NationStates Jolt Archive

King of Spain among others gets pissed at Hugo Chavez of Venezuela
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071110/wl_nm/chile_summit_dc
SANTIAGO (Reuters) - Spain's King Juan Carlos told Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Saturday to "shut up" during closing speeches by leaders from the Latin world that brought the Ibero-American summit to an acrimonious end.
ADVERTISEMENT

"Why don't you shut up?" the king shouted at Chavez, pointing a finger at the president when he tried to interrupt a speech by Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

...

Honestly, I couldn't care less what they were getting mad about. I'm just happy that somebody yelled at Chavez and that other leaders got pissed at him. I disagree with Bush and imperialism, too. However, Chavez is just as effective and intelligent as Mr. Bill the Anarchist down at Central Park in New York City.

That made my day :D

Chavez does nothing but make personal attacks on others. His apologists are so pathetic. He makes Bush look like a model statesman, which I didn't think was possible.

It was remarkably silly of Chavez to call Aznar a "fascist". It robs the word of its true meaning, by trivialising it.

Juan Carlos' reaction was understandable in the heat of the moment, I suppose, albeit not exactly examplary for a king.

I generally support Chavez, by the way. But unlike the morons who will criticise him for anything he does, good or bad, and unlike those who will defend anything he does, I criticise him when he deserves it and praise him when he deserves it. I find it remarkably sad that most people can only do one or the other.

I think it would have been more newsworthy if someone told the Pope or Dalai Lama to shut up. Now that's journalism you can take to the bank!

Chavez does nothing but make personal attacks on others. His apologists are so pathetic. He makes Bush look like a model statesman, which I didn't think was possible.

lmao i dont know much about Chavez (sorry to any french people) but that line made me chuckle(bolded) .... i never thought anyone would/could say someone was sillier than Bush (some of his bloopers are quality let alone his errors diplomatically (though some of those are more serious than funny)

lmao i dont know much about Chavez (sorry to any french people) but that line made me chuckle(bolded) .... i never thought anyone would/could say someone was sillier than Bush (some of his bloopers are quality let alone his errors diplomatically (though some of those are more serious than funny)Venezuelans

lmao i dont know much about Chavez (sorry to any french people) but that line made me chuckle(bolded) .... i never thought anyone would/could say someone was sillier than Bush (some of his bloopers are quality let alone his errors diplomatically (though some of those are more serious than funny)

You really reinforce that lack of knowledge. Venezuela is not French but Spanish; former Spanish colony. :)

never thought anyone would/could say someone was sillier than Bush

The president of Iran? "There are no homosexuals in Iran, that is entirely an American phenomenon."

lmao i dont know much about Chavez (sorry to any french people)

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3936/mapworldiw7.jpg

Venezuelans

lmao glad i can claim drunkeness as an excuse(now i got to google the bloke incharge of france to find out the spelling of his name ... magners ftl Laerod and Kryozerkia ftw)


though please note id have probably thought that was the french president even when sober with out clicking the link .... was only laughing at the fact that someone thought someone was as bad/worse than Bush ... it doesnt happen to often ... and someone saying it nearly cost me a mouth full of cider lol


*edit*wow cheers for the map ... im atleast a president behind in France >.< lol

The president of Iran? "There are no homosexuals in Iran, that is entirely an American phenomenon."

Ah hes a head on the sex change thing though (though second read it made me chuckle)

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3936/mapworldiw7.jpg

http://www.irishhealth.com/content/image/12146/saltshaker.jpg

King of Spain among others gets pissed at Hugo Chavez of Venezuela
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071110/wl_nm/chile_summit_dc


Honestly, I couldn't care less what they were getting mad about. I'm just happy that somebody yelled at Chavez and that other leaders got pissed at him. I disagree with Bush and imperialism, too. However, Chavez is just as effective and intelligent as Mr. Bill the Anarchist down at Central Park in New York City.

Chavez is a total idiot, I'm not surprised that he made a king go non-diplomatic.

The president of Iran? "There are no homosexuals in Iran, that is entirely an American phenomenon."

If they had a census I'm sure it'd show 0 homosexuals.

If they had a census I'm sure it'd show 0 homosexuals.

Probably because they get flogged if they told the truth.

I fucking haaaaaate that leftist scum...and I've just made friends with a Venezuelan immigrant girl in one of my classes and we chat about why her family left Venezuela and I now get the inside stories about how shitty he really is. :)


Oh, and here are some more details on what exactly happend. Give me a break, Chavez, you punk bitch.
Mr Chavez called Mr Aznar, a close ally of US President George W Bush, a fascist, adding "fascists are not human. A snake is more human."

Mr Zapatero said: "Former President Aznar was democratically elected by the Spanish people and was a legitimate representative of the Spanish people."

Mr Chavez repeatedly tried to interrupt, despite his microphone being turned off. The king leaned forward and said: "Why don't you shut up?"

According to reports, the king used a familiar term normally used only for close acquaintances - or children.

Lol. Chávez and Bush are fairly similar in that - they both trade heavily on their "close to the people" charm, which translates into "I can't behave myself in sophisticated company". It's just that Bush has better minders, so apart from the occasionaly "Yo Blair" he's kept under wraps most of the time. :D

Lol. Chávez and Bush are fairly similar in that - they both trade heavily on their "close to the people" charm, which translates into "I can't behave myself in sophisticated company". It's just that Bush has better minders, so apart from the occasionaly "Yo Blair" he's kept under wraps most of the time. :D
LOL....Did he really?

King Juan Carlos = epic win.

LOL....Did he really?

Yup. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo%2C_Blair)

It's still not as bad as Pootie-Poot, though. :p

King of Spain among others gets pissed at Hugo Chavez of Venezuela
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071110/wl_nm/chile_summit_dc


Honestly, I couldn't care less what they were getting mad about. I'm just happy that somebody yelled at Chavez and that other leaders got pissed at him. I disagree with Bush and imperialism, too. However, Chavez is just as effective and intelligent as Mr. Bill the Anarchist down at Central Park in New York City.

That's hilarious. The king of spain is my new hero.

LOL....Did he really?

I've never heard of that happening before

It's good to be the King.

If they had a census I'm sure it'd show 0 homosexuals.Or it would very shortly afterwards, at any rate.

Just like back in the good ol' days when rulers would act like that to each other and could back it up with a completely unnecessary war.

Click Stand;13205951']Just like back in the good ol' days when rulers would act like that to each other and could back it up with a completely unnecessary war.It's still practised all over the place. Just mostly by "warlord" type rulers. Too inconvenient for the more powerful ones.

Old Hugo is still alienating the world. I wonder how many friends other than Castro he will have after this latest stunt. He really pissed off Juan Carlos the King of Spain and even upset the Spanish PM by calling the former Spanish PM a fascist.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071111/ts_afp/iberoamsummitvenezuelaspain_071111015653

Spain's monarch stormed out just before the scheduled end of the forum, visibly furious at Chavez's description of his former prime minister as a "fascist" and for launching a wide-ranging tirade that could not be stopped.

The dispute was a dramatic finale for the 17th meeting of the heads of state and government of Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries in Latin America, and Spain, Portugal and Andorra, which started Thursday.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542908

The thing that finally convinced me he wasn't very nice was when he dissed the esteemed authority of Burger King and the Hamburglar!

It's still practised all over the place. Just mostly by "warlord" type rulers. Too inconvenient for the more powerful ones.

God bless America.

LOL

Chavez is an attention whore, just like Shrub is.

Well at least Bush's antics are usually unintentional; Chavez' are intentional. Nevertheless, both are stupid antics.

El rey de espana jean charles is a Cry baby.

video 1
Presidente Chavez speaks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb3HZ7K1gTk

video 2

el rey Jean Charles totally loses it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBGHer3yFyc

Video 3 (Spain TV)

The cry baby leaves to cry elsewhere.. :D
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/11/10/videos/1194717125.html


How the South American media sees this unprecedented diplomatic incident.

http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Mundo/0,,MUL177000-5602,00-NENHUM+CHEFE+DE+ESTADO+PODE+MANDAR+OUTRO+SE+CALAR+DIZ+CHAVEZ.html
http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Mundo/0,,MUL176749-5602,00-REI+DA+ESPANHA+BATE+BOCA+COM+CHAVEZ+E+ABANDONA+PLENARIO+DE+CUPULA.html

video 2

el rey Jean Charles totally loses it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBGHer3yFyc
Pienso que el estaba correcto.....Chavez no lo dejó a hablar!

Dijó el Rey, "por que no te calles?":D

Viva el Rey!:)

This is not just another diplomatic incident.. this is like a diplomatic mega incident.. and it is going to shape the relations between the Ibero Countries for a long-long time.

Pienso que el estaba correcto..... de veras?
Chavez no lo dejó a hablar!No es la primera vez que un preidente interrumpe a otro.. en una de estas cumbres.

Dijó el Rey, "por que no te calles?"de la manera en que el rey -decorativo- le falto al respeto a un presidente, jamas paso antes el la historia de estas cumbres iberoamericanas ... esto va a dejar huellas.

de veras?
Totalmente.
No es la primera vez que un preidente interrumpe a otro.. en una de estas cumbres.
Estaba la primera vez yo vi. Chavez necesita respetar los Espanoles y los necesita dejar a decir que querren decir! El desconcerto su nacion.de la manera en que el rey -decorativo- le falto al respeto a un presidente
Espana es su Pais! El estaba defendiendo su Pais! Chavez necesita respetar a los Espanoles y hablar solomente durante su tiempo.
jamas paso antes el la historia de estas cumbres iberoamericanas ... esto va a dejar huellas.
Pienso que si tambien pero vamos a ver que pasara.

Estaba la primera vez yo vi.ya me lo imaginaba.. you dont have enough experience.
Check some presidential TV debates...
Spanish or American ;)

ya me lo imaginaba.. you dont have enough experience.
Check some presidential TV debates...
Spanish or American ;)
Es muy diferente! Esos son solomente con Americanos pero esos (con Chavez) son internacional y represtan los Paises y la genete de los Paises....

Es muy diferente! Esos son solomente con Americanos pero esos (con Chavez) son internacional y represtan los Paises y la genete de los Paises....a vecez los presidentes se interrumpen.. international or not. How many cumbres have you seen?

There was a time not too long ago when pissing off the King of Spain was a really BAD idea. :p

There was a time not too long ago when pissing off the King of Spain was a really BAD idea. :pYeah? When?

http://afp.google.com/media/ALeqM5h8cVrsEtgiRFm4b5AOUJEF3zbIGg?size=m http://www.euronews.net/images_news/1111-matin-IBAm.jpg

Yeah? When?

Um... I understand that Charles IV was a big guy that could kick some ass. :p

Um... I understand that Charles IV was a big guy that could kick some ass. :pThat was in the 1790s...

That was in the 1790s...

Really? Time flies...

Yeah? When?

The sixteenth century, for example.

The sixteenth century, for example.And that's not so long ago for you? :rolleyes:

And that's not so long ago for you? :rolleyes:

"Time is an illusion; Lunchtime doubly so." -Douglas Adams.

:)

And that's not so long ago for you? :rolleyes:

Your sarcasm detector is broken, methinks. Go and get a new one.

ya me lo imaginaba.. you dont have enough experience.

How many cumbres have you seen?

Really, I don't believe the "you're young and ignorant, therefore your opinion is negligible to me" argument will impress many of us nowadays...

Um... I understand that Charles IV was a big guy that could kick some ass. :p

Actually, Charles IV was easily manipulated by his wife the Queen, by her lover and de facto ruler Manuel de Godoy, and by Napoleon, to whom he ultimately handed Spain over.

Really, I don't believe the "you're young and ignorant, therefore your opinion is negligible to me" argument will impress many of us nowadays...



Actually, Charles IV was easily manipulated by his wife the Queen, by her lover and de facto ruler Manuel de Godoy, and by Napoleon, to whom he ultimately handed Spain over.

I never said he was the brightest color in the crayon box. ;)

It was remarkably silly of Chavez to call Aznar a "fascist". It robs the word of its true meaning, by trivialising it.

Since Aznar supported the fascist coup against Chávez in 2002, I don't think it's really that off from the truth.

It was clumsy from him, and I don't think he should have done it, but I really understand his feelings, and on the core, he's quite close to the truth.

Your sarcasm detector is broken, methinks. Go and get a new one.Your sarcasm creator is broken, methinks. Go and get a new one.

Since Aznar supported the fascist coup against Chávez in 2002...
Yeah, that's what Ariddia meant by trivialising the word. Thanks for the illustration, surely made entirely for educational reasons.

I never said he was the brightest color in the crayon box. ;)

No, you didn't. :) By the way, I must say that my first sentence has nothing to do with your post. Perhaps I should have posted it separately.

Old Hugo is still alienating the world. I wonder how many friends other than Castro he will have after this latest stunt.

Actually, he's more and more popular. Polls done over the whole Latin America show that he's the most popular president (Bush being the less popular one), and more and more elected leaders are proudly close to Chávez (Morales, Correa, Ortega, and even the Kirchner in Argentina).

He really pissed off Juan Carlos the King of Spain and even upset the Spanish PM by calling the former Spanish PM a fascist.

Which is an exageration, but not that far from truth - Aznar DID support a fascist coup against elected Chávez in 2002.

Since Aznar supported the fascist coup against Chávez in 2002, I don't think it's really that off from the truth.

Chávez himself tried to seize power by means of a coup d'état.

No, you didn't. :) By the way, I must say that my first sentence has nothing to do with your post. Perhaps I should have posted it separately.

I know. I could have just as easily cut out the part that didn't apply to me, but I'm trying to get Little Goofball reasonably clothed while I do this. :)

Nobility obliged his majesty to do the right thing.

Viva el Rey!

The pink cucaracha should have been made to kiss el Rey's ring before he left, to add further insult.

Chávez himself seized power by means of a coup d'état.

That's not true. Chávez came to power by a regular election, in 1998.

For the full story: after the bloodbath (above 3000 deaths) of the repression of the Caracazo by the venezuelian government in 1989, Chávez started to organize a coup, which he attempted in 1992, but he failed, and was sentenced to jail.

The population didn't oppose this "coup" attempt - in fact, they started to demonstrate to free Chávez. In 1993, the president (against whom Chávez did revolt) was fired for corruption facts, and new elections were hold. The candidate who proposed to release Chávez was elected, partly because of this proposition.

Then, Chávez started to campaign, and he achieved power by regular elections, in 1998. His power was confirmed by elections over elections (2000, 2004, 2007 just for himself), each time with a larger margin.

In 2002, it was really a coup, the army made Chávez prisoner, Carmona was proclaimed president, dissolved all democratic institutions (assembly, supreme court, constitution, ...) and imposed martial law. But 2 days after, a massive upraising of millions of venezuelian forced Carmona to flee, and the loyalist part of the army rescued Chávez, who then continued his term.

The pink cucaracha should have been made to kiss el Rey's ring before he left, to add further insult.
:D

Viva Bolívar! Viva!

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3936/mapworldiw7.jpg

Now you've gone off and confused him further by making him think that Brazil is French :(

Yeah, that's what Ariddia meant by trivialising the word. Thanks for the illustration, surely made entirely for educational reasons.

What is trivialising the word ? Calling the Carmona coup of "fascist" ? I don't know how else to call someone who use the army to take power, then dissolve all democratic institutions, suspend the constitution, arrest elected representatives, force shutdown of media, and proclame martial law against any demonstration.

What is trivialising the word ?
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

There we go. You can call it communist too, if you want - afterall the Soviets used quite similar tactics. But I have a feeling you won't.

By the way, I think I ought to congratulate you on your amazing ability to describe one and the same thing, once in '92 then in '02, but making it look completely different. You really should go into politics, they need people with the gift of creative perception. ;)

What is trivialising the word ? Calling the Carmona coup of "fascist" ? I don't know how else to call someone who use the army to take power, then dissolve all democratic institutions, suspend the constitution, arrest elected representatives, force shutdown of media, and proclame martial law against any demonstration.You know, that sounds a lot like Chavez...

That's not true. Chávez came to power by a regular election, in 1998.

For the full story: after the bloodbath (above 3000 deaths) of the repression of the Caracazo by the venezuelian government in 1989, Chávez started to organize a coup, which he attempted in 1992, but he failed, and was sentenced to jail.

The population didn't oppose this "coup" attempt - in fact, they started to demonstrate to free Chávez. In 1993, the president (against whom Chávez did revolt) was fired for corruption facts, and new elections were hold. The candidate who proposed to release Chávez was elected, partly because of this proposition.

Then, Chávez started to campaign, and he achieved power by regular elections, in 1998. His power was confirmed by elections over elections (2000, 2004, 2007 just for himself), each time with a larger margin.

In 2002, it was really a coup, the army made Chávez prisoner, Carmona was proclaimed president, dissolved all democratic institutions (assembly, supreme court, constitution, ...) and imposed martial law. But 2 days after, a massive upraising of millions of venezuelian forced Carmona to flee, and the loyalist part of the army rescued Chávez, who then continued his term.

Here is a dramatic re-enactment of Nicaraguan History. Names have been changed to protect the Innocent countries involved. ((Guess who plays the United States? :D ))

http://bubblare.se/movie/duck_rabbit_duck_bugs_bunny_daffy_duck_elmer/

Here is a dramatic re-enactment of Nicaraguan History. Names have been changed to protect the Innocent countries involved. ((Guess who plays the United States? :D ))

http://bubblare.se/movie/duck_rabbit_duck_bugs_bunny_daffy_duck_elmer/

Filthy lies! It doesn't snow in Nicaragua! :mad:

That's not true. Chávez came to power by a regular election, in 1998.

Yes, I edited that as soon as I noticed. He tried to seize power. I apologize for the mistyping.

I will not say a word on figures about the Caracazo. To me it's equally horrible if there were 3000 victims or less than 300. But you seem to assume that anyone who goes after that monstruosity is a hero or inherently good. You don't talk about the repression, the manipulation of media, the murders of protestors which have taken place during the Chávez era. You don't mention the fact that during the 2002 incidents it were Chávez's armed forces that shot the crowds. And you talk about the Venezuelan people as a homogeneous entity... As if those who think differently didn't matter at all. I don't share your concept of democracy.

Now you've gone off and confused him further by making him think that Brazil is French :(

LOL. I suppose that line was a little too long... I was actually pointing at French Guiana, of course (which, as a département d'outre-mer, is considered part of France itself, rather than an overseas territory).

What is trivialising the word ? Calling the Carmona coup of "fascist" ? I don't know how else to call someone who use the army to take power, then dissolve all democratic institutions, suspend the constitution, arrest elected representatives, force shutdown of media, and proclame martial law against any demonstration.

I almost forgot: talking about forcing shutdown of media, the Venezuelan government forced last year the shutdown of the oldest and second largest TV channel in the country, the RCTV, because it was too critical about the political situation.

Now you've gone off and confused him further by making him think that Brazil is French :(
?? French Guyana is French.

By the way, I think I ought to congratulate you on your amazing ability to describe one and the same thing, once in '92 then in '02, but making it look completely different. You really should go into politics, they need people with the gift of creative perception. ;)

You know, that sounds a lot like Chavez...

There were some very important differences between 1992 and 2002. The first one is that Chávez failed, so we would never know if he would have taken the drastic measures that Carmona took (suspending all democratical institutions and rights, instoring martial law, ...).

The other difference is the completely different situation, and the completely different reaction of the people. The difference between a "coup" and a "revolution" may be sometime hard to point, but the Chávez attempt to remove a corrupt government that used massive repression, of which the population didn't oppose is much closer to a "revolution", while the Carmona attempt to gain full powers, against a government which was very respective of human rights, and against the will of a strong majority of the population is much closer to a "coup".

Another difference is that Chávez never attempted to flee. He accepted the full responsibility of his acts, and if he was set free later on, it was only because the population wanted him to be free. And after that, he decided to take a more responsible path, and respected the laws of democracy.

You don't talk about the repression, the manipulation of media, the murders of protestors which have taken place during the Chávez era.

Oh, I do. The manipulation of media is quite obvious - the media are, since the beginning of Chávez era, more opposite to Chávez than any other government would tolerate anywhere in the world.

The murders of protestors are massively done by the opposition, most of the victims are pro-Chávez, not anti-Chávez (especially in the rural areas, were hundred of pro-Chávez farmers were murdered by the militia of the big land owners).

As for the repression, there were much less repression under Chávez than any time before in Venezuela, and even much less than in countries like France or Italy.

You don't mention the fact that during the 2002 incidents it were Chávez's armed forces that shot the crowds.

That was a lie of the media. The armed forces which opened fire was the metropolitan police of Caracas, at that time controlled by the opposition. And most of the victims were Chávez supporters !

And you talk about the Venezuelan people as a homogeneous entity...

Well, no, I'm perfectly aware that it's not homogeneous. But a strong majority (over 62% in latest election) supports Chávez.

As if those who think differently didn't matter at all. I don't share your concept of democracy.

I never said they don't matter... they are free to express themselves, and much more so in Venezuela than in most other countries of the planet.

I almost forgot: talking about forcing shutdown of media, the Venezuelan government forced last year the shutdown of the oldest and second largest TV channel in the country, the RCTV, because it was too critical about the political situation.

That's quite far from the truth.

In Venezuela, like nearly everywhere in the world, the broadcast frequencies, as a very scarce resource, are owned by the government, which can grant time-limited concessions to private corporations. The Venezuelian law, from before Chávez, limit concessions to 20 years.

During spring this year, hundred of such licences expired in radio and television. The Chávez government renewed the licenses of all of them except one - RCTV. That included license to another TV channel, which is also very critical of Chávez, and many radio stations who are.

RCTV was not forced shutdown. It still exists today, and can still transmit on Internet, cable, and satellite. They only lost control of the frequency.

Why this non-renewal ? The reasons are multiple. The first, and most important, is the open support, and even participation, of RCTV to the 2002 coup. In nearly all countries of the world, a TV station supporting a coup attempt would be shutdown, or least severely punished, shortly after they did it. In Venenzuela, Chávez didn't punish anyone. He only waited for the license to expire, to not grant them a new one.

But that was not the only one. During 20 years, RCTV behaved as a thug. They accumulated the violations of various laws (subliminal pictures, banned advertising for tobacco and alcohol, pornography outside of watershed hours, tax fraud, bullying smaller TV channels, ...), and were sentenced on a regular basis by the justice - both before and during the Chávez era.

With all those facts, it would have been plain irresponsibility from any government to grant a new license to a TV channel behaving this way.

Democratically? Hitler started democratically too. He was elected, then expanded his power through referendums just as Chavez is doing. The far right and far left are almost the same in the end, only the rhethorics that change (a little).
All it takes is Chavez calling half a dozen people facists/nazis/devils/drunks so people continue to notice him and he can stay in power as every other caudillo that has passed through Latin America has done.

Dios salve el Rey for putting Chavez back on his place :gundge:, as one thing is for certain: he doesn't speaks for Latin America, and I doubt that he even speaks for all of Venezuela.

Democratically? Hitler started democratically too. He was elected,

Not really. Hitler received "only" around 30% of the votes. He was put in power by the decision of the "democratic" right to use him against the communists.

then expanded his power through referendums

Not really either. The Reichstag voted the full powers to Hitler before the referendum. When the referendum was held, the communists and other leftists were already in jail, the repression was already so strong that the referendum was just a masquerade.

just as Chavez is doing.

Did you read the proposed Constitutional reform ? It doesn't extend (much) the power of the president. It mostly grants new rights to people (36 hours working week, retirement and sick leaves system for independent workers, ...) and increase the power of the democratic base - the Communal Councils, which are direct democracy.

And the referendum will be controlled by international observers, as were the referendum of 2004 and the election of 2007.

All it takes is Chavez calling half a dozen people facists/nazis/devils/drunks so people continue to notice him and he can stay in power as every other caudillo that has passed through Latin America has done.

If Chávez stays in power, it's mostly because of the Bolivarian Missions (massive free education and healthcare programs, ...). Not because of foreign policy.

he doesn't speaks for Latin America, and I doubt that he even speaks for all of Venezuela.

For all of Venezuela, of course not. Chávez won last election with 62.7%, that's not 100%, but still a very strong margin. As for Latin America, according to polls of a few month ago, he is the most popular of all presidents. And it's not a wonder why south american countries, one by one, elect leaders who are friendly with Chávez. South America is sick of US imperialism, of "first world" neo-colonialism, and of neoliberal policies which leaded to massive increase of poverty.

Not really. Hitler received "only" around 30% of the votes. He was put in power by the decision of the "democratic" right to use him against the communists.



Not really either. The Reichstag voted the full powers to Hitler before the referendum. When the referendum was held, the communists and other leftists were already in jail, the repression was already so strong that the referendum was just a masquerade.



Did you read the proposed Constitutional reform ? It doesn't extend (much) the power of the president. It mostly grants new rights to people (36 hours working week, retirement and sick leaves system for independent workers, ...) and increase the power of the democratic base - the Communal Councils, which are direct democracy.

And the referendum will be controlled by international observers, as were the referendum of 2004 and the election of 2007.



If Chávez stays in power, it's mostly because of the Bolivarian Missions (massive free education and healthcare programs, ...). Not because of foreign policy.



For all of Venezuela, of course not. Chávez won last election with 62.7%, that's not 100%, but still a very strong margin. As for Latin America, according to polls of a few month ago, he is the most popular of all presidents. And it's not a wonder why south american countries, one by one, elect leaders who are friendly with Chávez. South America is sick of US imperialism, of "first world" neo-colonialism, and of neoliberal policies which leaded to massive increase of poverty.

Are you trying to drown us in facts?? :eek: ;)

Democratically? Hitler started democratically too. Actually, Hitler started by gathering a bunch of guns and tried to overthrow the government by force. He got jailed and tried the democratic way instead.

Actually, Hitler started by gathering a bunch of guns and tried to overthrow the government by force. He got jailed and tried the democratic way instead.Well, the demos is a dangerous force... people tend to forget that "democracy" originally had no positive meaning.

Not really. Hitler received "only" around 30% of the votes. He was put in power by the decision of the "democratic" right to use him against the communists.
He received over 35%, and was elected chanceler, yes. And with the communists in Germany wouldn't be any better.


Not really either. The Reichstag voted the full powers to Hitler before the referendum. When the referendum was held, the communists and other leftists were already in jail, the repression was already so strong that the referendum was just a masquerade.
Again, just as Chavez has done, cracking down on the opposition. Back then he could


Did you read the proposed Constitutional reform ? It doesn't extend (much) the power of the president. It mostly grants new rights to people (36 hours working week, retirement and sick leaves system for independent workers, ...) and increase the power of the democratic base - the Communal Councils, which are direct democracy.
Oh yes, tackle between all those working rights, in tiny letters, "Unlimited number of reelections possible". Obviously he doesn't want anybody else in his place until he dies. "Very" democratic.

And the referendum will be controlled by international observers, as were the referendum of 2004 and the election of 2007.
As it was before, and didn't help. These observers can't do a thing against the widespread propaganda. It's like if the rice you buy has Bush's face on it, asking for your vote, thumbs up. Just think how many people will see it, and just think how would the opposition compete with this.


If Chávez stays in power, it's mostly because of the Bolivarian Missions (massive free education and healthcare programs, ...). Not because of foreign policy.

Oh yes, the missions. Massive trash education, and the poorly educated cuban doctors.
"If you got Dengue, take an aspirin" - Random doctor from the missiones

It is of foreign policy. It's the only reason the army backs him, and the army is the only reason he's there.Flying his pretty sukhois around the caribbean, feeling high and mighty....
Again, he doesn't speak for Latin America, and that`s the most important thing for me.

I dunno but I think Chavez is not doing such a bad job in Venezuela. At least he is one of the only presidents who is REALLY trying to do something about the poverty in his country, though his bureaucratic government still has a long way to go. and corruption wise I also believe not too much progress has been made, but at least in spite of all the corruption the condition for the poorest people in society are actually improving. The only critique on his poverty policies that I have is that there is still a long way to go and that a lot of money that is used in benefit of the poor come from the lower middle class instead of the upperclass. I believe that he should instead try to take a bigger cut of the profits of Venezuela's natural resources in mining by for example partially nationalising the mining companies, the same way he has done with the oil companies. It would give him more power to improve the conditions in the mines and the funds to pay his social programs.
Democracy-wise I think Chavez in doing quite a bad job on the other hand. With the whole media being against him and a couple of attempts by the opposition against him (sadly enough these attempts were supported by the American government) I do understand that he totally refuses to co-operate with other political parties, but he takes too much advantage of his political power and his large majority in parliament, and his complete administration is completely politicised (I dunno if this word actually exists in English but by this I mean that they are very pro-Chavez) which makes the system less accessible to members of the population who are not pro-Chavez and makes the democracy contradict itself, especially by using government funds to propagandise his policies.
To summerise: Chavez is certainly not a democrat, but instead using democracy to reinforce his power, but on the other hand he is one of the few latin american presidents who is really trying to do something about the poverty in his country, though this is rather at the expense of the middleclass then at the expense of the upperclass (which actually also makes his policies rather "social(ist)-oriented" than "socialist").
Big time RESPECT and thanks for everyone who actually took the time and effort to read my humble opinion :D.

I dunno but I think Chavez is not doing such a bad job in Venezuela. At least he is one of the only presidents who is REALLY trying to do something about the poverty in his country, though his bureaucratic government still has a long way to go. and corruption wise I also believe not too much progress has been made, but at least in spite of all the corruption the condition for the poorest people in society are actually improving. The only critique on his poverty policies that I have is that there is still a long way to go and that a lot of money that is used in benefit of the poor come from the lower middle class instead of the upperclass. I believe that he should instead try to take a bigger cut of the profits of Venezuela's natural resources in mining by for example partially nationalising the mining companies, the same way he has done with the oil companies. It would give him more power to improve the conditions in the mines and the funds to pay his social programs.
Democracy-wise I think Chavez in doing quite a bad job on the other hand. With the whole media being against him and a couple of attempts by the opposition against him (sadly enough these attempts were supported by the American government) I do understand that he totally refuses to co-operate with other political parties, but he takes too much advantage of his political power and his large majority in parliament, and his complete administration is completely politicised (I dunno if this word actually exists in English but by this I mean that they are very pro-Chavez) which makes the system less accessible to members of the population who are not pro-Chavez and makes the democracy contradict itself, especially by using government funds to propagandise his policies.
To summerise: Chavez is certainly not a democrat, but instead using democracy to reinforce his power, but on the other hand he is one of the few latin american presidents who is really trying to do something about the poverty in his country, though this is rather at the expense of the middleclass then at the expense of the upperclass (which actually also makes his policies rather "social(ist)-oriented" than "socialist").
I give big time RESPECT and thanks for anyone who took his time and effort to read my humble opinion. :D

what would of been funny if the King got up then pulled him up and stunnered him

I beg your pardon for my bad English, I AM Venezuelan, and I CAN properly talk about what happened there, that man that the Spanish call King insult to our President showing the FASCIST that is inside him, ¿Why a king go to the Conference of Democratic ELECTED liders? ¿When he was elected?

Chávez was elected 3 times since now, 9 elections we have passed and has been supported for any kind of International viewers, all of them has seen that our elections are the most avanced and Transparent elections IN the World, even the Carter Center.

That THING that somebody in this forum has salute like a great thing is just the last view of a DEAD World like is a King that was put it there for a DICTATOR like Franco, remerber that.

Aznar has atacked in EVERY way since the 2001 to our President and COUNTRY, even supporting a COUP in 2002, and now making camping for every where against OUR country, and OUR President with the DIGNITY of the country that 2 centuries ago LIBERATE to the América with Simón Bolívar to EXPULSE to that king and all the garbage people that support him, put a STOP to all that crap that they TRY to throw against us again.

Spain will MUST to Understand that América NOT is anymore his Colony, or they RESPECT US or they Respect US.

Sounds like a phony post.

It's hard to find a Venezuelan with a computer who supports Chavez. He is popular among the uneducated peasants in his own country that have no understanding of anything but demagoguery and the self-proclaimed intellectuals abroad. This would be a very rare person.

And with the communists in Germany wouldn't be any better.

That may be your position, but is totally irrelevant in this case. This crucial difference (which is far from the only one) between Chávez and Hitler remains: Hitler never was supported by the majority of German, while Chávez is supported by an overwhelming majority of Venezuelian.

Again, just as Chavez has done, cracking down on the opposition.

That's purely FUD. Chávez didn't, in any way, "crack down on the opposition". The opposition is doing things that wouldn't be tolerated elsewhere (like calling to use violence, supporting a coup, receiving massive funds from foreign governments, ...) without any real reaction from Chávez.

Oh yes, tackle between all those working rights, in tiny letters, "Unlimited number of reelections possible". Obviously he doesn't want anybody else in his place until he dies. "Very" democratic.

Unlimited number of reelections is the situation of 17 of the 27 members of the European Union, and was never considered "undemocratic" in Europe. Why should it be in Venezuela ?

There are valid reasons for and against it. But saying "Chávez will stay in power as long as the people want him to stay" is completly democratic. He'll still have to face elections, and in Venezuela, he'll still face the recall referendum too (which is usually much harder to win than an election, people often vote for the "less worse" of candidates, so a YES/NO vote is usually harder to win).

These observers can't do a thing against the widespread propaganda.

The propaganda, in Venezuela, is massively *against* Chávez. The vast majority of the printed press, radio and TV stations are strongly against Chávez - much more that would be accepted in most "democracies".

Oh yes, the missions. Massive trash education,

The UNESCO, which is hardly a pack of "socialists", recognized that Chávez managed to eradicate analphabetism from Venezuela, making it the second country of Latin Country (after Cuba) "free of analphabetism".

and the poorly educated cuban doctors.

That's one of the most ridiculous thing you could say. Cuban doctors are among the best of the world. I should remind you that, despite the blockade, Cuba has a longer average lifespan and lower childdeath rate than the USA !

It is of foreign policy. It's the only reason the army backs him, and the army is the only reason he's there.

Of course, 62.7% of Venezuelian voting for him has absolutely nothing to do with him being President ?

Is Spain going to be the new target of hatred for Chavez after Bush, perhaps?

He needs something to keep him in power, and it seems that mocking everyone else that he can is about it, other than the army, which is obviously going to be what keeps him in power when people get tired of him.

5, maybe 10 more years and he'll wind up like every other South American dictator.

He received over 35%, and was elected chanceler, yes. And with the communists in Germany wouldn't be any better.



Again, just as Chavez has done, cracking down on the opposition. Back then he could



Oh yes, tackle between all those working rights, in tiny letters, "Unlimited number of reelections possible". Obviously he doesn't want anybody else in his place until he dies. "Very" democratic.


As it was before, and didn't help. These observers can't do a thing against the widespread propaganda. It's like if the rice you buy has Bush's face on it, asking for your vote, thumbs up. Just think how many people will see it, and just think how would the opposition compete with this.




Oh yes, the missions. Massive trash education, and the poorly educated cuban doctors.
"If you got Dengue, take an aspirin" - Random doctor from the missiones

It is of foreign policy. It's the only reason the army backs him, and the army is the only reason he's there.Flying his pretty sukhois around the caribbean, feeling high and mighty....
Again, he doesn't speak for Latin America, and that`s the most important thing for me.

People that say things like that are those that only see CNN, and believe such LIES like Bush is a Freedom warrior, if you are venezuelan NEVER has even take a look to that missions, right NOW I am using glass totaly FREE and in the same day because that missions "mision milagro", the dental work and the clean TOTALY free, the Hospital TOTALY free ¿is the same in all the countries around the world? if you want a good example see the movie of Michael Moore :cool:

a lot of money that is used in benefit of the poor come from the lower middle class instead of the upperclass.

Not really. Most of the money comes from oil money, which before was concentrated into a tiny upperclass and taken by transnational corporations.

If you look at figures like new cars sales and similar, you'll see that the middle class is doing pretty well under Chávez government.

I believe that he should instead try to take a bigger cut of the profits of Venezuela's natural resources in mining by for example partially nationalising the mining companies, the same way he has done with the oil companies.

That's planned ;) But Chávez isn't changing everything in one day, he's going step by step, which is reasonable.

Democracy-wise I think Chavez in doing quite a bad job on the other hand. With the whole media being against him and a couple of attempts by the opposition against him (sadly enough these attempts were supported by the American government) I do understand that he totally refuses to co-operate with other political parties, but he takes too much advantage of his political power and his large majority in parliament

If you look at the amount of violence and illegality from the opposition, you will have to admit that Chávez is quite laxist with them.

But there is one point you forget in your analysis: the development by Chávez of grass-root democracy, from the recall referendum to the communal councils. He's also doing his best to have people organising themselves at local level, which is definitely a very good thing for the democracy.

especially by using government funds to propagandise his policies.

That's not totally true. The government-owned TV is pro-Chávez, that's true. But they are only compensating for the anti-Chávez private TV. For the rest, the "propaganda" done by the government is mostly the "dicho y hecho" campaign, that is, making public the results of the actions of the government. That's a kind of propaganda, but one that can only work if the government does a lot of good things, so I don't really oppose it. Especially when the private media are not doing their job and refusing to speak of the achievement of the Bolivarian Government.

To summerise: Chavez is certainly not a democrat, but instead using democracy to reinforce his power

On which facts do you say that ? If you look at the Constitution, the Constitutional reform and at what Chávez is encouraging, he' more reinforcing the direct power of people than his own. And that's definitely "democrat".

He received over 35%, and was elected chanceler, yes. And with the communists in Germany wouldn't be any better.



Again, just as Chavez has done, cracking down on the opposition. Back then he could



Oh yes, tackle between all those working rights, in tiny letters, "Unlimited number of reelections possible". Obviously he doesn't want anybody else in his place until he dies. "Very" democratic.


As it was before, and didn't help. These observers can't do a thing against the widespread propaganda. It's like if the rice you buy has Bush's face on it, asking for your vote, thumbs up. Just think how many people will see it, and just think how would the opposition compete with this.




Oh yes, the missions. Massive trash education, and the poorly educated cuban doctors.
"If you got Dengue, take an aspirin" - Random doctor from the missiones

It is of foreign policy. It's the only reason the army backs him, and the army is the only reason he's there.Flying his pretty sukhois around the caribbean, feeling high and mighty....
Again, he doesn't speak for Latin America, and that`s the most important thing for me.

Sounds like a phony post.

It's hard to find a Venezuelan with a computer who supports Chavez. He is popular among the uneducated peasants in his own country that have no understanding of anything but demagoguery and the self-proclaimed intellectuals abroad. This would be a very rare person.

:eek: You are exactly the prototipe of a Facist or Racist, you think that the 63% of the population that support Chávez is Ignorant... but you dosen´t know that in Venezuela we have the FREE education, and because that here we have NOT ignorant people, and thanks to our President the pooverty is going down and the economy is raising in front of many others countries.

By the way, in Venezuela we have a CYBER coffe in every corner, the internet is very cheap: less than 1$ the HOUR in that places, and in the normal house wire is so extended that only cost like 50$ by month of 100 Kbps, and 10$ the cheapest rent.

Our country TOO have more than one movile phone by each citizen...

But I think that things like that CNN doesn´t tell you.

Sounds like a phony post.

It's hard to find a Venezuelan with a computer who supports Chavez. He is popular among the uneducated peasants in his own country that have no understanding of anything but demagoguery and the self-proclaimed intellectuals abroad. This would be a very rare person.

Did you hear about Mision Ciencia ? Part of Mision Ciencia is building free Internet access places for everyone to be able to go on Internet, alongside with "numerical alphabetisation" campaign, that is, (freely) teaching people how to use Internet and related applications.

Is Spain going to be the new target of hatred for Chavez after Bush, perhaps?

Chávez attacked the previous government of Spain, which supported the coup attempt of 2002. Not the current one.

He needs something to keep him in power, and it seems that mocking everyone else that he can is about it, other than the army, which is obviously going to be what keeps him in power when people get tired of him.

Why would people get tired of him ? They are supporting him from election to election, which a stronger margin each time. And foreign policy is definitely not the prime reason for it - the Bolivarian Misions, the Bolivarian Revolution are why people vote for him. Because they want Venezuela's wealth to help Venezuelian. Because they want a country in which everyone is fed, educated, can access to healthcare. And because they want to decide by themselves, through "participative democracy", and not anymore be pawns of the government.

5, maybe 10 more years and he'll wind up like every other South American dictator.

He's not, by far, a dictator. As for "wind up"... the Venezuelian people will be the only one to decide.

Sounds like a phony post.

It's hard to find a Venezuelan with a computer who supports Chavez. He is popular among the uneducated peasants in his own country that have no understanding of anything but demagoguery and the self-proclaimed intellectuals abroad. This would be a very rare person.

Said it all. Also one should know that Chavez talks like he talks so he can convince people with burdened consciences who live in Europe/USA. If more than 60% people support him, it is more because these people are peasants devoid of access to unbiased information; Chavez pratically breeds them in this way. Opposition also must have freedom to express itself, regardless of what they say. It is so everywhere else in the democratic world, and if one can't criticize who's in power, then the one in power probably doesn't have the best of the intentions, don't you think?
If anybody should be talking this talk here is a Venezuelan. Did you see the student riots? American students rioted for less. They could, but venezuelans got bigger risks than americans when they go protest on the streets.

He needs something to keep him in power, and it seems that mocking everyone else that he can is about it, other than the army, which is obviously going to be what keeps him in power when people get tired of him..
Definitely true, his foreign policy is there only to diverge from the more troubling issues in Venezuela.

Peron tried that when he invaded the british falklands. Poor argentinians, got whooped like flies

Definitely true, his foreign policy is there only to diverge from the more troubling issues in Venezuela.

That really shows your ignorance of Venezuelian policies. The international issues are far from being the first center of interest for both the pro-Chávez and the anti-Chávez forces and voters.

Peron tried that when he invaded the british falklands. Poor argentinians, got whooped like flies

Wrong, it was, Leopoldo Galtieri, much later than Peron.

If more than 60% people support him, it is more because these people are peasants devoid of access to unbiased information; Chavez pratically breeds them in this way.

First, Chávez won with a strong majority even in big cities like Caracas.

Then, Chávez actually... removed illiteracy from Venezuela, making everyone, even the poorest of the peasant, able to read newspapers !

And most of newspapers are strongly against Chávez... and so are most of TV channels.

Opposition also must have freedom to express itself, regardless of what they say.

And that's totally the case in Venezuela - much more than in most other countries. I never saw, anywhere in my life (and I did travel a lot), such a massive display of hostility towards a President than by looking a newspaper shops in Venezuela.

It is so everywhere else in the democratic world, and if one can't criticize who's in power, then the one in power probably doesn't have the best of the intentions, don't you think?

But where do you get this idea that you can't criticize Chávez in Venezuela ? You can even call for his murder in live on TV without having a trial !

Did you see the student riots?

The majority of students support Chávez. Some don't.

American students rioted for less. They could, but venezuelans got bigger risks than americans when they go protest on the streets.

That's plain lies. There were many, many protest in Venezuela, and they were not attacked (while this use to be much less true before Chávez). In fact, the pro-Chávez students are much often aggressed than the anti-Chávez ones.

Definitely true, his foreign policy is there only to diverge from the more troubling issues in Venezuela.

Peron tried that when he invaded the british falklands.
Quite. Not that it was Peron, but quite.
Poor argentinians, got whooped like flies
It wasn't that simple, but that's a different topic.
Chávez attacked the previous government of Spain, which supported the coup attempt of 2002. Not the current one.
So?

He'll just attack Spain for electing that guy. Or he'll attack Gordon Brown. Or Angela Merkel, or Sarkozy, or whoever else.

Calling him a fascist was completely wrong, especially since he wasn't the beginnings of a fascist.
Why would people get tired of him ?
Because his party is becoming just as corrupt as the previous one?
They are supporting him from election to election, which a stronger margin each time.
But with lower and lower turnout - in the 2005 elections, 75% of people didn't turn up to the polls, mainly because pretty much the whole of the National Assembly was going to be controlled by Chavez and pro-Chavez parties, and that middle-class voters don't have a party to turn to any more.
And foreign policy is definitely not the prime reason for it
No, but it's certainly a part of it. "Fuck the US" and "Hurray for Castro" is basically the main part of it. I agree that the US isn't as great as it pretends to be, and that Castro is pretty OK (good healthcare, shame about the fact that doctors are working as waiters in tourist restaurants because it pays more), but I don't take things as far as Chavez does.
the Bolivarian Misions, the Bolivarian Revolution are why people vote for him.
Are you sure that it's not just because the old government was corrupt and helped the rich?
Because they want Venezuela's wealth to help Venezuelian.
It was helping before Chavez. I don't think that nationalising the oil and gas will help in the long term.
Because they want a country in which everyone is fed, educated, can access to healthcare.
And Chavez has been good there, for now, but I think that the way that he angers the US and Europe will mean that his country will be too poor to afford this in the future.
And because they want to decide by themselves, through "participative democracy", and not anymore be pawns of the government.
I don't think that the new Councils will help with that, I think that they'll just be a tool for Chavez.
He's not, by far, a dictator. As for "wind up"... the Venezuelian people will be the only one to decide.
The fact that he's made some pretty anti-democratic changes lately to do with protests, as well as making it so that students might not be able to do the courses they want if he says so, in addition to his fairly high spending on the military, shows that he might well be a threat in a while.

First, Chávez won with a strong majority even in big cities like Caracas.

Then, Chávez actually... removed illiteracy from Venezuela, making everyone, even the poorest of the peasant, able to read newspapers !

In the beginning Chávez created Venezuela. Venezuela was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of Bolivarian Revolution was moving over the face of the waters.

On the first day, Chávez won with a strong majority even in big cities like Caracas. And He saw it was good.

On the second day, Chávez actually... removed illiteracy from Venezuela, making everyone, even the poorest of the peasant, able to read newspapers ! And He saw it was good.

On the third day...

:D:D:D:D:D

First, Chávez won with a strong majority even in big cities like Caracas.

Then, Chávez actually... removed illiteracy from Venezuela, making everyone, even the poorest of the peasant, able to read newspapers !

And most of newspapers are strongly against Chávez... and so are most of TV channels.

And that's totally the case in Venezuela - much more than in most other countries. I never saw, anywhere in my life (and I did travel a lot), such a massive display of hostility towards a President than by looking a newspaper shops in Venezuela.

But where do you get this idea that you can't criticize Chávez in Venezuela ? You can even call for his murder in live on TV without having a trial !

The majority of students support Chávez. Some don't.

That's plain lies. There were many, many protest in Venezuela, and they were not attacked (while this use to be much less true before Chávez). In fact, the pro-Chávez students are much often aggressed than the anti-Chávez ones.

Forget it. Some folks just can't grasp that the modern definition of "democracy" is NOT "serving US profits".

Calling him a fascist was completely wrong, especially since he wasn't the beginnings of a fascist.

He was more than the "beginning of a fascist", he supported a fascist coup, which is much, much more wrong than just calling someone names.

I agree that calling him "fascist" is an exaggeration and was a clumsy move from Chávez. But I also understand that he's very angry against someone who supported a fascist coup in his country.

But with lower and lower turnout - in the 2005 elections, 75% of people didn't turn up to the polls, mainly because pretty much the whole of the National Assembly was going to be controlled by Chavez and pro-Chavez parties, and that middle-class voters don't have a party to turn to any more.

That was true for the 2005 elections, since the opposition parties, sure to lose the election, preferred to be cowards and to not participate.

But the election of December 2006, which show Chávez reelected by 62.7% was with the highest turnout of any election in recent venezuelian history.

No, but it's certainly a part of it. "Fuck the US" and "Hurray for Castro" is basically the main part of it. I agree that the US isn't as great as it pretends to be, and that Castro is pretty OK (good healthcare, shame about the fact that doctors are working as waiters in tourist restaurants because it pays more), but I don't take things as far as Chavez does.

It was helping before Chavez.

No. In fact, the first "oil shock" created, in Venezuela, an *increase* of poverty. While it should have done the opposite...

I don't think that nationalising the oil and gas will help in the long term.

Oh it'll, and it already did a lot. You may disagree with Chávez on that, but that's what democracy is about: people disagree, and at the end, the majority decide. In Venezuela, they believe that nationalising oil will do them good. And if you look at facts, it already did them a *lot* of good.

And Chavez has been good there, for now, but I think that the way that he angers the US and Europe will mean that his country will be too poor to afford this in the future.

Cuba has shown us that a country doesn't have to be rich to grant anyone with free education and healthcare. Cuba is not a paradise and has its own problems, but at least it made it clear that basic rights like education and healthcare can be made available to anyone, even in a very poor country.

The fact that he's made some pretty anti-democratic changes lately to do with protests,

Like ?

as well as making it so that students might not be able to do the courses they want if he says so

Source ?

in addition to his fairly high spending on the military, shows that he might well be a threat in a while.

The per-capita spending in military is much, much higher in countries like Chile or Columbia than in Venezuela. If it's true that Chávez increased military spendings recently, it should be relativised in two ways: first, when Chávez arrived in power, the oil price was low. So Chávez then *lowered* the military spendings, so the limited money they could go to more urgent things. Now that the oil prices are high, and that Venezuela has much more money, he's restoring what he took from the military. The second reason is that the US opposition to Venezuela prevents them from buying spare components to fix the military vehicle (especially aircrafts) that the previous govs bought from the USA. So he's forced to buy brand new vehicles, from non-US sources, instead of just fixing the ones he has already - which is of course is more expensive.

People that say things like that are those that only see CNN, and believe such LIES like Bush is a Freedom warrior, if you are venezuelan NEVER has even take a look to that missions, right NOW I am using glass totaly FREE and in the same day because that missions "mision milagro", the dental work and the clean TOTALY free, the Hospital TOTALY free ¿is the same in all the countries around the world? if you want a good example see the movie of Michael Moore :cool:

Wow, Moore, that's, like, totally biased, WAY more than CNN and the other stuff, whose reporters doesn't act like they're in a clowny humor show.

I don't watch cnn, I don't even have it, I don't live in america. I read the local papers, magazines, I watch the news, I read the facts on the internet and make my own conclusions. I don't give a shit what Bush is, and I don't understand why people feel forced to take side with everyone who's against Bush. Why the hell are you even talking about him? This is definitely not about bush! This is about Chavez and his foolishness, but obviously discussing it here won't change anything, because most socialists believe that democracy is having the image of someone thrown at your face in every corner so you see what he says he do.
Using the governmental machine to finance reelection is undemocratic. I'm not paying taxes for the goddamn president to reelect himself, but Chavez invests the money wisely in his populist endeavors, to record his ugly face in everyone's minds. Thank god Bush doesn't do that, it would be even more traumatic than with Chavez!

Whoa, internet cafes in venezuela? I guess Chavez didn't told that they are everywhere by now, from half a dollar to one and a half where I live, without any help from the government. You have internet and computers DESPITE chavez retrocess. Populism is all about that, making people believe that the government must do everything for every single being, but in the meantime they take the money.

The protests PRO-Chavez are freely allowed to do whatever they want, and go wherever they want, and I wouldn't be surprised if they received benefits from the government to do that. The protests AGAINST-Chavez always get in trouble with the police (for speaking their goddamn minds like you are doing right now) and no matter how many, these things never end up on TV. How "impartial". You people are just talking the common bullshit; socialism=neat, capitalism=eeeevil. I could tell you dozens of stories of success from poor people that through capitalism evolve, and other dozens of poor people who can't evolve by being blocked by a stagnating country with a non-market economy.

Stop quoting the people you judge CULT and COOL, and get real: Socialism is impossible, unfeasible, and the measures CHavez brought have destroyed what of a middle class Venezuela had. Throw the middle class of a country to the poor class, and see what an effect that has on the country. The equality that is there, is not by the enrichment of people, but more by their empoverishment, so all look equal.

But enough, it's very well proven that people with your ideals have some problem with listening to reason, so I won't even bother to come back and answer any flaming that'll come, as you'll continue with false arguments and fallacies.

Well, at least I know that he won't last, the venezuelans are fed up with him. Deny it if you will, the venezuelan people ARE unhappy and WILL take actions if he continues with such a tyranny.

I beg your pardon for my bad English, I AM Venezuelan,Don't worry about it. Our Spanish probably sucks much worse.
and I CAN properly talk about what happened there, that man that the Spanish call King insult to our President showing the FASCIST that is inside him,Er... No. Chavez was insulting another democratically elected former leader, who, interestingly enough, was being defended by the person that ousted him. Then Chavez was told to shut up because he was being rude. You don't interrupt people when they're talking. If your President wants to act like a little child, he should not be surprised when he gets treated as such. Besides, Juan Carlos is far from fascist, considering he ended fascist rule of Spain and returned it to a democracy.
¿Why a king go to the Conference of Democratic ELECTED liders? ¿When he was elected? Democratically elected leaders like Fidel Castro?

<snip>None of that was relevant to the discussion.

Not really. Hitler received "only" around 30% of the votes. He was put in power by the decision of the "democratic" right to use him against the communists.


That's only partially true. The installation of Hitler as Chancellor was predicated on the division of the centrist parties along personal lines. The separation of the Catholic Center, combined with the fears of Hindenburg based off of what the Communists had done in the past are what brought Hitler into power.

video 1
Presidente Chavez speaks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb3HZ7K1gTk

By interrupting someone. How rude, how immature. Chavez just can't stand to not get in the last word.

I'm getting some serious Khrushchev flashbacks from this...of course, unlike Khrushchev, Chavez scarcely has one iota of the power of the USSR on the international scale. That makes his behavior a lot less excusable; if you're the second (or most) powerful nation on Earth, you've got some room to make gaffes like that.

If you're not, you don't...being a complete ass just means you're going to end up alienating your country and weakening your position. Venezuela's oil means jack shit if nobody wants to invest there and produce it, so they are effectively powerless once they alienate the world community.

Venezuela's oil means jack shit if nobody wants to invest there and produce it, so they are effectively powerless once they alienate the world community.I'm sure if the Chinese can turn a blind eye to genocide, they won't let a raving leader stop them from investing.

I'm sure if the Chinese can turn a blind eye to genocide, they won't let a raving leader stop them from investing.

Well yeah...it's like how the US is still fine with dealing with the Saudis...

I'm sure if the Chinese can turn a blind eye to genocide, they won't let a raving leader stop them from investing.

Oh, it would...if it means losing their profits. That's what companies care about when it comes to their investments; it's not the activities of the government, it's whether or not the government will mess with the money they earn. Who cares about genocide if the money itself isn't harmed in the process? Besides, it might clear out some pesky villages for oil exploration.

Well yeah...it's like how the US is still fine with dealing with the Saudis...

Dealing doesn't even begin to cover it...it's more like prostrating.

Well yeah...it's like how the US is still fine with dealing with the Saudis...Yeah. It's like China is copying our every move trying to learn what it's like being a superpower.

He says some silly and overly-dramatic things, but he's gotten a lot of Venezuelans out of poverty, and he hasn't had anyone killed, kidnapped, or imprisoned without trial, so he can say whatever he wants for all I care. Is he full of himself? Yeah, but the people in Venezuela can un-elect him whenever they want to (referendums for a recall are allowed under the new Constitution) so it doesn't worry me that much.

The only thing about him that really bothers me is his alliance with the crazy president of Iran, who hates gays and denies the Holocaust.

...so he can say whatever he wants for all I care.Not when it's someone else's turn to talk. That's just rude.

Not when it's someone else's turn to talk. That's just rude.

He didnt. Racist.:rolleyes:

Using the governmental machine to finance reelection is undemocratic.

Where is the limit ? Isn't it part of the government responsibility to inform people about what it is doing and what is going on ? I think it is. Then, you also have to consider the behaviour of private media. When the private media are so massively against a government, refusing to speak of any of its accomplishment, it has to speak about what it is doing.

But then, the government doesn't use money to call to vote for Chávez. They do to make people aware of what they did, no less, no more.

Whoa, internet cafes in venezuela? I guess Chavez didn't told that they are everywhere by now, from half a dollar to one and a half where I live, without any help from the government.

The point was not about Chávez providing people with Internet café. But to counter the stupid argument of I don't remember who saying "people who vote for Chávez can't connect because they are too poor".

But then, there are FREE centers from the Mision Ciencia, in which you can connect to Internet and even receive help/training. Because access to Internet is considered by Chávez government as a right, not as a privilege.

The protests PRO-Chavez are freely allowed to do whatever they want, and go wherever they want

No less, no more than the ones from the opposition.

The protests AGAINST-Chavez always get in trouble with the police (for speaking their goddamn minds like you are doing right now)

That's just false. The anti-Chávez protest don't have trouble with the police (as long as they stay non-violent). The most important source of political violence in Venezuela is from some part (and I say "some part", and I don't say "all of") the opposition, who attack and sometimes even kill Chávez supporters.

and no matter how many, these things never end up on TV.

On which TV ? On Venezuelian private TV, it's the pro-Chávez protest which are not spoken about, even when they are much bigger than the anti-Chávez ones. The same is true in most western media, from the USA to Europe.

On Venezuelian governemental TV, it's true that the pro-Chávez protest are given much more time than the anti-Chávez ones. But gov TV is minority, and even in gov TV, the anti-Chávez are shown a bit.

I could tell you dozens of stories of success from poor people that through capitalism evolve, and other dozens of poor people who can't evolve by being blocked by a stagnating country with a non-market economy.

You can't judge a political/social system on a few individual cases. Capitalism as long proven, especially in South America, it's complete inability to reduce poverty and to provide decent living for everyone. Decent housing, education, healthcare, food are *RIGHTS* that everyone should have, not a privilege that only the lucky/smart/whatever can struggle to have.

But anyway, your "ad hominem" applies in both senses: you accuse us of supporting Chávez because we "believe" in socialism, but on the same basis we can accuse you of opposing Chávez because you "believe" in capitalism.

Stop quoting the people you judge CULT and COOL

Who spoke about any cult ?

and get real: Socialism is impossible, unfeasible

That's a broad assertion without any argument, so I safely can consider it to be meaningless.

and the measures CHavez brought have destroyed what of a middle class Venezuela had.

That's just plainly wrong. The middle in Venezuela is doing very well, as you can see if you look at the sales figures in Venezuela, especially the new car market which is typically a middle class market.

The equality that is there, is not by the enrichment of people, but more by their empoverishment, so all look equal.

No. The UN admits it, Venezuela is the only country of the world who has done *better* than its Millenia Objectives. The UNESCO recognizes that Chávez, through the missions, managed to cure Venezuela from illiteracy. The Bario Adentro missions is providing health care to millions of people who never saw a doctor before, that's an improvement to living conditions I'm not sure the lucky middle class us can even realize. The Mision Milagro cured half a million of persons from blindness, that's really a "miracle" for those affected and their family. I could continue for long. The effects of the Bolibarian Revolution to the 60% of Venezuelian who used to be below poverty line is real, and it's hard to imagine for us how drastic those changes are.

Well, at least I know that he won't last, the venezuelans are fed up with him. Deny it if you will, the venezuelan people ARE unhappy and WILL take actions if he continues with such a tyranny.

That's so funny. The opposition says that continously since 2002. Each time after, there is a new election, and Chávez wins it with a stronger margin than before.

He didnt. Seen the video. Yeah he did.
Racist.:rolleyes:Nah. Notice the unshaven guy in the white shirt? (http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/HPIM2018.jpg) That's me.
(Incidentally, the shirt is the same one that I'm wearing in the pictures of the Baltimore meet up last year.)

The only thing about him that really bothers me is his alliance with the crazy president of Iran, who hates gays and denies the Holocaust.

I agree with that (and with the rest of your post too). This is the only thing that really bothers me about Chávez. I understand that both bullied by the USA it can create ties, but still, that doesn't justify such a friendship.

:eek: You are exactly the prototipe of a Facist or Racist, you think that the 63% of the population that support Chávez is Ignorant... but you dosen´t know that in Venezuela we have the FREE education, and because that here we have NOT ignorant people, and thanks to our President the pooverty is going down and the economy is raising in front of many others countries.

Actually, the Venezuela economy is receiving its primary boost from the increased global demand for oil, with little actual impact felt from the policies of Chavez himself. Furthermore, inequality within Venezuela is not improving, and according to some accounts, it's actually increasing.

You might find this information interesting (http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/country_fact_sheets/cty_fs_VEN.html)

Look at the regional comparison graph, and look what's happening in Venezuela.

By the way, in Venezuela we have a CYBER coffe in every corner, the internet is very cheap: less than 1$ the HOUR in that places, and in the normal house wire is so extended that only cost like 50$ by month of 100 Kbps, and 10$ the cheapest rent.

And in America cable television, cable telephone and broadband internet is available at a rate of $40 a month. In coffee shops such as Starbucks, wireless internet is free :)

Our country TOO have more than one movile phone by each citizen...

The over-presence of mobile phones is actually more akin to a sign of poorly developed wired infrastructure, than of generally success. That's why mobile phone penetration in Africa is so incredibly high.

Er... No. Chavez was insulting another democratically elected former leader, who, interestingly enough, was being defended by the person that ousted him.

Chávez was insulting someone who supported a military coup against himself, and which nearly converted his country into a dictatorship. I can understand him behaving this way (even if it was clumsy, IMHO).


Besides, Juan Carlos is far from fascist, considering he ended fascist rule of Spain and returned it to a democracy.

Chávez was not insulting Juan Carlos, but Aznar, who supported the 2002 coup.

Democratically elected leaders like Fidel Castro?

In fact, Castro *is* elected. Under a complex system that you may disagree with, but he *is* elected.

If they had a census I'm sure it'd show 0 homosexuals.

Of course, if our great IRanian Fuhrer said it, it must be true.

Chávez was insulting someone who supported a military coup against himself, and which nearly converted his country into a dictatorship. I can understand him behaving this way (even if it was clumsy, IMHO).Venezuela is currently a de facto one party state. That's not that much different from a dictatorship, if you ask me.

Chávez was not insulting Juan Carlos, but Aznar, who supported the 2002 coup.Misatributed the quote there. Yes, I'm aware of that. However the wording of the post I was quoting implied that Juan Carlos was fascist ("the fascist within him"). I should have mentioned that Aznar was the target of the insult and not Juan Carlos.

I encourage people of able mind to watch the newly released documentary

"Crisis in the Americas: A Documentary on Dictator Hugo Chavez"

Brought to you by the Same folks who used to run the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean, a think-tank set up to disseminate "White Propaganda" (Roughly translated as Outright lies and scare mongering) to the American Media and in turn the American People, it is the most laughable and insanely hilarious excuse for documentary television i have seen in my life. It really is hard to take most Americans opinions seriously on Hugo Chavez or most matters pertaining to South America when they are fed junk like this in their national media everyday, granted there are plenty of exceptions to the rule, but those people are just that, exceptions.

Venezuela is currently a de facto one party state. That's not that much different from a dictatorship, if you ask me.

It is definitely not a one party state. There are many political parties in Venezuela, and opposition parties control some cities and even one or two states (Venezuela is a federal country).

The "united party", the PSUV, is only a union of the political parties who used to support Chávez, it didn't destroy in any way the opposition parties.

What is true is that the PSUV will probably win any election with a >60% score in any near future. But how is that a dictatorship ? If the government is doing so well than 60% of people support it, why should we be unhappy ?

I dunno but I think Chavez is not doing such a bad job in Venezuela. At least he is one of the only presidents who is REALLY trying to do something about the poverty in his country, though his bureaucratic government still has a long way to go.
-snip-
The question is really why he feels the need to introduce his reforms against other people. He's without a doubt the most divisive leader Venezuela's ever had and his reign will leave scars for a long, long time.

There are basically three problems that I have with Chávez:

1) The aforementioned divisiveness. Whatever grand plan he has, he's looking at it through a "class war" mentality. He is unwilling to listen to or compromise with alternative views. He will fire, throw in jail, fire tear gas at or shut down anything that dares publically disagree in a serious fashion. And his policies squeeze people who haven't even done that out of their lives (the middle class is being eradicated there as we speak, leaving a sort of "elevated poor" on one side and Chávez' buddies and supporters becoming rich on the back of a state-directed economy).

2) His questionable stance towards democracy. You people can tell me that he was elected as much as you want, to me the willingness to try a coup in '92 tells volumes about his commitment to democracy. I think his opinion is pretty clear: if people vote for him, it's their free expression. If they don't, that's because of media influence, the "oligarchs", foreign interference and whatever other demons he'll summon. I simply don't see him stepping down if he were to lose an election (not that in the current state of Venezuelan politics that is likely to happen, mind you, running without opposition makes things a lot easier).

3) His economics is atrocious. Oil production is falling because PDVSA isn't allowed to keep its profits, while he kicks out foreign oil firms who could make up for it. He doesn't care, because he's using the profits to fund social programs for the poor, who in turn vote for him. It's a short-sighted policy: if the oil price falls (though of course he's lobbying hard for it not to, so that I have to pay more at the pump - thanks, Hugo!) or PDVSA hits a few snags, the money will run out. They keep saying they've got huge reserves: they're not oil, they're tar. It takes a lot of money, research and management skill to get it to a usable form. But his solution to problems like that has already been shown on the issue of food: he'll just make more laws. His price controls are driving out businesses selling groceries, leaving only a state-owned chain behind. That chain becomes a monopsonist buyer and farmers have to accept whatever it will pay. If that wasn't enough, he's experimenting with laws requiring farmers to run their farms a certain way. Land reforms, labour reforms...collectivisation. How democratic is a country if the food supply is controlled by the President? Worse still: he keeps sneaking in ties between the central bank's ability to print money and the government budget into legislation. I have very little doubt that not only will inflation (http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8633167) not be kept under control in Venezuela, but it will only get worse once Chávez finds that oil income falls short of expectations. Hell, IIRC he's already running government deficits despite an inflation rate of 17%+.

But nevermind. Back in the 80s Mugabe was a popular hero too. All the same aggressive, "people power" hostility devoted to some utopian idea of development, all the same disregard for economics and the developed world. These days XANU-PF doesn't win because of popular support anymore, and all the laws in the book don't put food on the table.

All I'm asking is that Chávez supporters be willing to examine the success rates of similar policies in other countries throughout the 20th century. If you want social equality, don't lock it in at some low level: first allow a country to become a South Korea or a Taiwan, and if people still want it then, go for your life (you'll fail, but that's another story). I think Chávez' overseas supporters are too blinded by the intentions and don't pay enough attention to the results.

It is definitely not a one party state. There are many political parties in Venezuela, and opposition parties control some cities and even one or two states (Venezuela is a federal country). Hence "de facto".

If the government is doing so well than 60% of people support it, why should we be unhappy ?That is a very, very silly question to ask a German. Can you figure out why?

I am not in favor of Chavez but of his social programmes which have releafed many people of poverty.Nevertheless,his is not a a true socialist,his doesn't have pure democracy in his country and a planned economy.

Venezuela is currently a de facto one party state. That's not that much different from a dictatorship, if you ask me.


Venezuela is a multi-party democracy with open, free, fair and regular elections, as confirmed by international observers. The fact that the main Opposition party chose not to take part in the latest election was their own choice. If you want to blame someone, blame them.


the willingness to try a coup in '92 tells volumes about his commitment to democracy

People change. Rabuka in Fiji led a racist military coup in '87, before becoming a defender of democracy and an opponent of racist policies. (I still find it amusing that he even formed a coalition with a party he had earlier thrown out of power.)


first allow a country to become a South Korea or a Taiwan

By stifling democracy until you've become an economic power?

Venezuela is a multi-party democracy with open, free, fair and regular elections, as confirmed by international observers. The fact that the main Opposition party chose not to take part in the latest election was their own choice. If you want to blame someone, blame them.That it is a de facto one party state is a fault of the Opposition party. What Chavez is doing with that power is still his fault.

The question is really why he feels the need to introduce his reforms against other people.

Because the whole capitalist system is about class struggle ?

He's without a doubt the most divisive leader Venezuela's ever had and his reign will leave scars for a long, long time.

He's the most hated by the oligarchy who used to control everything and own nearly everything, and who is unhappy with equality, social justice, and real democracy.

But he's also the most strongly supported president of Venezuela, and of nearly all the world. I don't know much other president who could win a 62.7% majority on the first round of a fair election. Chávez did.

1) The aforementioned divisiveness. Whatever grand plan he has, he's looking at it through a "class war" mentality.

Class struggle is a fact. Not ignoring facts is the mark of wisdom.

He will fire, throw in jail, fire tear gas at or shut down anything that dares publically disagree in a serious fashion.

That's just bullshit. Chávez didn't throw in jail or shut down anything just because it oppose it. He's even much more laxist than most other presidents. He didn't even throw in jail those who tried or supported a coup against him !

the middle class is being eradicated there as we speak

That's utterly false once again. As I pointed before, the sales results in Venezuela of goods which are typically bought by middle class, like reasonably priced new cars, are doing very well. The middle class is doing very well.

You people can tell me that he was elected as much as you want, to me the willingness to try a coup in '92 tells volumes about his commitment to democracy.

Yes. It shows his refusal to back a corrupt government which opened fire on demonstrators, killing 3000, risking his own life, and accepting a jail sentence, for this refusal. That's definitely the acts of someone committed to democracy.

Chávez didn't take the power in 1992, so we don't know what he would have done. But there is absolutely nothing which can make you affirm that he would do like Carmona: dissolving all democratic instituions and suspending all constitutional rights.

I think his opinion is pretty clear: if people vote for him, it's their free expression. If they don't, that's because of media influence, the "oligarchs", foreign interference and whatever other demons he'll summon.

Yes, he would probably find some explication like that. As most politician do when they lose an election: they also find excuses. But that doesn't mean he wouldn't leave power.

I simply don't see him stepping down if he were to lose an election

That's just an unprovable accusation, which is something very, very bad. And it's exactly what the likes of you were saying of Ortega in 1980s. He did step down in 1990 when he lost the election, even if this election was heavily influenced by USA actions.

(not that in the current state of Venezuelan politics that is likely to happen, mind you, running without opposition makes things a lot easier).

The opposition being divided and not very smart is not Chávez fault. But anyway, he won with a 59% score a recall referendum, that's something which is unrelated to the opposition being divided, but only to people approving Chávez.

It's a short-sighted policy

I already explained you how Chávez policies, with the "Siembra Petrolera" plan is much more long-sighted than any one before him. But you refuse to read what displeases you.

And btw, educating the population and keeping it in good health is much more important, for the long term, than nearly everything. Especially in the XXIest century where knowledge, information, services is the most profitable form of economics.

though of course he's lobbying hard for it not to, so that I have to pay more at the pump - thanks, Hugo!

Of course he's trying to keep oil prices high, that's his wealth. And he also does it for ecological reasons. But he also thinks about the poor people who have trouble buying oil, that's why he's providing with cheap oil to poor countries and poor people.

His price controls are driving out businesses selling groceries,

That's utterly false. His price control is preventing speculation, nothing else. Oh, btw, do you know about the french baguette ? You know, we are famous for it. We have a much higher density of backery than in most other countries. Do you know what, from 1793 to the late 1970s, the price of bread was controlled by the state. That didn't prevent us to have much more backery than anywhere else. And it kept the price of bread law, preventing starvation.

leaving only a state-owned chain behind.

That shows your complete ignorance of how Mercal works. Mercal contains state-controlled shops (Mercal type I), but also much more of Mercal type II, which are private shops. Those shops sell Mercal products (basic food and product) without profit, but they also sell many other goods, at the price they want. Those shops are very profitable. People go in them to buy the Mercal stuff, but they also buy some extra (sodas, beers, ...).

That chain becomes a monopsonist buyer and farmers have to accept whatever it will pay.

Mercal pays the cooperative it buys its food from higher prices than the usual market.

If that wasn't enough, he's experimenting with laws requiring farmers to run their farms a certain way. Land reforms, labour reforms...collectivisation.

Oh ! You said it ! The Devil Word ! Hey, you know, for people who are not completly brainwashed capitalists, "collectivisation" is not an absolute crime. It's a way of doing things, which sometimes works very well, sometimes very bad, depending of the context and the way it's done.

How democratic is a country if the food supply is controlled by the President?

Much more than a country where the food is controlled by the oligarchy, able to shut down every store when the elected president doesn't please them, as they did in 2003. Or in Chile in 1971.

Worse still: he keeps sneaking in ties between the central bank's ability to print money and the government budget into legislation.

Central Bank independence is complete absurdity of the neoliberal system, and one of the most antidemocratic measure that can be taken. It completely removes democratic control over something as fundamental for sovereignty as the money.

Hell, IIRC he's already running government deficits despite an inflation rate of 17%+.

No, he's stockpiling money, the monetary reserve is higher than ever, and except during the 2002-2003 coup/strike/sabbotage era, inflation was lower under Chávez government than under the previous government.

And inflation was higher after the central bank was made independent in 1992 than before.

All I'm asking is that Chávez supporters be willing to examine the success rates of similar policies in other countries throughout the 20th century.

No one was ever allowed to do what Chávez is doing. Those who tried, like Allende in Chile or Ortega in Nicaragua were removed from power by weapons and blood.

If you want social equality, don't lock it in at some low level: first allow a country to become a South Korea or a Taiwan, and if people still want it then, go for your life (you'll fail, but that's another story).

And let thousands of people to die from starvation, curable disease, dirty water, ... in the meanwhile. Sorry, I don't accept this passive murdering of thousands of people.

I think Chávez' overseas supporters are too blinded by the intentions and don't pay enough attention to the results.

We definitely do, and that's why we support Chávez that much. He eradicated illiteracy. He allowed people to see doctors for the first time of their lives. He reduced poverty. He enabled half a million of person to be cured from blindness or near blindness. All that is a drastic improvement to the lives of so many human beings. As I said before, I'm not sure any of us, lucky middle class citizen of a rich country, can even understand what it means for those people to be able to read, to be able to see again, to be able to go to a doctor when they are sick, to have food to eat every day. Those things are so natural, so common for us, that we can't imagine what it means, when you couldn't have them for decennias and suddenly you are granted them. That's the "miracle" of Chávez (or other socialist policies).

Is there anyone who doesn't completely love or completely hate Chavez? Anyone in between?

Is there anyone who doesn't completely love or completely hate Chavez? Anyone in between?I don't think anyone that doesn't love Chavez for his economics is capable of not hating him.

I don't think anyone that doesn't love Chavez for his economics is capable of not hating him.

To everyone I've met, he's either a flawless messiah who can do no wrong, or the devil incarnate. I've yet to meet someone whose opinion of him lies somewhere in between.

To everyone I've met, he's either a flawless messiah who can do no wrong, or the devil incarnate. I've yet to meet someone whose opinion of him lies somewhere in between.Kinda like holocaust denial, huh? Either it didn't happen, or it did. There's no inbetween position there either.

Kinda like holocaust denial, huh? Either it didn't happen, or it did. There's no inbetween position there either.

In a way, yeah.

No you shut up!

I think spain should re-conquer venezuela!

That it is a de facto one party state is a fault of the Opposition party. What Chavez is doing with that power is still his fault.

You mean submitting his proposed changes to referendum to let the people decide democratically?

Is there anyone who doesn't completely love or completely hate Chavez? Anyone in between?

I do like to think I'm able to criticise him when I think he's wrong... I support him on the whole, and admire and respect most of what he's doing, but I definitely don't think he's perfect.

I do like to think I'm able to criticise him when I think he's wrong... I support him on the whole, and admire and respect most of what he's doing, but I definitely don't think he's perfect.

Yay, there are some people in the middle! :)

Chavez does nothing but make personal attacks on others. His apologists are so pathetic. He makes Bush look like a model statesman, which I didn't think was possible.

It was remarkably silly of Chavez to call Aznar a "fascist". It robs the word of its true meaning, by trivialising it.

Juan Carlos' reaction was understandable in the heat of the moment, I suppose, albeit not exactly examplary for a king.

I generally support Chavez, by the way. But unlike the morons who will criticise him for anything he does, good or bad, and unlike those who will defend anything he does, I criticise him when he deserves it and praise him when he deserves it. I find it remarkably sad that most people can only do one or the other.

Chavez is a total idiot, I'm not surprised that he made a king go non-diplomatic.

I fucking haaaaaate that leftist scum...and I've just made friends with a Venezuelan immigrant girl in one of my classes and we chat about why her family left Venezuela and I now get the inside stories about how shitty he really is. :)


Oh, and here are some more details on what exactly happend. Give me a break, Chavez, you punk bitch.

Um... I understand that Charles IV was a big guy that could kick some ass. :p

That was in the 1790s...

I'm getting a lot of things said all at once. Here goes:

A: Yup. Chavez really is a moron.

B: I'm fairly sure you don't mean Charles IV. Charles V was the big one, that was the 1500's. Same with Phillip II (may he rest in peace. Good man). Oh, and General Franco.

C: Who dosn't hate leftist/communist scum? :D

D: I'd agree that the King of Spain is my new hero, but I won't because he was my hero already. But then again, so was General Franco. :)

E: You people (Chavez included) make fascism sound like a bad thing! :D

F: Chavez sucks even more because he's friends with that bitch Castro (bastard).
Score of the World:
Me, Spain and all other great countries (U.S., Germany, Britain, Norway, Italy, France(Just kidding 'bout that one folks!) Portugal, Romania, Hungary, and Turkey)(and everyone else for that matter)(all of Cuba excluding Castro and his dumb fans): 583943 and 1/2 :D
Commies: -12 Haha. Suckers.

C: Who dosn't hate leftist/communist scum? :D

Hate the ideology, not its followers. Also, calling them "scum" is a flame.

D: I'd agree that the King of Spain is my new hero, but I won't because he was my hero already. But then again, so was General Franco. :)

Franco was a mass murdering douchebag. The other side in the Spanish Civil War wasn't much better, but Franco was still terrible.

E: You people (Chavez included) make fascism sound like a bad thing! :D

It is.

I think spain should re-conquer venezuela!

Uh...yeah. Spain should reconquer Mexico, Hoduras, Belize, Nicaragua, Brazil, Portugal, Andorra, Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Morocco, Panama, Colombia, Paraguay, Uruguay, and just about every country in Latin America that I forgot to name, and most of the rest of Europe, too.

And no, I'm not being sarcastic. I think it would be great if that actually happened.

Vive Rey Juan Carlos!

D: I'd agree that the King of Spain is my new hero, but I won't because he was my hero already. But then again, so was General Franco. :)
You disgust me.

Hate the ideology, not its followers. Also, calling them "scum" is a flame.Well, to be honest, who doesn't hate the scum of any political group? Unless he implies all leftists/communists are scum...

Too ambiguous to call flame, though, and even if, it'd be rather mild.

Unless he implies all leftists/communists are scum...

I suspect so.

Arrrgh. It ate my post!

Anyways, here's just the links from it, they should get the point across.

http://africa.reuters.com/commodities/news/usnN06422960.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/11/world/main3357566.shtml
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1011/p04s01-woam.html
http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9010908
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6186990.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/world/americas/17venezuela.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E4DE1539F93AA35751C0A960958260
http://www.theelectroniceconomist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=549697&story_id=9621513
http://www.theelectroniceconomist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=549697&story_id=9947046
http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=10242&Cr=Myanmar&Cr1=&Kw1=Venezuela&Kw2=&Kw3=

Is Spain going to be the new target of hatred for Chavez after Bush, perhaps?

He needs something to keep him in power, and it seems that mocking everyone else that he can is about it, other than the army, which is obviously going to be what keeps him in power when people get tired of him.

5, maybe 10 more years and he'll wind up like every other South American dictator.

That means dead, disgraced, or in exile, correct?

(Thats when we get to devour his remains, right?)

Hate the ideology, not its followers. Also, calling them "scum" is a flame.



Franco was a mass murdering douchebag. The other side in the Spanish Civil War wasn't much better, but Franco was still terrible.



It is.

Okay, I take back the scum comment.

On the other hand, I am not backing down on the Franco thing. He was a bit better then the alternative. He might not have done much to help the country, but he did do at least two helpful things:

A: He opened the country up to alliances with other nations and started healing diplomatic rifts.

B: He pulled Spanish forces out of Morocco where they were fighting pointless, wasteful colonial wars that weren't accomplishing anything.

As a side note, he got away with frustrating the shit out of Hitler.

On another note, Spain would have been little more than a Soviet puppet state under the Republic, which was effectively Communist run by 1939.

Besides, at least he wasn't really racist or anything like that. The dead people were all threats to his power, so at least that makes a little sense (even if the course of action taken wasn't the right one).
Besides, fascism when pulled off correctly isn't a bad thing. Its just when you get a nutter who's as delusional as Hitler in charge and then the whole thing goes straight to hell.

Nobility obliged his majesty to do the right thing.

Viva el Rey!

The pink cucaracha should have been made to kiss el Rey's ring before he left, to add further insult.

I agree entirely

Not really. Hitler received "only" around 30% of the votes. He was put in power by the decision of the "democratic" right to use him against the communists.

You are correct however, he was democraticly elected to the Reichstag and came to power legally through a coalition government. It was not till after President Hindenburg died did he declare himself ruler. So yes. He came to power democraticly as Germany had a parlimentary system.

Not really either. The Reichstag voted the full powers to Hitler before the referendum. When the referendum was held, the communists and other leftists were already in jail, the repression was already so strong that the referendum was just a masquerade.

Hmmm....This is sounding awfully familiar. Isn't it?

He didnt. Racist.:rolleyes:

Yes he did, Racist :rolleyes:

See? I can make idiotic statements too.

In coffee shops such as Starbucks, wireless internet is free :)

Where at? The starbucks I was at a few days ago did not have free internet.

*snip*

Well stated NL.

(blah blah blah Chavez is Hitler blah blah blah )wuahahaha ... you are pathetic

You mean submitting his proposed changes to referendum to let the people decide democratically?

2-1 odds it passes overwhelmingly.

Not really. Hitler received "only" around 30% of the votes. He was put in power by the decision of the "democratic" right to use him against the communists.



Not really either. The Reichstag voted the full powers to Hitler before the referendum. When the referendum was held, the communists and other leftists were already in jail, the repression was already so strong that the referendum was just a masquerade.



Did you read the proposed Constitutional reform ? It doesn't extend (much) the power of the president. It mostly grants new rights to people (36 hours working week, retirement and sick leaves system for independent workers, ...) and increase the power of the democratic base - the Communal Councils, which are direct democracy.

And the referendum will be controlled by international observers, as were the referendum of 2004 and the election of 2007.



If Chávez stays in power, it's mostly because of the Bolivarian Missions (massive free education and healthcare programs, ...). Not because of foreign policy.



For all of Venezuela, of course not. Chávez won last election with 62.7%, that's not 100%, but still a very strong margin. As for Latin America, according to polls of a few month ago, he is the most popular of all presidents. And it's not a wonder why south american countries, one by one, elect leaders who are friendly with Chávez. South America is sick of US imperialism, of "first world" neo-colonialism, and of neoliberal policies which leaded to massive increase of poverty.good stuff

what would of been funny if the King got up then pulled him up and stunnered himI would love for that pussy-cry-baby of a decoration-king to try and do that.

Fuck him, fuck "el rey" Juan Carlos.

I would love for that pussy-cry-baby of a decoration-king to try and do that.

Fuck him, fuck "el rey" Juan Carlos.

Despite the fact that he put Chavez in his place for interrupting him. Good on "el rey" for doing that.

Sounds like a phony post.

It's hard to find a Venezuelan with a computer who supports Chavez. He is popular among the uneducated peasants in his own country that have no understanding of anything but demagoguery and the self-proclaimed intellectuals abroad. This would be a very rare person.prince eric has spoken.

Despite the fact that he put Chavez in his place for interrupting him. Good on "el rey" for doing that.If el rey JenaCharles is shot tomorrow.. I am going to piss on his dead body.. or the ground covering it.

If el rey JenaCharles is shot tomorrow.. I am going to piss on his dead body.. or the ground covering it.

Why? He's done nothing to you but told your favorite little dictator to shut his yap.

*snip*

Franco's one positive quality was that he saved thousands of Jews during WWII. However, the number of lives he saved is far exceeded by the high number - possibly hundreds of thousands - of people he and the Nationalists killed, making him a douchebag.

Why? He's done nothing to you but told your favorite little dictator to shut his yap.

LOL

Franco's one positive quality was that he saved thousands of Jews during WWII. However, the number of lives he saved is far exceeded by the high number - possibly hundreds of thousands - of people he and the Nationalists killed, making him a douchebag.


Franco may have been a douchebag, but as far as Dictators go (not so good objectively, to be sure) we was pretty good. I'd rather have lived under Franco then Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.

Franco may have been a douchebag, but as far as Dictators go (not so good objectively, to be sure) we was pretty good. I'd rather have lived under Franco then Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.

Same here, although that's not saying much.

Why? because I can. ;)

Same here, although that's not saying much.

Yeah, his shit smells a little better then Stalin's.

Yeah, his shit smells a little better then Stalin's.

lol

But on a more serious note, at least Franco (usually) left people alone if they kept their nose out of politics. He wasn't a paranoid fucktard like Stalin (just a fucktard).

Franco was a mass murdering douchebag. I agree.

Franco believed the mass killing were fine.. because he was in a personal war against the "Pinko socialists".

How is Franco and the Bourbon Dictators(el rey Juan-Charles cast) related?
check the history books ;)

I agree.

Franco tough the mass killing were fine.. because he was in a personal war against the "Pinko socialists".

How is Franco and the Bourbon Dictators(el rey Juan-Charles cast) related?
check the history books ;)

Except Juan Carlos I has never killed anyone, and it is largely thanks to him that Spain didn't fall to fascism again.

it is largely thanks to Juan Carlos that Spain didn't fall to fascism again.(I call bull shit) challenges you to Prove it.

Prove it.

Here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23-F)

Before the new prime minister could be confirmed, a group of Civil Guards, led by Lieutenant Colonel Antonio Tejero Molina, marched onto the floor of the Cortes and held the representatives hostage in an attempted coup. The plan of the rebellious military leaders was to set up an authoritarian monarchy under the protection of the armed forces. That the coup failed was primarily due to the decisive action of Juan Carlos, who ordered the conspirators to desist and persuaded other military officers to back him in defending the Constitution. Juan Carlos then appeared on television and reassured the Spanish people of his commitment to democracy.

source (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+es0037))

Here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23-F)source (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+es0037))


a snow ball in hell had more of a chance to make it.. than that -joke of a- coup attempt.
elrey JuanCharles would have been crazy to support it.

a snow ball in hell had more of a chance to make it.. than that -joke of a- coup attempt.

Okay?

I am seriously loling at all the OMG statements on this thread, seriously who the hell is the Spanish King? Seriously he is a nobody, he has no power - nothing, a pure figurehead, and like all the Spanish royals he's a fascist. Wtf is with all the shock horror on this thread? What makes this guy any better than a common person? Is Chavez (or anyone else for that matter) supposed to respect inherited privilege, power and wealth? Why should he respect such an archaic and reactionary system as monarchy?

I am seriously loling at all the OMG statements on this thread, seriously who the hell is the Spanish King? Seriously he is a nobody, he has no power - nothing, a pure figurehead, and like all the Spanish royals he's a fascist. Wtf is with all the shock horror on this thread? What makes this guy any better than a common person? Is Chavez (or anyone else for that matter) supposed to respect inherited privilege, power and wealth? Why should he respect such an archaic and reactionary system as monarchy?

You should come and "seriously lol" at the the thread you started with you claim to be an authoritarian.

THIS ONE. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13201521&postcount=1)

Come, defend yourself, COWARD!

Specifically, answer


THIS POST, IN THE THREAD YOU STARTED (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13207987)

Sorry to interrupt the thread, y'all. Carry on here, I doubt EA will put up to that, with the sheer grunt of the posters who kicked his sheep in that thread.

In other words, Andaras Prime will be back, wearing a different sheep's clothing.

Carry on.

Call a spade a shovel. Chavez is just an asshole. He's like that smart-ass in every group who blatts out an idiotic comment about everything that happens and who's begging to get backhanded in the kisser.

That's probably the first time in his life that anyone's told him to shut the hell up, already.

El Rey has just shown that his education and politeness are on par of those of Chavez.

Anyway, what do you expect from someone who's been practically placed on the throne by Franco himself? Of course, he's no fascist (as his reactions to the attempted Tejero golpe and to the attempt of Aznar's at cancelling the election shows), but he really looks disturbed by the very idea of a contradictory - which, of course, Chavez isn't going to enact politely, but one would expect better manners from a king...

I am seriously loling at all the OMG statements on this thread, seriously who the hell is the Spanish King? Seriously he is a nobody, he has no power - nothing, a pure figurehead, and like all the Spanish royals he's a fascist. Wtf is with all the shock horror on this thread? What makes this guy any better than a common person? Is Chavez (or anyone else for that matter) supposed to respect inherited privilege, power and wealth? Why should he respect such an archaic and reactionary system as monarchy?

¿Por qué no te callas, Andaras Prime?

Like it or not, AP, el Rey told Chávez to shut up because he was interrumpting another delegate's speech, more exactly the spanish Prime Minister one, just to insult a ex head of state as democratically elected as Chávez, and according to the rules of said conference, he was right in doing so.

As I usually chastise those that label Chávez as a dictator because he is a democratically elected president, I also think he deserved the chastisement from the king for doing exactly that same thing, and labeling a democratically elected ruler a "fascist".

Por cierto, Mancomunidad, ¿De dónde eres?, es un placer conseguir a otro venezolano en estos foros, a pesar de las diferencias políticas entre nosotros. Si no eres un títere de alguien más, como Kilobugya o Andaras Prime, como tristemente parece, por favor contéstame.

Why should he respect such an archaic and reactionary system as monarchy?
I believe he did in fact shut up. So I think that just about answers your question.

Monarchs have that about them. They might only be figureheads, they might not even be particularly smart people - but for some reason they have presence. Bush was even more brainless than usual when the Queen was around and the toughest Thai military generals crawl on the floor begging for forgiveness on national television.

It's not rational, and it might not even be a good thing, but there aren't many people in the world who can meet a King or a Queen and not be...well, respectful.

==========

Oh, and I really wanted to mention one more thing that was canned when my post didn't make it. Kilobugya mentioned that he could think of no other democratic leader who got 62% in fair elections.

I would like to put forward Ronald Reagan, who got 58.8% of the popular vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1984) the second time he ran for office. Considering that it was the US, that's even more of a feat. Chávez' base is the poor and they form the mainstay of his election success, which makes sense because that's where he spends most of Venezuela's money. Ronald Reagan was not exactly a Bolivarian champion of the poor, yet he got a virtually identical result - because somehow he managed to get millions and millions of traditional Democrat voters to go for him.

Which, Kilobugya must clearly admit, makes Ronald Reagan the best leader America had in recent history. His policies (tax cuts, free trade, arms race etc) were clearly justified by the will of the people and therefore should not be questioned. Or, just maybe, popular support is not a valid criterion for deciding whether or not a policy is good and/or you should support it.

Reagan is an apt example, considering the thousands of Latin Americans murdered through his anti-leftist policies and support for fascists in the region, the US may have been deluded enough to put such a madman into the White House, but that says more about the right-wing conservative white trash that populate America more than anything. I laugh all the time at these anti-Chavez rantings because of one reason, hatred, the right-wingers hate socialism and popular democratic power, they hate governments not controlled by cliques of millionaires and oligarchs.

The president of Iran? "There are no homosexuals in Iran, that is entirely an American phenomenon."

In Iran those are simply really good friends ;)

Actually, the Venezuela economy is receiving its primary boost from the increased global demand for oil, with little actual impact felt from the policies of Chavez himself. Furthermore, inequality within Venezuela is not improving, and according to some accounts, it's actually increasing.

You might find this information interesting

Look at the regional comparison graph, and look what's happening in Venezuela.

JAJAJA, ¿Do you know that when Chavez reach to the be President the Venezuelan OIL was in 7$? They was to one step to sell PDVSA, then Chavez go trought ALL our partners in the OPEP, and he was blame it to be a Friend of dictators, that he is the evil AXIS, and some other fairy tales for childrens, but the CONSCECUENCE is that after that meeting go to 20$, then 30$, when the "CNN great experts" was making the profecies that the oil go down, and our POLITIC was wrong when we said that the oil will raise to 100$, they said againg that Chávez and his goverment was crazy ¿and NOW?

¿Inequality? 8 years ago, 80% of the population lives in the D,E,F economics class, now they have climbing, the 1% of the population called themself "The Masters of the Valley" (Caracas is a Valley) was OWNER of everything that produces, owners of the Politicians, of Ministry, they said who go to the president charge if NOT they put them in the black list of the forgiven, like Herrera Camping EX-President who made a law thet FORBIDE the cigarrettes & Alcoholic drinks on the TV and the Radio, he NEVER, NEVER more was in an interview or even named at all until he DIES 2 days ago.

In this country in the past 3 years the REAL salary has been rising in front o the Inflation for the first time in 2 decades.

Ah, by the way, the OIL has been EVER the ENGINE of our country, maybe is a DOOM but that is progressively changing, right now for the first time in OUR HISTORY we pay TAXES. Before NOBODY pays taxes

And in America cable television, cable telephone and broadband internet is available at a rate of $40 a month. In coffee shops such as Starbucks, wireless internet is free

¿América? ¿Excuse me? I AM AMERICAN ¿what América do you talking about? ¿maybe you are tryng to refer to the NO NAME country? ¿the States United IN America? ¿Thats it? I thougt that the union was the first economy in the PLANET ¿do you THINK that Chavez in 8 years is OBLIGATED to overpass that union of states? wait until we make our own BLOCK of the ALBA and we talk. ;) . By the way I PAY 70 Bs for the liter of gasoline, that means 0,032 $... :D

The over-presence of mobile phones is actually more akin to a sign of poorly developed wired infrastructure, than of generally success. That's why mobile phone penetration in Africa is so incredibly high.

OR maybe that here the FAMILY still being an INSTITUTION, and the people yet speaks one each other... But take it easy, we nationalized the CANTV because they never wanted to INVEST a coin in the fiber cable, but KNOW is ours againg and we will revert that situation.

PD: I`m sorry for my bad english.

Aelosia, soy de Caracas, pero de todas formas no te veo como una VENEZOLANA, y no es porque seas opositora, ya que mi mamá lo ES y la AMO igualito, sino que defiendes que UN REY, un MANTENIDO, una figura montada por un Sangriento Dictador como Franco tenga los bríos de no sólo estar viendo con aquella PREPOTENCIA a un Presidente, sino hasta de mandarlo a CALLAR, ¿me entiendes que aquel que tenga la cabeza loca como para defender a semejante PERSONAJILLO está MUY MAL?

Una cosa es que canales estupidizantes y pagados por la NED hablen de cada loco que ataque a Venezuela como si de un heroe se tratara, a ellos les pagan por eso, y son tan venezolanos como la muralla china, porque eso NO es sólo un pasaporte, o un número de cédula, ESO SE SIENTE, se lleva, y se MUERE por defenderlo, LA PATRIA, otra cosa es que alguien que se diga de AQUÍ lo celebre o lo defienda, estás realmente MAL.

También hay que recordar que ahí Chávez no dijo NINGUNA mentira, dijo sólo verdades, ¿duelen? ¡que se rasque!

Y además, ese "rey" NUNCA fue elegido ¿cómo se ATREVE a siquiera abrir la boca entre PRESIDENTES?

Yo no se si no notó todo el mundo, pero Chávez lo IGNORÓ totalmente ADREDE, él sabía que eso para un imbécil sangre azul es mucho más INSULTANTE que la peor mentada de madre o un golpe a la cara. Le mandó el siguiente mensaje: "NO SEAS IGUALADO, YO FUI ELECTO, TU ERES UN MANTENIDO, NI ME REBAJO A OIRTE"

Saludos

Me pregunto si el rey hubiera dicho eso si Chávez era blanco.

I am wondering if the king would have said that if Chávez had been white?

If el rey JenaCharles is shot tomorrow.. I am going to piss on his dead body.. or the ground covering it.

Can you please try to act mature for just one post? Your act is growing quite tiresome.

Can you please try to act mature for just one post? Your act is growing quite tiresome.what? you are not going to call me nazi/anti-semite today?
your new medication must be a miracle of science :D

he was interrumpting another delegate's speech, more exactly the spanish Prime Minister one, ..Like It happens in almost every single "cumbre".. Presidents sometimes interrupt each other.

.. just to insult a ex head of state as democratically elected as Chávez.If calling a democratically elected President(with or without reason).. if calling him Fascist is an insult.. then all Presidents have been insulted.

e-v-e-r-y-s-i-n-g-l-e-o-n-e-o-f-t-h-e-m.

Yes the King of Spain had the right to tell the Vicerey de Colombia or the viceRey del Peru "Why dont you just shut up" .. when all the Colombianos , Peruanos, etc were "vasallos de el rey".
But as far as I remember you are no longer exploitable/slaves countries.
are you?

I believe he did in fact shut up. ..No he didnt.. you should watch the Youtubes I posted on page 3

Hugo Chavez is an idot... Someone should hit him several times in the head with a stick.. it can only make him smarter :D

Hugo Chavez is an idot... Someone should hit him several times in the head with a stick.. it can only make him smarter :DI am -all for- giving you a stick and seeing you try. ;)

I am -all for- giving you a stick and seeing you try.

If you pay for the ticket to Venezuela... The a buddy of mine and I would try to smack the bitch :D

Is there anyone who doesn't completely love or completely hate Chavez? Anyone in between?
I'm mostly indifferent towards Chavez. There is only one thing that is possibly worrying, and that's when he threatened to join in if there's a future war over the Falklands. We should keep an eye on him over that one, but I think it's probably just hot air, he comes out with plenty of that. For everything else I don't really care about Chavez a whole lot. I think he's an idiot, and his behaviour in the international arena ranks alongside Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium. But most of what he does is of no concern to me and needn't be of any consequence to Britain. So I say we leave it to the people of Venezuela. He's the democratically elected leader of their country, so we should just leave it and let his policies speak for themselves. If they're successful, good for Venezuala. If they don't work out in the long term (As I suspect will be the case, though I'm not really sure) then it's the people of Venezuela who will have to deal with the consequences.

If you pay for the ticket to Venezuela.....Ill give you the dates of his next visit to NY.. no I am not paying your fare to NY.. If you are charged I want no links to you.
BTW why do you need a buddy.. are you scared of a 1v1?

Ill give you the dates of his next visit to NY.. no I am not paying your fare to NY.. If you are charged I want no links to you.
BTW why do you need a buddy.. are you scared of a 1v1?

Damn... I'm not that rich... No, but my buddy has to film the incident :D

Easy to to play brave when sitting far away :D

No, but my buddy has to film the incident :D...

excellent forward planning :D

...

excellent forward planning :D

Thanks :D

Monarchs have that about them. They might only be figureheads, they might not even be particularly smart people - but for some reason they have presence. Bush was even more brainless than usual when the Queen was around and the toughest Thai military generals crawl on the floor begging for forgiveness on national television.

It's not rational, and it might not even be a good thing, but there aren't many people in the world who can meet a King or a Queen and not be...well, respectful.

That's insightful.

I think its a manner. They have practice at that "I'm going to get my way anyhow so I'm not going to argue with you" manner, it's a part of their role.

There is also the factor of celebrity -- folks you recognize from TV always look a bit more special in real life than ones you don't. But Chavez is a celebrity himself so that doesn't really apply.

I think its a manner. They have practice at that "I'm going to get my way anyhow....a Spanish friend of mine just told me that el rey JuanCharles is above the law.. for example if he is drunk driving.. the police cannot arrest him.

a Spanish friend of mine just told me that el rey JuanCharles is above the law.. for example if he is drunk driving.. the police cannot arrest him.


most monarchs, if not all are above the law... A privilege ;)

most monarchs, if not all are above the law... A privilege ;)are you talking about dictators?

or decorative "kings"?

a Spanish friend of mine just told me that el rey JuanCharles is above the law.. for example if he is drunk driving..
You ought to be as strict with him as you are with us. The only information I can find is that he is immune from prosecution "in matters relating to his official duties" (Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Carlos_I_of_Spain)), which I'd wager doesn't include DUI.

Also, he enjoys 77.5% approval ratings, making him a great, competent and praise-worthy man.

Also, he enjoys 77.5% approval ratings, making him a great, competent and praise-worthy man.if 77% = "great, competent and praise-worthy"

then.. a 35% approval rating = to what ?
Incompetent/corrupt/un-worthy/moron?

and

a 12% approval rating = to what ???
corrupt/scum/rotten/fucking retarded/makes you sick?

if 77% = "great, competent and praise-worthy"

then.. a 12% approval rating = to what ???
Well, first of all it's not my way of judging public figures, so I'm hardly an expert. Secondly, I presume it would translate into the almost the exact opposite. Bush-like levels of incompetence, even.

But then, back when he had big approval ratings and a strong win the second time 'round I didn't exactly consider him praise-worthy either. So that's a tricky little issue you're gonna have to ask the people who tell me Chávez is good because he is successful with the voters.

Well, first of all it's not my way of judging public figures, so I'm hardly an expert.you are not and expert? :confused:

You sure fooled me ;)

by the -speaks with assurance- tone of you post..
...the way you un-mistakenly told me exactly what 77.5 means.. I was going to bet the farm on your clear-cut assessment of the number.

I was like: "Leo has spoken.. the numbers are out" ... and took that to the bank :D

So that's a tricky (question)...

...Chávez is good because (he has great numbers too, all trough Latin America)let me tell you one of the little secrets of NSG..

"tricky" is ##(my) middle name :fluffle:

are you talking about dictators?

or decorative "kings"?

most monarch... fx. the danish queen and royal family can't be prosecuted unless the queen decides to allow it..

most monarch... fx. the danish queen and royal family can't be prosecuted unless the queen decides to allow it..ok so you found 1 (one) example, It hardly makes it "most of", so let me repeat-and-clarify my question with examples.

Decorative "Kings": Denmark, Norway, Belgium, etc.

Dictatorship "Kings": SaudiArabia, Kuwait, Brunei, etc.

most monarchs, if not all are above the law... A privilege ;) ¿Democracy with PRIVILEGE? ¿What happened with the IQUALITY? ¿Goberment of the People, for the people, UNDER one person? :eek:

:headbang: ¿How I thought that we were on the XXI century?

let me tell you one of the little secrets of NSG..

"tricky" is ##(my) middle name

Little secrets ... big lies ... what's the difference?

Let me mention the Queen of England and her tax-free status.

Central Bank independence is complete absurdity of the neoliberal system, and one of the most antidemocratic measure that can be taken. It completely removes democratic control over something as fundamental for sovereignty as the money.
Put it down to my mood, or the weird lack of economics now that my holidays have started, but if you're up for it, I'd like to argue this point. But not in this thread, I made one for it a few days ago which you missed the first time around:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542133

Aelosia, soy de Caracas, pero de todas formas no te veo como una VENEZOLANA, y no es porque seas opositora, ya que mi mamá lo ES y la AMO igualito, sino que defiendes que UN REY, un MANTENIDO, una figura montada por un Sangriento Dictador como Franco tenga los bríos de no sólo estar viendo con aquella PREPOTENCIA a un Presidente, sino hasta de mandarlo a CALLAR, ¿me entiendes que aquel que tenga la cabeza loca como para defender a semejante PERSONAJILLO está MUY MAL?

Una cosa es que canales estupidizantes y pagados por la NED hablen de cada loco que ataque a Venezuela como si de un heroe se tratara, a ellos les pagan por eso, y son tan venezolanos como la muralla china, porque eso NO es sólo un pasaporte, o un número de cédula, ESO SE SIENTE, se lleva, y se MUERE por defenderlo, LA PATRIA, otra cosa es que alguien que se diga de AQUÍ lo celebre o lo defienda, estás realmente MAL.

También hay que recordar que ahí Chávez no dijo NINGUNA mentira, dijo sólo verdades, ¿duelen? ¡que se rasque!

Y además, ese "rey" NUNCA fue elegido ¿cómo se ATREVE a siquiera abrir la boca entre PRESIDENTES?

Yo no se si no notó todo el mundo, pero Chávez lo IGNORÓ totalmente ADREDE, él sabía que eso para un imbécil sangre azul es mucho más INSULTANTE que la peor mentada de madre o un golpe a la cara. Le mandó el siguiente mensaje: "NO SEAS IGUALADO, YO FUI ELECTO, TU ERES UN MANTENIDO, NI ME REBAJO A OIRTE"

Saludos

Triste que no me veas como una venezolana. Triste, porque yo sí te veo como un venezolano. ¿Acaso hay que estar de acuerdo con las políticas gubernamentales, o con las acciones del jefe de Estado para disfrutar de la nacionalidad?

Insultos aparte, y que se note que me abstengo de lanzarlos en contra del presidente de nuestro país, a quien considero legítimo y elegido democráticamente, la falta de protocolo continua fue de las dos partes, lamentablemente, aún espero por el cheque de la NED, que no llega. Eso solucionaría algo mi situación económica, de hecho.

No recuerdo a alguien, excepto al presidente de la república, que haya mandado a callar al pueblo venezolano, por lo que no me siento insultada en lo más mínimo. Aún considero al presidente venezolano como un individuo, y si bien es el representante de nuestro pueblo, considero una garantía constitucional mi derecho a disentir de sus afirmaciones.

Para bien o para mal, le guste o no le guste a Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, o te guste o no te guste a tí, José María Aznar fue un jefe de gobierno electo tan legítimamente y democráticamente como el presidente de Venezuela, y por tanto calificarlo de "fascista", una definición que por lo demás es usada de una manera tan libre por nuestro mandatario que pierde su verdadero significado, no es más que en un insulto.

Si te presentas durante un acto formal, e interrumpes la alocución de otra persona para lanzar insultos de esa manera, debes prepararte para recibir respuestas como la emitida por el rey de España, que si bien no es elegido de manera directa, continúa siendo una figura legítima aprobada por la mayor parte de sus españoles, ya que la figura real ESTÁ INCLUIDA EN LA CONSTITUCIÓN DE ESE PAÍS. En cuanto a mis razonamientos, aún son lo suficientemente fuertes como para que mi patriotismo o nacionalismo no nuble mi visión de las cosas. Si considero que alguien tiene razón, la tiene indiferentemente de su nacionalidad, cualquier otra idea es proveniente de un acceso emocional. Hugo Chávez no tiene la razón simplemente porque es venezolano como yo, y afirmar lo contrario es un atentado en contra de la razón humana.

Repito, yo hubiera reaccionado igual si alguien en dicha cumbre hubiera categorizado a Chávez de dictador, como a veces lo ha hecho la pobre peona de Condoleeza Rice. Como a veces lo hacen sujetos en este foro. Categorizar a Chávez como dictador es un insulto en contra de su persona y del pueblo venezolano que vota en nuestros comicios, a favor de Chávez o no, y por tanto un insulto en mi contra. Igual categorizar a Aznar de fascista. El que Chávez sea el presidente de mi país no hace que automáticamente yo lo respalde cuando emite insultos en contra de otros jefes o ex jefes de Estado sin tener un criterio válido.

Por tanto, no es que Chávez dijo una mentira, es que dijo una tontería y estaba equivocado, como se lo subrayó el jefe del gobierno español, José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero.

Lamento agregar que no creo que sepas exactamente las intenciones de Chávez con sus actitudes como lo clamas tan abiertamente al afirmar que él ignoró al Rey con un propósito claro. No creo que la conexión emocional con tu líder sea tan fuerte como para tener contacto telepático.

Me pregunto si el rey hubiera dicho eso si Chávez era blanco.

I am wondering if the king would have said that if Chávez had been white?

I don't think that race is an issue is this affair. And to claim otherwise would be as wrong as when ol' Danny Glover stated that the venezuelan problem was a problem of racism. Chávez isn't the only non-white president in latin america.

Like It happens in almost every single "cumbre".. Presidents sometimes interrupt each other.

If calling a democratically elected President(with or without reason).. if calling him Fascist is an insult.. then all Presidents have been insulted.

e-v-e-r-y-s-i-n-g-l-e-o-n-e-o-f-t-h-e-m.

Yes the King of Spain had the right to tell the Vicerey de Colombia or the viceRey del Peru "Why dont you just shut up" .. when all the Colombianos , Peruanos, etc were "vasallos de el rey".
But as far as I remember you are no longer exploitable/slaves countries.
are you?

No, it doesn't in every single cumbre. Well, it usually happens when Chávez attends, that is a point.

Following your line of thinking, that as usual isn't clear. Then Chávez is a fascist?

Just asking.

OK, a few points, if I may:

1. The comments made by Chavez were undiplomatic, out of place, and deliberately and pointlessly inflammatory and counter-productive. Given Spain's recent bad experiences with fascist government, that was a comment intended to sting Spanish national pride, and is unacceptable in what was meant to be a diplomatic and amicable meeting between states.

2. El Rey's response, given this insult, was un-usual, but eminently understandable, and it is good to see him stand by his PM.

3. El Rey had and has every right to attend such meetings, given his position as head of state.

4. The poverty reduction, education and health programs in Venezuela introduced by Chavez have and do deliver concrete results on the ground and dramatically improve quality of life. They deliver results, and are effective.

5. The jury's out on whether or not Chavez intends to entrench his position or not. However, ignoring his undiplomatic behaviour that angers other states, he has not betrayed his nation. He has not yet engaged in widespread corruption, neglected the people or been excessively heavy handed with them on a broad scale. At present he has brought benefits to Venezuela he said he would.

He isn't of the elite, and that much is clear. He needs to learn how to behave properly when amongst diplomatic company. Other than that, the people and fed, educated, and cared for, whilst they were neglected before. That's what matters. As long as the oil money goes into the nation, I feel he should be left to do what is necessary for Venezuela.

In the meantime, he should apologise to both Aznar and to El Rey publicly, and should also meet privately with the latter to repair the links between the two nations.

No, it doesn't in every single cumbre. Well, it usually happens when Chávez attends, that is a point.They were doing it (previous televised cumbres) before Chavez attended.. and they do it the US Presidential TV debates.. and no, Chavez is not a candidate. So you cant blame it on him ;)
..
If calling a democratically elected President(with or without reason).. if calling him Fascist is an insult.. then all Presidents have been insulted.Then Chávez is a fascist?Chavez has been called Fascist.. just like every President. (it does not mean he is)

Si prefieres, puedo escribirlo en espanhol, for clarification purposes

There was a mistranslation, Chavez accused the Prime Minister of Wall-hacking so the King called him a noob and told him to stfu. Everyone Lol'd.

Categorizar a Chávez como dictador es un insulto en contra de su persona y del pueblo venezolano que vota en nuestros comicios, a favor de Chávez o no, y por tanto un insulto en mi contra. Igual categorizar a Aznar de fascista. El que Chávez sea el presidente de mi país no hace que automáticamente yo lo respalde cuando emite insultos en contra de otros jefes o ex jefes de Estado sin tener un criterio válido.

Por tanto, no es que Chávez dijo una mentira, es que dijo una tontería y estaba equivocado, como se lo subrayó el jefe del gobierno español, José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero.


Well, I don't think that I can agree with you.
Being a fascist isn't the same thing as being a dictator, as "fascist" is a political ideology, while "dictator" is a position in a form of government.
Since Aznar was in Franco's party - and, iirc, a young leader thereof, not just an ordinary card-carrying member, he is a fascist (or, at least, was). This has nothing to do with the democratic legitimacy of the elections that placed him as PM of Spain.
My opinion is that the elections were perfectly legitimate - hence Aznar was democratically elected PM, AND that Aznar is a fascist. Just like Fini (leader of the post-fascist party AN in Italy and former FM) or Le Pen.

This said, it must be noted that:
It is a grave lack of manners for a Head of State to criticise a former PM of a foreign country in the presence of the new PM: it embarasses the new PM (namely Zapatero in this case).
It is a grave lack of manners for a Head of State to shout another Head of State to shut up, even if the latter is clearly showing poor manners.

So, really, I think that Zapatero was the only one who met with what's expected from a serious politician, while El Rey played the part of the arrogant aristocrat and Chavez the part of the arrogant populist. I like Chavez's policies, but not his manners.

(Oh and btw, I really think that most people here would have appreciated more your dialectical confrontation with Mancomunidad if it would have been held in english - after all, english is standard here, and not everyone can understand castellano.)

Rosita you are right that the lenguage is english, but if well I read good my writting is patetic, I kwon it, and I cannot lose the opportunity to tell to somebody of my country exactly what I think, and the english by the way is very compact in front for the spanish, but I will try.

Aelosia I told you before, not is about Chavez or not Chavez, or waht is my side in the politic behavior, is about BE VENEZUELAN, when you see somebody atacking to your COUNTRY you cannot chose sides, you are with your country or against.

In that meeting was NOT the only thing that happens that micro second was a speech of eurocentrism, of arrogance of that man called king, you say that he have aprovall ¿in what ELECTIONS? you said that the figure of king is in the constitution ¿WHO made the constitution? and beyond that in the LEGAL MATTER ¿WHO must to be KING? ¿him OR his FATHER? ...

¿Why to the king HURTS so much? cause not only Chavez was TELLING THE TRUTH, Ortega TOO, ¿WHY nobody sais anything about the king just stand up and RUN when Ortega was speaking?

¿Has you seen THE ENTIRE VIDEO? ¿DID YOU? ¿Did you see how that king was seeing to OUR President? ¿thas is diplomatic? ¿Yell a President IS NORMAL? ¿Was diplomatic?

If you didnt here is the video of the BBC with the AUDIO of Chavez, the TRUE one without that miraculous audio error:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxUd86MLNk4

¿Somebody has seen what were the POINTS treated in that MEETING?

SEE IT.

So, really, I think that Zapatero was the only one who met with what's expected from a serious politician, while El Rey played the part of the arrogant aristocrat and Chavez the part of the arrogant populist. I like Chavez's policies, but not his manners.

I agree there, although. Even although I have been for years waiting for someone to tell Chávez to shut up, I have to admit that the King was as out of order as Chávez, and that his words were a loss of protocol. Zapatero, however, was bright and smart. He was both firm and resolute, without being blunt or insulting.


(Oh and btw, I really think that most people here would have appreciated more your dialectical confrontation with Mancomunidad if it would have been held in english - after all, english is standard here, and not everyone can understand castellano.)

Several reasons for that. I thought it was easier for him to follow, and to answer. It was a way to prove that I am truly a venezuelan to his eyes, and to also check if his claim of being venezuelan was true. Second and third purpose fulfilled, I will continue in english from now on. If anyone needs a translation about the posts in spanish, I will be happy to provide you with one

If anyone needs a translation about the posts in spanish, I will be happy to provide you with onewould you translate the improvised speech _in the heat of the- by President chavez.. right after the Royal aggression. (Shown on the the last Youbube..)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxUd86MLNk4
my Spanish skills are not as good as yours

Aelosia I told you before, not is about Chavez or not Chavez, or waht is my side in the politic behavior, is about BE VENEZUELAN, when you see somebody atacking to your COUNTRY you cannot chose sides, you are with your country or against.
That's silly. You're you - a unique person with your own hopes, dreams and problems. You're an individual who exists alongside many others, not some cog in a faceless collective.

You happened to have been born in Venezuela, like I happen to have been born in Germany. The rest is up to ourselves to decide and create. So apart from the fact that I don't think anyone in this thread even began to criticise Venezuela as a country, standing by your government for patriotic or nationalist reasons is a step into precisely that fascism I would have thought you're opposed to.

Not to mention Neu, but that statement reminds me of Bush's statement that "You are either with us or against us."

'What my rivals don't understand... is that Hugo Chavez is not Chavez but the people of Venezuela' - Hugo Chavez

That's silly. You're you - a unique person with your own hopes, dreams and problems. You're an individual who exists alongside many others, not some cog in a faceless collective.

You happened to have been born in Venezuela, like I happen to have been born in Germany. The rest is up to ourselves to decide and create. So apart from the fact that I don't think anyone in this thread even began to criticise Venezuela as a country, standing by your government for patriotic or nationalist reasons is a step into precisely that fascism I would have thought you're opposed to.

If you are german you most to know VERY WELL what is the fascism, if you take a side of those that says that about Chavez is that you dont like even open a book.

Chavez WANTS the union of the south america and Caribean sea, in a block like the UE, BUT not just in the liberalism capitalism way, oppositely is a social level of union, not impossing ANYTHING ¿that is fascism?

¿fascism is 9 elections in 8 years? ¿Do you know that we have in our constitution the Revocatory Referendum at the middle of the period? ¿that is fascism? ¿do you know that here even a cup were launched from the TV and no one of those TVs were closed?

On this new age fantastic fascism we vote, in the Tv you can heard to anyone calling dictator, tyran, killer, to the President, even you can see how call to go against the LAW & ORDER in the streets for radio, tc, press, even one newspaper has been closed, no one is politic prisoner, nor executed because in this fantastic new fasicsm we in the constitution being THE FIRST country in the world have the DDHH like a LAW, well then is not constitutional the dead penalty... ¡if this is fascism I am MARTIAN!

'What my rivals don't understand... is that Hugo Chavez is not Chavez but the people of Venezuela' - Hugo Chavez
Now that sounds like fascism.

'What my rivals don't understand... is that Hugo Chavez is not Chavez but the people of Venezuela' - Hugo Chavez

"I am the state." - Louis XIV of France, The Sun King

'What my rivals don't understand... is that Hugo Chavez is not Chavez but the people of Venezuela' - Hugo Chavez ¡EXACTLY! he is not ONE person, he is MILLIONS

Neruda wrote:

Yo conocí a Bolívar
Una mañana larga
En Madrid,
En la Boca del Quinto Regimiento.
Padre, le dije,
¿Eres o no eres o quién eres?
Y mirando al Cuartel de la Montaña
Dijo: Despierto cada cien años
Cuando despierta el pueblo.

I met Bolivar
One morning long
In Madrid,
In Mouth of the Fifth Regiment.
Father, I told him,
Are you or are you not, or who are you?
And looking at the headquarters of the Mountain
He said: I awake every hundred years
When people awake.

Un canto para Bolívar. http://www.stormpages.com/marting/pablobol.htm

If you are german you most to know VERY WELL what is the fascism, if you take a side of those that says that about Chavez is that you dont like even open a book.
I don't think fascism is about whether or not you have a vote, as long as the vote doesn't change anything. We won't know anything about Chávez' attitude towards democracy until there is an actual risk of him losing office. What I do see is a certain conflict between Chávez' ideology and the idea of letting individuals decide. But then, I don't think he's too keen on the idea of individuals deciding anyways, he sees it more as a tool for the "oppressed masses" to get their will.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html
The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

The only way in which you could interpret us criticising the President is by equating him with the State, and the State with the Nation, and the Nation with yourself. That is perhaps not fascism, but it is totalitarianism, which is an absolutely vital aspect of it. And that's what I meant, quite apart from Chávez policies, which clearly are state socialist (with everything that comes with that) and not fascist. At times the two get very close though, considering that Mussolini started out (and to some extent ended up) a statist socialist.

The only way in which you could interpret us criticising the President is by equating him with the State, and the State with the Nation, and the Nation with yourself. That is perhaps not fascism, but it is totalitarianism, which is an absolutely vital aspect of it. And that's what I meant, quite apart from Chávez policies, which clearly are state socialist (with everything that comes with that) and not fascist. At times the two get very close though, considering that Mussolini started out (and to some extent ended up) a statist socialist.

Then you critic is based ON FEAR, you fear about a Duche, a Füerer, but there is ONE ¿who is fear about BUSH? ¿that is not a TRUE FASCISM? He speaks with god, he attacks other countries without the approval of the UN, uses Radioactive weapons against CIVILIANS, uses ilegal weapons, he speach like with me or against, ¿Do I realy need filling this? I dont think so.

The Mass Media is on charge to spread FEAR about Chávez cause he is not a SERVANT, a moron that dance for few dollars and titles, a coward that go to every meeting just to sign papers that sell the country, he said NO, and that puts on guard to the SISTEM, the sistem that rules from FEARS, from the ignorance of people, the same system that makes wars, that press the masses, that sell the health, the water, the education, and can put a price for the Knowledge.

When HE puts in front of the WAVE that want not Take price, but value, then he becomes in MILLIONS, YES I AM, I want the change, and with me the most of the people

'What my rivals don't understand... is that Hugo Chavez is not Chavez but the people of Venezuela' - Hugo Chavez

WE ARE HUGO CHAVEZ PREPARE TO BE ASSIMILATED

I Do not understand this forum, ¿why Do I have reply 2 times and didint appear? ¿why my messages go first for a moderator? ¿who is him or her?

WE ARE HUGO CHAVEZ PREPARE TO BE ASSIMILATED
What is the Kansas of Europe? Poland?

Chavez is not only a would-be dictator (frankly, I'll trust independent Western media over state-run Venezuelan media), but he is a total jerk. If the political stage were an internet forum, Chavez would have been banned for flaming long ago.

Chavez is not only a would-be dictator (frankly, I'll trust independent Western media over state-run Venezuelan media), but he is a total jerk. If the political stage were an internet forum, Chavez would have been banned for flaming long ago.

When reaches the day that make a COUNTRY politics is being seated in your chair in front of a computer the end of the world will be very close, dont be panic, stay there.

They were doing it (previous televised cumbres) before Chavez attended.. and they do it the US Presidential TV debates.. and no, Chavez is not a candidate. So you cant blame it on him ;)
..
Chavez has been called Fascist.. just like every President. (it does not mean he is)

Si prefieres, puedo escribirlo en espanhol, for clarification purposes

you know OD, I know for a fact that if Bush were the one that pissed off the king of spain in the same way you would be all over him by now. Making extensive excuses for Chavez just makes him seem all the more terrible.

I am seriously loling at all the OMG statements on this thread, seriously who the hell is the Spanish King? Seriously he is a nobody, he has no power - nothing, a pure figurehead, and like all the Spanish royals he's a fascist. Wtf is with all the shock horror on this thread? What makes this guy any better than a common person? Is Chavez (or anyone else for that matter) supposed to respect inherited privilege, power and wealth? Why should he respect such an archaic and reactionary system as monarchy?
You're a prick, and a stupid one at that :)

'What my rivals don't understand... is that Hugo Chavez is not Chavez but the people of Venezuela' - Hugo Chavez
Erm, no. Hugo Chavez is Hugo Chavez, who is a person in Venezuala. He's obviously not all of the people in Venezuala, or he wouldn't have rivals, unless he's a massive schitzo or something.

Absolutlely fascinating to see out U.S cousins betray their revolutionary heritage by supporting a political intervention by a "KING" George Washington would be disgusted. A principle of the American Revolution was that no king anywhere, anytime, had the right to tell an elected representative what to do. From a democratic point-of view, Juan Carlos, whatever his personal qualities, is of a lower status than any citizen while an elected state president such as Hugo Chavez, whatever his personal qualities, carries the combined authority of those who elected him.

We will all be a lot worse off if if kIngs get to give orders to elected presidents!

You're a prick, and a stupid one at that :)

This is a Solid argument, so bohemian, so cult, so.... ¿Bush? :D

This is a Solid argument, so bohemian, so cult, so.... ¿Bush? :D
Not really, Eureka Australis really is just stupid :p

Absolutlely fascinating to see out U.S cousins betray their revolutionary heritage by supporting a political intervention by a "KING" George Washington would be disgusted. A principle of the American Revolution was that no king anywhere, anytime, had the right to tell an elected representative what to do. From a democratic point-of view, Juan Carlos, whatever his personal qualities, is of a lower status than any citizen while an elected state president such as Hugo Chavez, whatever his personal qualities, carries the combined authority of those who elected him.

We will all be a lot worse off if if kIngs get to give orders to elected presidents!

Chavez is President of Venezuela, not the Ibero-American Summit. He has no superiority over any other head of state at the summit.

Chavez is President of Venezuela, not the Ibero-American Summit. He has no superiority over any other head of state at the summit.

You're right, so the King of Spain was way out of line by telling another head of state to shut up.

that man that the Spanish call King insult to our President showing the FASCIST that is inside him, ¿Why a king go to the Conference of Democratic ELECTED liders? ¿When he was elected?


That THING that somebody in this forum has salute like a great thing is just the last view of a DEAD World like is a King that was put it there for a DICTATOR like Franco, remerber that.

Spain will MUST to Understand that América NOT is anymore his Colony, or they RESPECT US or they Respect US.

Tell Chavez to respect the Spanish HEADS OF STATE!!

BTW, the King is NOT A FASCIST!!! He is quite democratically minded. Franco wanted to put him in charge of a total monarchy, and what did el Rey do? He DISMANTLED THAT SYSTEM AND ESTABLISHED A PARLIAMENT AND EVERYTHING!!! FASCISTS DON'T DO THAT!!!!


That's one of the most ridiculous thing you could say. Cuban doctors are among the best of the world. I should remind you that, despite the blockade, Cuba has a longer average lifespan and lower childdeath rate than the USA !


While I would not agree with what's-his-name that Cuban doctors are poorly educated(they're as good as any others), that is absolutely NO THANKS to Castro, may the bitch die painfully.

I would love for that pussy-cry-baby of a decoration-king to try and do that.

Fuck him, fuck "el rey" Juan Carlos.

He is not a "decoration king," especially given that he is constitutionally given the position of Commander in Chief of the armed forces of Spain, can dissolve Parliament and call for re-elections, and can cast a vote in Parliament as well, he is as functional as the French president in terms of government function (I would say effectiveness, but I'll find an example other than France first;)). Think American President for effectiveness (like Reagan, not Bush or Clinton)
I agree.

Franco believed the mass killing were fine.. because he was in a personal war against the "Pinko socialists".

How is Franco and the Bourbon Dictators(el rey Juan-Charles cast) related?
check the history books ;)

It wasn't exactly a personal war. It was not like the commies had raped him as a child or something. He thought they were a menace to a civilized Spain and World (hence his Cold War alliance with the U.S.) and thought he was doing the right thing for civilization by wiping them out. Besides, he was better than the pack of commies who would have ended up in charge if he had lost the SCW. Had they won, Spain would have been a Soviet puppet state by 1940. By 1938 the Communist Party in Spain was already cracking down on the anarchists, moderate conservatives, and moderate republicans, and moderate socialists. Good riddence to that ill-conceived Republic.

Besides, you act like hating commies is a bad thing. Everyone who hates Castro raise your hand! (All of Miami raises its hands.) (All of family raises hands.)(Yup, even the dog raises her paw.) And may maggots eat Guevara's cold, dead remains!

They aren't related. Admittedly, King Juan Carlos was educated by Franco, but only so he could manipulate the dictator's plan.

I am seriously loling at all the OMG statements on this thread, seriously who the hell is the Spanish King? Seriously he is a nobody, he has no power - nothing, a pure figurehead, and like all the Spanish royals he's a fascist. Wtf is with all the shock horror on this thread? What makes this guy any better than a common person? Is Chavez (or anyone else for that matter) supposed to respect inherited privilege, power and wealth? Why should he respect such an archaic and reactionary system as monarchy?

See what I said about the "decoration king" and "fascist" comments above. (Besides, you people are using fascist/falangist like it's a bad thing!

what? you are not going to call me nazi/anti-semite today?
your new medication must be a miracle of science :D

Commie. Pinko. Red. Socialist Bastard. Care for me to continue?

He should have pimp smacked Chavez.

You're right, so the King of Spain was way out of line by telling another head of state to shut up.

No he wasn't. Chavez was interrupting someone in the middle of their speech. And it wasn't even for a good reason. The fact that people had tried to make Chavez stop being an ass earlier in the meetings and that he was just refusing to see reason means that King Juan Carlos was in his right to tell Chavez to stop being so disrespectful, especially after being asked not to so many times. And, as I said before, Chavez wasn't even interrupting for a good reason. It was just so he could call the Spanish Prime Minister, (who, btw is a member of the socialist party) a fascist. Chavez was clearly showing he did not deserve the respect normally reserved for a head of state. And for as reasonable, moderate, and great a man as the King to loose his temper with someone, Chavez must have been acting like the asshole that he is.
Kudos to el Rey Juan Carlos.
May Castro die painfully, bitch that he is,
May Guevara burn in hell,
May Chavez at least start to see reason,
May Phillip II and Charles V rest in peace.

I Do not understand this forum, ¿why Do I have reply 2 times and didint appear? ¿why my messages go first for a moderator? ¿who is him or her?Its automatic for every new account, es automatico para cada cuenta nueva. No es nada malo.

you know OD, I know for a fact that if Bush were the one that pissed off the king of spain in the same way you would be all over him by now. FYI, Bush is a lame duck, that clown is only good for some laughs, If you know me so well.. guess what finger i am holding up rite now :D :D

Chavez is President of Venezuela, not the Ibero-American Summit. He has no superiority over any other head of state at the summit.WTF? he never said Chavez is the president of IberoAmerica

You're a prick, and a stupid one at that :)

That's telling AP :D