a new website being constructed that will address Wiki's shortcomings, only those who have expertise on a subject will be allowed to edit and contribute...and all their articles must pass a peer review before being posted...

Have you ever even bothered to check Wiki? There already is a system of 'flags' to warn about content that is questioned, open to debate, un-sourced... even just badly worded.

Add to that, though it is fairly open, it is not uncommon for material to be 'locked' - such that unsanctioned attempts to edit are either automatically trapped, or are flagged and restored.

If I were a college lecturer, my argument against Wiki sources would be that it is a shortcut - the student doesn't need to find his/her sources, because it has already been done.

Regardless - we are not talking about thesis research, or sourcing a dissertation - we are talking about whether Wikipedia is a valid source for information for debate. Logically, unless you can fault the material, it stands - so - yes. You can't (realistically) decide to ignore someone else's sources, just because you don't like them.

Nope.

Well, I'm crushed by the impeccable unassailable wall of logic, and the scads of supporting evidence... :rolleyes:

Well, I'm crushed by the impeccable unassailable wall of logic, and the scads of supporting evidence... :rolleyes:

I think its pretty apparent that the guy really has nothing to support his claims. His inability to even comment on the evidence shown so far is a pretty good indication that he never intended a debate. I would say that the intent was to shower the thread with shit in the hope some would stick.

ah well. So much for Allegheny County 2 as a credible debator.

If you could provide a link that discusses this, I would be grateful. If it is in English or shows all sides of the debate, that would be better. No me importa si esta en español, but I think others here would also like to read it, and they may not enjoy struggling through a complicated spanish text.

Si no, quizas me puedes sugerir un libro?

That's the biggest part of the problem. There are no books, no treaties about it. It is supposed that William Izarra, a rather...violent and extremist follower of the president was going to make one, but all that I found when I went to his speech, was a cover design, and nothing more. And in the cover was the images of Ernesto "Che" Guevara, Fidel Castro, Simón Bolívar, Karl Marx and Jesus, (yeah, Jesus, Christ). He just talked about his efforts to find a definition for the "Socialism of the XXI century" and the debates about it. I find it is loosely based on Noam Chomsky, Antonio Gramsci and Heinz Dieterich Steffan.

http://www.puk.de/download/elsocialismo.pdf

Sadly, also it is hard to find anything that have the two sides of debate.

That's the biggest part of the problem. There are no books, no treaties about it. It is supposed that William Izarra, a rather...violent and extremist follower of the president was going to make one, but all that I found when I went to his speech, was a cover design, and nothing more. And in the cover was the images of Ernesto "Che" Guevara, Fidel Castro, Simón Bolívar, Karl Marx and Jesus, (yeah, Jesus, Christ). He just talked about his efforts to find a definition for the "Socialism of the XXI century" and the debates about it. I find it is loosely based on Noam Chomsky, Antonio Gramsci and Heinz Dieterich Steffan.

http://www.puk.de/download/elsocialismo.pdf

Sadly, also it is hard to find anything that have the two sides of debate.

Muchas gracias.

For personal reasons, I am very interested in Latin American socialism. I have great hopes for it, but reality may have something else to say.

Muchas gracias.

For personal reasons, I am very interested in Latin American socialism. I have great hopes for it, but reality may have something else to say.

It could be turn something good...Or bad.

The likes of Lula and Evo Morales can turn it into something good.

The likes of Chávez and Kitschner can turn it into something awful.

It could be turn something good...Or bad.

The likes of Lula and Evo Morales can turn it into something good.

The likes of Chávez and Kitschner can turn it into something awful.

I thought Morales was more akin to Chavez and Lula to Kirschner... I mean, Kirschner is less of a "socialist" than Morales is, and so is Lula...

well he totally pulled a fast one over our eyes didn't he... especially with that military buildup he's got going on. No, I dont think he gives on iota of care to the idea of our bombs.. why that would only serve to prove his point. That the US is out to take over the world :rolleyes:

More likely he's just running a PR campeign to make him look like a saint vs the "devil" bush

I don't think you HAVE to run a PR campaing to look like a saint near Bush, unless you're Kim Jong-Il...

Leftist presidents in Latin America have close to a seventy percent mortality rate because of American meddling. He's warding off the bombs, trust me.

well he totally pulled a fast one over our eyes didn't he... especially with that military buildup he's got going on. No, I dont think he gives on iota of care to the idea of our bombs.. why that would only serve to prove his point. That the US is out to take over the world :rolleyes:

More likely he's just running a PR campeign to make him look like a saint vs the "devil" bush

On the other hand, despite their systems of flags and alerts... there have been many cases (documented even by the media) where by blatently faulty information was distributed thereby highlighting the fact that it being an open encyloepdia means its open to potentially incorrect information. Eductional institutions frown on this and as an online tutor myself, I am barred from using wikipedia as a source of information to distribute to students.

Maybe you can use it as a source.. there is a good chance the info is correct.. but why weaken your argument by using questionable sources when (provided your argument is sound) you can find the same info from more secure sources.

I don't have anything to contribute to the debate, but I thought I should interject by informing you that your NS name makes me think of lasagna.

Have you ever even bothered to check Wiki? There already is a system of 'flags' to warn about content that is questioned, open to debate, un-sourced... even just badly worded.

Add to that, though it is fairly open, it is not uncommon for material to be 'locked' - such that unsanctioned attempts to edit are either automatically trapped, or are flagged and restored.

If I were a college lecturer, my argument against Wiki sources would be that it is a shortcut - the student doesn't need to find his/her sources, because it has already been done.

Regardless - we are not talking about thesis research, or sourcing a dissertation - we are talking about whether Wikipedia is a valid source for information for debate. Logically, unless you can fault the material, it stands - so - yes. You can't (realistically) decide to ignore someone else's sources, just because you don't like them.

On the other hand, despite their systems of flags and alerts... there have been many cases (documented even by the media) where by blatently faulty information was distributed thereby highlighting the fact that it being an open encyloepdia means its open to potentially incorrect information. Eductional institutions frown on this and as an online tutor myself, I am barred from using wikipedia as a source of information to distribute to students.

Maybe you can use it as a source.. there is a good chance the info is correct.. but why weaken your argument by using questionable sources when (provided your argument is sound) you can find the same info from more secure sources.

I don't think you HAVE to run a PR campaing to look like a saint near Bush, unless you're Kim Jong-Il...

you may not HAVE to.. but when your power is based on the ignorance of the masses... PR campaigns are most helpful

I thought Morales was more akin to Chavez and Lula to Kirschner... I mean, Kirschner is less of a "socialist" than Morales is, and so is Lula...

Morales is a genuine socialist. He's interested in the welfare of his people, no matter what. Lula is also interested in improving Brazil's security and economy. Chávez and Kitschner, on the other hand, seem to be interested only in maintain themselves in power.

...according to you.

Yes, I don't sign my posts under anyone else's name.

Do you?

Morales is a genuine socialist. He's interested in the welfare of his people, no matter what. Lula is also interested in improving Brazil's security and economy. Chávez and Kitschner, on the other hand, seem to be interested only in maintain themselves in power.

...according to you.