NationStates Jolt Archive

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 Rey 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.

Well, let's get one thing straight first, he was calling a former Spanish Primer Minister a fascist, not the current prime minister....and he has every right to do so especially when Aznar (former Spanish prime minister) calls Chavez a dictator. He has every right to talk about Axnar, right? Second, he didn't interrupt Zapatero by saying Aznar was a fascist, if you look at the video Chavez says 'then tell him (Aznar) to respect us, too' , 'we demand respect' repeatedly.....as a response to what Zapatero was saying. Of course, Zapatero was making a response which was interrupted by Chavez, but in that case it's up to Bachelet, as moderator, to intervene and make things straight not up to the King by telling him to shut up. Only after the king's abrupt response did Bachelet intervened and said 'let's not make this a dialogue.'


The main thing of this whole issue is, besides the king's response,... if Zapatero believes he has the responsability to defend the image of a former prime minister why doesn't he take responsability of what Aznar also says to other heads of state?


It'd be better if you see the video so that you get the facts straight.

(Juan Carlos) is not a "decoration king," especially given that he is constitutionally given the position of Commander in Chief of the armed forces of Spain..I see, so he decided to go to War vs Iraq. I know he didnt, I am just exposing the stupidity of your post

Besides, you act like (killing) 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.

you people are using fascist/falangist like it's a bad thing!

Commie. Pinko. Red. Socialist Bastard. Care for me to continue?Please, do continue.. be my guest.

Chavez was being a troll and the King moderated his ass. It's good to be the king.

I see, so he decided to go to War vs Iraq. I know he didnt, I am just exposing the stupidity of your post

He had the authority to tell the army to stand down during that attempted coup.

I'm also fairly sure that Spain is not actually in Iraq. Afganistan, maybe, but only as part of the NATO and U.N. Peacekeepers there.

Besides, that sort of thing would still a Parliamentary vote. Besides, they might as well fight the terrorists there and elsewhere. Osama Bin Laden has basically said that Spain should be part of a new Islamic Empire ruled by the Arabs. No way that's gonna make the Spanish (who use "moor" as a derogatory/insulting term) very happy.

BTW, that white print thing was a dirty, underhanded trick. Worthy of a commie in every way, actually. And I was half-kidding about the "Commie, pinko," thing. Castro-Masturbater (jk).

Also, there is no stupidity in my post to expose.

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.Phillip and Charles are Gay.


(and they are good citizens, IMO)

He had the authority to tell the army to stand down during that attempted coup.

Besides, that sort of thing is still a Parliamentary vote. Besides, they might as well fight the terrorists there and elsewhere. Osama Bin Laden has basically said that Spain should be part of a new Islamic Empire ruled by the Arabs. No way that's gonna make the Spanish (who use "moor" as an insult) very happy.

BTW, that white print thing was a dirty, underhanded trick. Worthy of a commie in every way, actually. Castro-masturbater. You keep posters of Stalin on your wall with big hearts drawn on em, don't ya? Devil Worshipper. Faceless machine.dont cry for me Argentina :D

dont cry.. if you ass is hurting.. just use some ice. :D :D :p :D

The truth that has been ever denied in this forum:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/columnists/andres_oppenheimer/story/303276.html#recent_comm

Phillip and Charles are Gay.

Insulting the dead, now, are you? Thats low man. Real low. Besides, Phillip should have taken over England and CRUSHED Elizabeth. Just to show her who's the best (Spain, in other words). Phillip was a great leader (the Armada thing was bad luck of the weather) who helped Spain really turn itself into THE world superpower at the time, and Charles V did good by turning back the Turks, beating the shit out of France (which, lets face it, needs doing), Taking over Morocco, and taking over the New World.

Owned!

...actually. And I was half-kidding about the "Commie, pinko," thing. Castro-Masturbater (jk).what?
all Fascists/FrancoFanBoys are pussies now?

so pathetic.

dont cry for me Argentina :D

dont cry.. if you ass is hurting.. just use some ice. :D :D :p :D

That first bit made absolutely no sense whatsoever. The other half was just dumb.

what?
all Fascists/FrancoFanBoys are pussies now?

so pathetic.

:upyours:

We're still better than the commies. No matter what. Castro-masturbater. Devil Worshipper.
And btw, that half kidding thing...
It was 100% Bullshit.

That first bit made absolutely no sense whatsoever. The other half was just dumb.fascists/francofanboys have to think twice as hard to understand some posts. ;)

dont worry.. stay here with us (NSG).. you are going to grow a brain :D

fascists/francofanboys have to think twice as hard to understand some posts. ;)

dont worry stay in NSG you are going to grow a brain :D

THE ARGENTINA BIT WAS COMPLETELY OUT OF LEFT FIELD WITH NO RELATION TO THE REST OF THE TOPIC!!!!!

:upyours:

:upyours:

We're still better than the commies. No matter what. Castro-masturbater. Devil Worshipper.
And btw, that half kidding thing...
It was 100% Bullshit.sometimes the glass is half full.. sometimes your brain is half empty.

Dont worry you will learn.. the hard way.. but you will learn. ;)

THE ARGENTINA BIT WAS COMPLETELY OUT OF LEFT FIELD WITH NO RELATION TO THE REST OF THE TOPIC!!!!!

:upyours:I can almost feel your pain..
be careful not to break your keyboard :D

Phillip and Charles are Gay.

Oh brother. And you sir, are a fool. Though we already knew you are a fool.

Oh brother. And you sir, are a fool. Though we already knew you are a fool.what?
You are going to defend the Fascist/FrancoFanBoy now?

OK me vs both of you.. ding-ding.. Lets do this Thunderdome rules!!
OD vs the Fascist+Corny. Bring it on!!!
fun-fun-fun :D





I wonder What are the odds? who wants to bet for them winning this :D

what?
You are going to defend the Fascist/FrancoFanBoy now?

OK me vs both of you.. ding-ding.. Lets do this Thunderdome rules!!
OD vs the Fascist+Corny. Bring it on!!!
fun-fun-fun :D





I wonder What are the odds? who wants to bet for them winning this :DCommon guys.. you know you want a piece of me.. common..
just jump in da ring and give me your best shot.
just do it..





...




hellooo!! is anyone out there.. I can see you are logged in.. so just tell me if we are going to...

ahh fuck it, I dont have all day.
I am going AFK ill be back tomorrow morning. ET

My response doesn't appear! :headbang:

hellooo!! is anyone out there.. I can see you are logged in.. so just tell me if we are going to...
Actually, I just figured you were flamebaiting. But because I didn't want to be a hypocrite calling the mods (since I'm against mod intervention in things like this), I just ignored it. If you make a point, I'll address it, but not simply for the sake of arguing.

Sorry.

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

Thumbs up? :confused: Damit your finger jesters alude me. So um I guess your saying that I'm in support of bush. A well calculated but off the mark assumption. Honestly, I was only mentioning that cause you would do anything to tear the guy apart.

Common guys.. you know you want a piece of me.. common..
just jump in da ring and give me your best shot.
just do it..





...




hellooo!! is anyone out there.. I can see you are logged in.. so just tell me if we are going to...

ahh fuck it, I dont have all day.
I am going AFK ill be back tomorrow morning. ET

When no one replies to you, it means one of two things. They agree with you, or they just don't care.

Hey, a message to all the nutjob Chavez-haters, go to Venezuela and protest, hopefully you will be shot or arrested.

So, do you have to be a nutjob and a Chavez hater to go protest or just a chavez hater?

what?
You are going to defend the Fascist/FrancoFanBoy now?

OK me vs both of you.. ding-ding.. Lets do this Thunderdome rules!!
OD vs the Fascist+Corny. Bring it on!!!
fun-fun-fun :D





I wonder What are the odds? who wants to bet for them winning this :D

Nice, I didn't think I 'd see they day when our crazy lunatic friend Od from down the lane would resort to flamebaiting to get his kicks.

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

Not really, Eureka Australis really is just stupid :p


Yootopia, CUT IT OUT! Third time is the charm.

OceanDrive2, if you're back tomorrow morning, it'd better be in a less incendiary mood.

Paraguai, click on this link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511849) to find out what's happening to your posts. It's normal, and it'll go away.

Hey, a message to all the nutjob Chavez-haters, go to Venezuela and protest, hopefully you will be shot or arrested.

A-HA! So You admit that Chavez cracks down on protesters! :D :D :D

@Atlantian Islands: Yup. Someone (NSGer) called it this way.




BTW. This thread is hardcore (especially the more recent pages) :D :D :D

A-HA! So You admit that Chavez cracks down on protesters!


Of course, and I hope he does it more.

At least now I know where are my posts... in nowhere :mad:

I posted yesterday and stills in nowherer... oh Neruda

I saw that if I dont quote appears my post, I will try.

I read that someone was defending the king about AL Queda ¿Am I here reading people that stills believe in that Fairy Tale? ¿Do you believe in Santa Claus too?

On the meeting of Latinamerican AND Spain every one had the right to make ONE, just ONE speech, that day Zapatero was making his second, in other meetings that situation replied when the host is a knelling with their masters, but this time Chavez nor Ortega was to let that happend, and more when Zapatero was insulting to all with his arrogance about the european culture, doing the dumb about real matters like Iberia-Viasa (airline), the spain industries in Nicaragua, and telling to us that we most still privatizing everything to do the history againg, ¿where was the king when Iberia Broke Viasa sell the parts of those plains, fire the employs, and dont compensating them? ¿How somebody is so shamelessly to tell us about that with our history in that line of selling our country for 2 cents?

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!

Actually, on declaring independence of Britain, most of the people in America at the time wanted George Washignton to be declared King of the country. He wasn't happy with the idea, though. He believed in democracy, goddamit. The people should have what they want...

From a Democractic point-of-view, El Rey/King would be exactly like any other citizen, and as Snr. Juan Carlos would have exactly the *same* rights as any other citizen, including that of freedom of expression, would he not?

Of course, and I hope he does it more.

Which is why no one takes you seriously.

Of course, and I hope he does it more.

Why does this guy remind me of Andaras Prime?

Why does this guy remind me of Andaras Prime?

Because it is the same poster.

Why does this guy remind me of Andaras Prime?

Because he is.

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

LOL

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.

Is about being Venezuelan, not being a Chavista. The King told him to shut up, and that is only related to the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, and not the rest of the venezuelans. I can't see why I should take it as personal. Plus, I also think he should had shut his pie hole right there, before the King told him to. Why should my nationality or being a venezuelan or being born in Caracas should effect my judgment? Should I agree with Chávez even if I do not in the fields of reason, just because both of us are venezuelans?

I repeat, no attack against the country or the people was made, just against the president Chávez. I cannot see why I should be pissed at the King. I accept he made a breach of protocol, but that's it. Should he had added "Sudaca", "slave", "monkey", or something like that at the end of his "shut up" phrase, and I would had been pissed, really. But the point is, he didn't.

By the way, the phrase "with us or against us" is from Bush. You shouldn't use the same figures of speech of the president of the US, please be coherent. First, he's a fascist, so I guess that makes you a fascist too. Please be aware of what do you say and what do you think, and do not let anyone indoctrinate you.

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? ...

In the moment the constitution was ratified by the spanish people by elections, that gave him legitimacy.

¿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?

Because I am not sure if the Ortega speech set him off, or his leave was entirely caused by Chávez's incident. Also, I lack information about the situation in Nicaragua involving spanish corporations that Ortega highlighted, and I, instead of you, do not hurry to support one arguments by my political views. You already gave Ortega the benefit of the doubt, no questions asked.

Perhaps Ortega was right, perhaps he was wrong, I have not enough data as to judge in said issue. I shouldn't attack or defend the act of the King leaving without properly pondering about what really happens and happened.


¿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?

Well, given the subject... I already said I accepted the King made a rather rude breach of protocol. Apart from that, Chávez has stared that way a lot of people, and yell to many too, even in said summit. Why do you defend Chávez's looks and yells and disqualify the King's ones? Do I notice a double standard here? They either behave, the both of them, or go wild, the both of them. As I see it, they both went wild. I just can't remember the last time Chávez said something diplomatic. Perhaps in 1999.

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

As you are a foreigner, just a boy without a clear grasp in reality, I would just ignore the fact that you both respect and highlight said phrase from Chávez.

However, the fact that a venezuelan like Mancomunidad supports said phrase both scares me and saddens me.

¡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.


See my point? He is not millions, he is one man, and you are a deluded fool for letting someone steer your fate and think for you.

In other note, a Neruda poem, pretty lyric and beautiful in style, I must add, but should I take that you are trying to convince me that Chávez is Bolívar reincarnate, that he has divine reasons to rule?

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.

if your idea of a model statesman...


what?!?

At least the gov't up in Venezuela adheres to its constitution
or tries to get it amended if they want to do something different.


being polite to a pre-meditated murderer?
I guess, you should probably be polite to everyone.

At least the gov't up in Venezuela adheres to its constitution
Though it certainly doesn't respect it. But that might just have something to do with it having been written by Chávez in the first place.

if your idea of a model statesman...


what?!?

At least the gov't up in Venezuela adheres to its constitution
or tries to get it amended if they want to do something different.

At least the US does not shut down stations for disagreeing with government.

Venezuela is far more democratic at this point than the US.
What with the coup of 2000 in the US and the other 2004 fixed election as well.

What fixed elections in 2004? WTF?

Venezuela is far more democratic at this point than the US.
What with the coup of 2000 in the US and the other 2004 fixed election as well.
And elections being a show predetermined by corporate money.
Ya know, it used to be a felony
for corporations to contribute to elections in ANY way.
We should make this so again.
It certainly would be that much more democratic.

And a king?
I don't even care if this king is 'symbolic' or whatever.
A king? Like who listens to anything a symbol of oligarchy says?


CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS IN VENEZUELA (http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/Constitutional%20Reform%20fact%20sheet%20UPDATE%202.htm)


The Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5290890.html) just spread some anti-democratic propaganda recently

1) Proposed constitutional reforms would "eliminate the vestiges of democracy" in Venezuela.
To begin with, the electoral system and the more than 10 elections that have taken place during the Chavez administration
have been deemed free and fair by all international observers, including the OAS, Carter Center, and European Union. Just last year the NAACP observed the presidential elections and found them to be "legitimate and transparent". Moreover, our nation's oldest vote monitoring organization found that "Venezuelans view elections as the cornerstone of civility and pushed their leaders to enact measures to bring about fair elections". The NAACP certainly didn't get it wrong and would never assert, as the Chronicle editorial board does, that Chavez "tightly grips" Venezuela's electoral system. Rather the NAACP found quite the opposite, and even stated that the Venezuelan government has a commitment "to make its elections as democratic and accessible as possible". Read the NAACP's full report here (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=u2eS9MioV2aKvxg%2FyQczW66vown0pbXe).

2) President Chavez controls the electoral system.
The Chronicle's editorial also wrongly claims that under the new reforms the President could declare states' of emergencies which would strip Venezuelan's of their right to due process. This is factually innacurate and if only the Chronicle had done a little research they would know that article 337 guarantees a citizen's right to due process during a state of emergency, quite similar in fact to US and European law.

Though it certainly doesn't respect it. But that might just have something to do with it having been written by Chávez in the first place.

Try a constitutional assembly by the people.
And then approved by the people as well.

In the US we have such an option to.
It's called a constitutional convention.
This has been done one time after the original was ratified.
And can be done as many times as the people want.



Before recent years in Venezuela, the country had been ruled by a traditional third world model, an oligarchy that owned almost the entire country for centuries almost unchanging since the Europeans were kicked out.
If you want to enforce that model of continuing to send out of the country the same resources "after" colonialism supposedly ended as the day before it was said to have ended..., just say so.

Before recent years in Venezuela, the country had been ruled by a traditional third world model, an oligarchy that owned almost the entire country for centuries almost unchanging since the Europeans were kicked out.


But...but...the only change in how Venezuela is administrated is that the oligarchs have changed...meet the new boss, same as the old boss, ya know?

Not only that, but a substantial number of Chavez's immediate predecessors were leftists, just without that whole "dashing military officer" bit.

I see you are no longer in denial about Floridagate 2000 ;)

I just ignored it for it is not worth the effort to talk to fools who believe in conspiracy theories.

Venezuela is far more democratic at this point than the US.
What with the coup of 2000 in the US and the other 2004 fixed election as well.
What fixed elections in 2004? WTF?I see you are no longer in denial about Floridagate 2000 ;)

I see you are no longer in denial about Floridagate 2000 ;)

Why the hell do people slap the word "gate" onto the end of every single scandal? It's ridiculous. The Watergate scandal was named after the Watergate Hotel. I know. I shopped at the Safeway in the lower floor shopping mall for four months.

And, as it stands, the 2000 election was not stolen, Palast remains an uncredible source, and these claims of a stolen election are just ludicrous.

Why the hell do people slap the word "gate" onto the end of every single scandal? It's ridiculous. The Watergate scandal was named after the Watergate Hotel. I know. I shopped at the Safeway in the lower floor shopping mall for four months.

It is because of Watergate that the word gate keeps getting slapped on every scandle.

And, as it stands, the 2000 election was not stolen, Palast remains an uncredible source, and these claims of a stolen election are just ludicrous.

Shh....do not tell them facts. They love fiction remember? That's why fiction books are always popular :D

But...but...the only change in how Venezuela is administrated is that the oligarchs have changed...meet the new boss, same as the old boss, ya know?

Not only that, but a substantial number of Chavez's immediate predecessors were leftists, just without that whole "dashing military officer" bit.


actually previous to the current gov't two parties of the oligarchy ruled back and forth. there's always some group with lofty rhetoric that does practically nothing.

here's a cartoon brief history of Venezuela.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enUl2ao-PwY


One could also check out this book via inter-library loan about Venezuela in recent years. The Venezuelan Revolution: 100 Questions-100 Answers (http://www.amazon.com/Venezuelan-Revolution-100-Questions-100-Answers/dp/1560257733)




----------------
we'll stop the war
and help the poor
when em-pire falls!!!!

And, as it stands, the 2000 election was not stolen,..You are entitled to your opinion. ;)
.
Why the hell do people slap the word "gate" onto the end of every single scandal? It's ridiculous. The Watergate scandal was named after the Watergate Hotel. I know. I shopped at the Safeway in the lower floor shopping mall for four months.To piss you off.. and to piss the neocons off :D ...take note I am not calling you a neocon ;-)

as it stands, you are entitled to deny it was an scandal all you want (BTW denial works better if you take a daily dose) and I am entitled to call it "Floridagate" everytime I please.

Dont you love free speech? :D :D ;) :D

Why the hell do people slap the word "gate" onto the end of every single scandal? It's ridiculous. The Watergate scandal was named after the Watergate Hotel. I know. I shopped at the Safeway in the lower floor shopping mall for four months.

And, as it stands, the 2000 election was not stolen, Palast remains an uncredible source, and these claims of a stolen election are just ludicrous.



That's right.
Because no congressional investigation or court case has proven it so.
THEN, and only then it would be so.

Palast has more cred than PlasterCarp, AltaVista, and Norte Americano Espresso combined!
But it's not like he was the only one reporting on road blocks in minority neighborhoods or anything.
Let's fix it the easy way,
don't deny anyone the vote under any circumstance.
Not even blatant out in the open fascists like Nixon, GGordon Liddy, or Ollie North.

There is also the slightly less important matter that the SC said they would rule on ending the recount, but deliberately stated that their decision to do so could NOT be used as precedent. huh?

Frankly, Florida's electoral votes should have been thrown out. Not that it mattered anyway. Bush still would have been President.

Try a constitutional assembly by the people.
And then approved by the people as well.
And? Is this, or is this not the "Bolivarian constitution"? Is it, or is it not, representing Chávez' vision for Venezuela? And as that vision changed, did he, or did he not proceed to get the constitution changed so that the two overlapped again?

Of course he's going to adhere to the constitution. It adheres to his wishes, afterall.

You are entitled to your opinion. ;)
.
To piss you off.. and to piss the neocons off :D ...take note I am not calling you a neocon ;-)

as it stands, you are entitled to deny it was an scandal all you want (BTW denial works better if you take a daily dose) and I am entitled to call it "Floridagate" everytime I please.

Dont you love free speech? :D :D ;) :D

Free speech doesn't change the fact that your wrong.

NL I think most of us know you're antics and criticism ultimately boil down to one fact, you hate socialism and and the 'evidence' may as well just fit in to accommodate you're viewpoints, not matter how false they are in reality.

Personally, I think this has gotten off topic. But whats wrong with hating socialism? Free speech no? I'm a bit of a socialist myself, but i can understand why you would hate socialism, or capitalism.

As for Chavez, how do you explain the fact that he has changed teh curriculum of public schools to fit his worldview, and that he has declared that all private schools that teach anything but pure socialism will be shut down? Doesn't sound very democratic to me.

BTW- the coup against him was made by a man still in his government? WTF? somethings fishy here

On the subject of the coup, i notice how "Chavez is god" people seem to have left out that there were massive anti-Chavez demonstrations all across Venezuala that led to the Coup.

And there are laws regulating free speech there

Is about being Venezuelan, not being a Chavista. The King told him to shut up, and that is only related to the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, and not the rest of the venezuelans. I can't see why I should take it as personal. Plus, I also think he should had shut his pie hole right there, before the King told him to. Why should my nationality or being a venezuelan or being born in Caracas should effect my judgment? Should I agree with Chávez even if I do not in the fields of reason, just because both of us are venezuelans?

You are here assuming the role of anti chavista, you said well The Presiden OF Venezuela ¿dosen´t incumb to ALL the Venezuelans? ¿What was he doing there REPRESENTING to Venezuela or playing ping pong with a bunch of dudes?

I repeat, no attack against the country or the people was made, just against the president Chávez. I cannot see why I should be pissed at the King. I accept he made a breach of protocol, but that's it. Should he had added "Sudaca", "slave", "monkey", or something like that at the end of his "shut up" phrase, and I would had been pissed, really. But the point is, he didn't.

And you did it againg: THE PRESIDENT Chávez... they were in a diplomatic meeting not in a dinner or a Dominos match

By the way, the phrase "with us or against us" is from Bush. You shouldn't use the same figures of speech of the president of the US, please be coherent. First, he's a fascist, so I guess that makes you a fascist too. Please be aware of what do you say and what do you think, and do not let anyone indoctrinate you.


NOP, Bush doesnt had enought brain or IQ to make a frase, the ORIGINAL was made by JESUS of Nazareth (Lc11 14-23) ... and by the way I dont need doctrines nor religions.

In the moment the constitution was ratified by the spanish people by elections, that gave him legitimacy.

¿SO?
Because I am not sure if the Ortega speech set him off, or his leave was entirely caused by Chávez's incident. Also, I lack information about the situation in Nicaragua involving spanish corporations that Ortega highlighted, and I, instead of you, do not hurry to support one arguments by my political views. You already gave Ortega the benefit of the doubt, no questions asked.

Perhaps Ortega was right, perhaps he was wrong, I have not enough data as to judge in said issue. I shouldn't attack or defend the act of the King leaving without properly pondering about what really happens and happened.

AAAh OK, you said everything cause you are a guru, I thought that you saw the video. And you dont know anything about the king leaving, the important thing the only thing that matters is the show of the king yelling ¿and you are not taking the side of anti chavista? yeah right

Well, given the subject... I already said I accepted the King made a rather rude breach of protocol. Apart from that, Chávez has stared that way a lot of people, and yell to many too, even in said summit. Why do you defend Chávez's looks and yells and disqualify the King's ones? Do I notice a double standard here? They either behave, the both of them, or go wild, the both of them. As I see it, they both went wild. I just can't remember the last time Chávez said something diplomatic. Perhaps in 1999.

And getting worse, now the king is the punisher for "others" and Chávez started in 1998 yelling to "others", ¿have you seen Chávez yelling to other President in the middle of his speach in a diplomatic meeting? ¿Whats is diplomatic behavior? dancing when the "developed" play the song?


In other note, a Neruda poem, pretty lyric and beautiful in style, I must add, but should I take that you are trying to convince me that Chávez is Bolívar reincarnate, that he has divine reasons to rule?

Is a shame that you cannot understand a poem, but the poem doesnt said that Bolívar resurrected, said that Bolívar walk againg every 100 years when PEOPLE awake. Chávez its just ONE of the MILLIONS, and right now he carry OUR word around the WORLD... ¿its dificult?

NL I think most of us know you're antics and criticism ultimately boil down to one fact, you hate socialism and and the 'evidence' may as well just fit in to accommodate you're viewpoints, not matter how false they are in reality.
Well, in that case you shouldn't have a problem proving me wrong.

Well, in that case you shouldn't have a problem proving me wrong.

He can't. That's his problem :D

And getting worse, now the king is the punisher for "others" and Chávez started in 1998 yelling to "others", ¿have you seen Chávez yelling to other President in the middle of his speach in a diplomatic meeting? ¿Whats is diplomatic behavior? dancing when the "developed" play the song?

Punisher, the king?? Ever since Chavez got in power, he's "punishing" people, judging everyone without looking at his own nose, calling everyone names first, as if he was better than everyone else.

People are pissed off just because it was a King that told him that, but it could be anyone at that rate.While the king is bound by protocols and can hardly say what he truly thinks of most people, Chavez's crazy ideology allows him to say whatever he wants about anyone, and now people get pissed about someone telling him to shut up?

Chavez feels like he can say anything, but now you complain when someone really pissed off drops to his level of speech? (actually, "shut up" still is quite above from what Chavez' speech usually is)

Who's he to judge anyone in the first place? If he has been treated like that it is because his behavior is of bullying and teasing everyone, thinking himself above retaliation. He definitely earned that "shut up", and if there is some shame to be brought of the event to the venezuelans, is that their head of state (and of government, and of the army, and everything else...) represents venezuela as a drunk represents a bar mob. No one with any sense can possibly believe that in this episode he was in the right...

Punisher, the king?? Ever since Chavez got in power, he's "punishing" people, judging everyone without looking at his own nose, calling everyone names first, as if he was better than everyone else.

People are pissed off just because it was a King that told him that, but it could be anyone at that rate.While the king is bound by protocols and can hardly say what he truly thinks of most people, Chavez's crazy ideology allows him to say whatever he wants about anyone, and now people get pissed about someone telling him to shut up?

Chavez feels like he can say anything, but now you complain when someone really pissed off drops to his level of speech? (actually, "shut up" still is quite above from what Chavez' speech usually is)

Who's he to judge anyone in the first place? If he has been treated like that it is because his behavior is of bullying and teasing everyone, thinking himself above retaliation. He definitely earned that "shut up", and if there is some shame to be brought of the event to the venezuelans, is that their head of state (and of government, and of the army, and everything else...) represents venezuela as a drunk represents a bar mob. No one with any sense can possibly believe that in this episode he was in the right... ¿To who Chávez has yell or ofend? ¿to the fascists like BUSH, Blaire, Aznar? ¿to the ruling power of the corporations like Mobil, Shell, Texaco, an others? if that is the "everyone" that you understand like "others" then he has at least doing what I ever dream to do with them, so he represents my, and to the MAJORITY of my country (and I think that the world)

¿To who Chávez has yell or ofend? ¿to the fascists like BUSH, Blaire, Aznar?

Holy fire of Hades...are you smoking something? If you are, I want some. Bush, Blair (no e) and Aznar are NOT FASCISTS!

Punisher, the king?? Ever since Chavez got in power, he's "punishing" people, judging everyone without looking at his own nose, calling everyone names first, as if he was better than everyone else.

People are pissed off just because it was a King that told him that, but it could be anyone at that rate.While the king is bound by protocols and can hardly say what he truly thinks of most people, Chavez's crazy ideology allows him to say whatever he wants about anyone, and now people get pissed about someone telling him to shut up?

Chavez feels like he can say anything, but now you complain when someone really pissed off drops to his level of speech? (actually, "shut up" still is quite above from what Chavez' speech usually is)

Who's he to judge anyone in the first place? If he has been treated like that it is because his behavior is of bullying and teasing everyone, thinking himself above retaliation. He definitely earned that "shut up", and if there is some shame to be brought of the event to the venezuelans, is that their head of state (and of government, and of the army, and everything else...) represents venezuela as a drunk represents a bar mob. No one with any sense can possibly believe that in this episode he was in the right...

Which proves that Chavez is a fool.

¿To who Chávez has yell or ofend? ¿to the fascists like BUSH, Blaire, Aznar? ¿to the ruling power of the corporations like Mobil, Shell, Texaco, an others? if that is the "everyone" that you understand like "others" then he has at least doing what I ever dream to do with them, so he represents my, and to the MAJORITY of my country (and I think that the world)

So you're saying that he can spread insults as he like, and to whom he like, but the king can't say a mere "shut up", just because he's a king? And a rather symbolic one, at that. The way you put it, being socialist isents someone from mistakes or accusations, and being conservative condemns them. That's judging without using reason, or as some would call it, prejudice.

If the norm is education, then both Chavez and the king are in the wrong (Chavez before the king, it should be noted). If the norm is free speech without protocol, then the king has done nothing wrong, he just exercised his civilian right of free speech by telling an annoying someone to "shut up", as used (or rather abused) such right by calling aznar a fascist. The norm was education, however, that was a meeting, and Chavez obviously doesn't respect any meetings he goes to.

For everyone with a pre-judgement in this issue, a warning: the enemy of your enemy is not always a friend ;)

Holy fire of Hades...are you smoking something? If you are, I want some. Bush, Blair (no e) and Aznar are NOT FASCISTS!
Bush, no, Aznar, no, but arguably Blair's not far off. The British Labour government is pretty authoritarian, and on paper, they're socialist (though they're libertarian in practice). Plus, almost all of the power of the commons resides in the hands of the Cabinet, which generally means the PM and his Cronies. Sounds like Fascism to me.

Try a constitutional assembly by the people.
And then approved by the people as well.



And what happens when chavez starts saying he is the people?

And getting worse, now the king is the punisher for "others" and Chávez started in 1998 yelling to "others", ¿have you seen Chávez yelling to other President in the middle of his speach in a diplomatic meeting? ¿Whats is diplomatic behavior? dancing when the "developed" play the song?




So because he doesn't have the balls to say half of the dirty filth that comes out of his mouth to a person's face it makes it ok?

My view towards monarchs is succinctly Jacobin, if one has a crowned head then they are liable to loose both.

My view towards monarchs is succinctly Jacobin, if one has a crowned head then they are liable to loose both.

Riiight, so you're one of those "lets start another french/communist revolution" type people.

My view towards monarchs is succinctly Jacobin, if one has a crowned head then they are liable to loose both.

Your head is no better attached than theirs. Never forget that.

So because he doesn't have the balls to say half of the dirty filth that comes out of his mouth to a person's face it makes it ok?
In fact when he goes to the UN Condi and Bush RUN AWAY so fast that he CANT :p

Holy fire of Hades...are you smoking something? If you are, I want some. Bush, Blair (no e) and Aznar are NOT FASCISTS!

Go and tell it to 600.000 CIVILIANS DEAD Iraq people, another 100.000 in Afganistan, go and READ the patrotic ACT ¿did you? take it easy, is almost impossible, couse have HUNDREDS of sheets, but is pretty nice that the TV and PRESS cannot take a PHOTO of the coffins of the dead soldiers.

Go and tell that to the FAMILIES of the tortured people in CLANDESTINE jails AROUND the world encovered for the CIA even in Europe, Guantanamo, Abu Graib.

¿IS Guantanamo the true face of the FASCISM? ¿is posible put a person in jail without any charges, without any kind of legal deffinition? Yes, Hitler did, he call it JEWISH. :cool:

But whats wrong with hating socialism?...nothing..

free speech is a 2 way street.
Just dont stand on my way :D :D ;) :D

In fact when he goes to the UN Condi and Bush RUN AWAY so fast that he CANT :p

Considering the kind of demands for apology Chavez is making, the king of Spain owes him nothing, because Chavez knows nothing of diplomacy.

And since he's making them as a president, according to your argument, these are the demands of Venezuela as a whole. As such, the entirety of Venezuela looks like an ass now.

Oh yes, he's also decided that Venezuela doesn't need its biggest investor, Spain, anymore. Enjoy your poverty.

Your head is no better attached than theirs. Never forget that.

Well I never had my life handed to me on a silver platter, and I do believe that power should never depend on the fortune of birth, someone should never wield the powers of a head of state because of inherited privilege, to quote a good source, 'power comes from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony'.

Well I never had my life handed to me on a silver platter, and I do believe that power should never depend on the fortune of birth, someone should never wield the powers of a head of state because of inherited privilege, to quote a good source, 'power comes from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony'.

Using Monthy Python to judge real world functions is an automatic fail.

As for mandate of the masses hah! The masses are too ignorant, stupid, short sighted and self centered to ever mandate anything but the next liar who promises them free beer and good times while robbing them blind.

The masses, as a whole, are imbeciles.

Using Monthy Python to judge real world functions is an automatic fail.

As for mandate of the masses hah! The masses are too ignorant, stupid, short sighted and self centered to ever mandate anything but the next liar who promises them free beer and good times while robbing them blind.

The masses, as a whole, are imbeciles.

And it is the function of capitalist 'democracy' to keep said people ignorant, apathetic or cynical to politics.

And it is the function of capitalist 'democracy' to keep said people ignorant, apathetic or cynical to politics.

So what? Doesn't matter what sort of mandate of the masses you're trying to sell. Different name, same old load of horse dung. The masses will still be an ignorant, stupid, short sighted collection of groupthink imbeciles incapable of building a real future for themselves or choosing someone who can and will.

As for mandate of the masses hah! The masses are too ignorant, stupid, short sighted and self centered to ever mandate anything but the next liar who promises them free beer and good times while robbing them blind.

The masses, as a whole, are imbeciles.Fascism is alive and well in NSG..

Good, winter nights are good for NSG thunderdom-ing :D

on the left corner, wearing the commie pinko red Nike Shorts ##
on the right corner, all the presidents King's men, wearing the not-thick-enough skin..
http://www.acasports.co.uk/images/nikedoublewidewristbandssportred.jpg

and on Tuesdays..
on the left corner, wearing the commie pinko red Nike Shorts ##
on the right corner, all the JuanCharles King's men, wearing a-lot-of-Bengay cream..

you get a cookie... well the survivors anyways. :D
Wait a minute. ... this is all sarcasm right?

Fascism is alive and well in NSG..


Cynicism /= fascism.

Cynicism /= fascism.damn.. I was sure you were doing some heavy sarcasm. insulting the masses and all:confused:

Well I never had my life handed to me on a silver platter, and I do believe that power should never depend on the fortune of birth, someone should never wield the powers of a head of state because of inherited privilege, to quote a good source, 'power comes from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony'.

And if the masses are idiots?

And if the masses are idiots?

Then you should rejoice at Democracy, which allows people such as you to wield some sort of power.

P.S. Elitism works better if you're one of the elite.

Then you should rejoice at Democracy, which allows people such as you to wield some sort of power.

P.S. Elitism works better if you're one of the elite.

I never claimed not to be an idiot. :p;)

I never claimed not to be an idiot. :p;)

Then if you're an idiot, you should talk less and listen more.

Then if you're an idiot, you should talk less and listen more.

I should do that even if I'm not an idiot. :)

And if the masses are idiots?

Then but why are the masses 'idiots', they are 'idiots' because capitalism keeps them apathetic and indifference to public affairs, and cynical to politics, 'liberal' democracy intentionally makes 'democracy' a superficial fast so that people don't trust it, loose interest and don't care, thereby keeping the capitalist elites and their cronies in power. In socialism full universal and free education is achieved because their is no reason to keep some people undereducated because everyone understands the issues fully rather than being slaves to what the right-wing media tells them to think.

Democracy is a virtue in of itself.

Why?

Why?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/#JusDem

But seriously, you should just shut up and stop taking up space on these threads. Nothing you have to say is remotely worthwhile.

So what? Doesn't matter what sort of mandate of the masses you're trying to sell. Different name, same old load of horse dung. The masses will still be an ignorant, stupid, short sighted collection of groupthink imbeciles incapable of building a real future for themselves or choosing someone who can and will.

You see, no you're buying the capitalist/elitist myth that everyone is ignorant and stupid, you're forgetting that people are like this because capitalism wants them to be ignorant and stupid, more than it needs them to be apathetic to politics so the elites can remain in power unchallenged. You seem to think that elitism(oligarchy) is best for utilitarian reasons, but this isn't true, when an entire people can participate with equal power in politics, then you will find an honest, accountable, transparent and productive system. When everyone has the same political and economic power, crime and corruption would not exist because they would not pay off, no one would have the incentive. When everyone equally can sit down and discuss consensually, then things get done. Capitalism forces people to be apathetic because it knows if they were educated as to the truth of their enslavement to capitalism, they would overthrow it. In socialism people are fully aware of the issues rather than being subject to brainwashing by the corporate controlled media.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/#JusDem

But seriously, you should just shut up and stop taking up space on these threads. Nothing you have to say is remotely worthwhile.

I would suggest you take a good long hard look at your "points" before accusing others of "nothing worthwhile".

The benefits highlighted in your link only work in an enlightened society of forward thinking, communally minded individuals.

In other words, non-humans. You might come across some enlightened individuals, but as a society, impossible.

You see, no you're buying the capitalist/elitist myth that everyone is ignorant and stupid, you're forgetting that people are like this because capitalism wants them to be ignorant and stupid, more than it needs them to be apathetic to politics so the elites can remain in power unchallenged.

And somehow you don't think that people want to be ignorant?

And your idealistic system of governance wouldn't want to oblige them? You're a fool if you believe that. There will be always people who desire power. Always people who will promise to do the thinking for others. And there will always be the gullible idiots who will follow them.

Why are there so few leaders in history and so many followers? Ask yourself that.

Because people are imbeciles. Bleating sheep with short term interests only in their focus. How many people can take the long view? 10 years, 20 years, 50 years a 100 years down the line? How many people can see that far? I could probably count those people on one hand and have fingers left over.

Theocracies, democratic Greek city states, fascist states, empires, it's always been the same. Sheep will always be sheep.


You seem to think that elitism(oligarchy) is best for utilitarian reasons,


Hah, you think that of me don't you? A naive and false thought. Elitism is the end result of that bleating sheep mentality. The culmination of human greed and desire for power that takes advantage of the sheep.


but this isn't true, when an entire people can participate with equal power in politics, then you will find an honest, accountable, transparent and productive system.


Call me when humans have a hive mind, are devoid of ambition, greed and jealousy.


When everyone has the same political and economic power, crime and corruption would not exist because they would not pay off, no one would have the incentive.


Hah! What a laugh. You could do a complete Tabula Rasa and you'd still end up with elitist circles as leaders and Machiavellians start collating that power.

You don't get it do you?

Any prospect of an equal power sharing governance scheme is doomed to failure. Without exception.


When everyone equally can sit down and discuss consensually, then things get done.


Try to get 10 people to decide on a single pizza of their choice, then come back and talk.


Capitalism forces people to be apathetic because it knows if they were educated as to the truth of their enslavement to capitalism, they would overthrow it. In socialism people are fully aware of the issues rather than being subject to brainwashing by the corporate controlled media.

Your attempts to blame the idiocy of the masses to capitalism is beyond ludicrous. You are completely attempting to pretend human nature when collated in a population size of any significance will suddenly do an about face if provided with a different form of governance.

History and human behavior has proven time and time again just how naive that thinking is. Any form of democracy will always pander to the lowest base denominator, and the power structures will ALWAYS devolve into a circle of elites.

Prove me wrong. I dare you.

So, Non Aligned States, what system precisely do you propose?

EDIT: Actually, it's easier to disprove you than you might think.


The masses will still be an ignorant, stupid, short sighted collection of groupthink imbeciles incapable of building a real future for themselves or choosing someone who can and will.

America: A democracy built on mandate of the masses. 230 years later, everything is going reasonably well.

So, Non Aligned States, what system precisely do you propose?

When I come up with one that will work, I'll let you know. Humans are invariably incapable of handling any system of power without attempting to abuse it. And they always screw it up.

So what if you've get a visionary or successful idealist? They'll be swamped over by the overwhelming tide of imbeciles more interested in "Me, me, me. Get, get, get. Now, now, now."


America: A democracy built on mandate of the masses. 230 years later, everything is going reasonably well.


The masses will still be an ignorant, stupid, short sighted collection of groupthink imbeciles incapable of building a real future for themselves or choosing someone who can and will.

And what part of my statement does America's democracy disprove? You consider being merely the most aggressive of Johny come lately's being the sign of an enlightened society? That somehow being the most efficient at pillaging resources gives them long sight? A society that for the most part treats education and knowledge like pestilence? A society that is more interested in legislating personal issues based on gender and religious belief as opposed to the actual course of the country?

Laughable.

When I come up with one that will work, I'll let you know. Humans are invariably incapable of handling any system of power without attempting to abuse it. And they always screw it up.

So what if you've get a visionary or successful idealist? They'll be swamped over by the overwhelming tide of imbeciles more interested in "Me, me, me. Get, get, get. Now, now, now."


If your argument is that democracies have flaws then I'm with you 100%.

However, to state that democracies are bad when you have no alternative suggestion strikes me as a bit trite, much like the following:

"I dislike carbon-based life. My cells wear down frequently, and eventually I will die. We should abolish it!"
"Well then, what will we do?"
"I'll let you know when I've figured that out."

And what part of my statement does America's democracy disprove? You consider being merely the most aggressive of Johny come lately's being the sign of an enlightened society? That somehow being the most efficient at pillaging resources gives them long sight? A society that for the most part treats education and knowledge like pestilence? A society that is more interested in legislating personal issues based on gender and religious belief as opposed to the actual course of the country?

You contended that "The masses will still be an ignorant, stupid, short sighted collection of groupthink imbeciles incapable of building a real future for themselves or choosing someone who can and will."

Since "The masses" in America have built a future for themselves (if not for the future, then, say, the masses in 1800), saying that they are "incapable" of such a feat appears to flatly wrong.

Middle Snu, looking over your post history I'm seeing a lot of calling other posters idiots, implying they have "IQ of zero", and so forth. These things are flaming, and they are not good things! They are very bad things! I'm going to hand you an official warning for flaming here, and I'd like you to read the one stop rules shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023) thread to avoid having to be warned again - or forumbanned, or deleted - in future.

~ Tsar the Mod.

Using Monthy Python to judge real world functions is an automatic fail.

As for mandate of the masses hah! The masses are too ignorant, stupid, short sighted and self centered to ever mandate anything but the next liar who promises them free beer and good times while robbing them blind.

The masses, as a whole, are imbeciles.

I'm one of the said masses myself, but even I can see that much to be true...

Monarchy is not a perfect system, but it does avoid the pitfall of all representative systems, the knee-jerk reactions of the uneducated masses and the pressure to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And I dont think this is a capitalist belief, the masses have always been ignorant, it's just that consumerism elevated it to be both an art form and a god to be worshipped.

I'm one of the said masses myself, but even I can see that much to be true...

Monarchy is not a perfect system, but it does avoid the pitfall of all representative systems, the knee-jerk reactions of the uneducated masses and the pressure to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

If monarchies are superior to democracies, then why have monarchies (by and large) failed in the past 200 years while liberal democracies* have (by and large) succeeded?

*by "liberal democracies" I mean states that contain the features of a democratic government in order to exclude de facto dictatorships and One Party Rule states.

However, to state that democracies are bad when you have no alternative suggestion strikes me as a bit trite, much like the following:


Oh, I have alternatives, but they aren't anywhere near being ready to being implemented.

The end result though, is that humans won't ever get anywhere to wielding real power. Either a shadow government or a dictatorship, but without any humans as they are, at the top. Either a reengineered human being built explicitly for the purpose, completely unaffected by human greed and able to take the long view or a machine.

People like to yak about having equal power, but when they have it, they toss it out the window on the promises of the best liar.


Since "The masses" in America have built a future for themselves (if not for the future, then, say, the masses in 1800), saying that they are "incapable" of such a feat appears to flatly wrong.

A car speeding into a brick wall at 200kp/h isn't a car wreck yet, but if the driver isn't paying attention, it's going to be.

You consider that a future?

Just being still there doesn't mean it's a future with any prospects.

If monarchies are superior to democracies, then why have monarchies (by and large) failed in the past 200 years while liberal democracies* have (by and large) succeeded?

*by "liberal democracies" I mean states that contain the features of a democratic government in order to exclude de facto dictatorships and One Party Rule states.

Because the people got all excited at having equal power. And then when they had it, they realized how much trouble it was, and threw it out the window because someone promised to take care of it for them.

Hitler proved how easy it was to collect all that power for his personal use.

Sheep are sheep, and no amount of bleating is going to change that.

Since "The masses" in America have built a future for themselves (if not for the future, then, say, the masses in 1800), saying that they are "incapable" of such a feat appears to flatly wrong.
I must ask precisely what you think Americans have built for themselves (I like the phrasing, but I'll get to that once you answer), and how much of that was because of the fact that the place has elections every few years or so.

If monarchies are superior to democracies, then why have monarchies (by and large) failed in the past 200 years while liberal democracies* have (by and large) succeeded?

*by "liberal democracies" I mean states that contain the features of a democratic government in order to exclude de facto dictatorships and One Party Rule states.

Because democracy is the "in" thing that everyone wants, like the Nintendo Wii. Unlike the Wii, it doesn't necessarily mean it's particularly wonderful.

"Get the new shiny method of government, NEW in time for Xmas - DEMOCRACY XP (TM)"

If monarchies are superior to democracies, then why have monarchies (by and large) failed in the past 200 years while liberal democracies* have (by and large) succeeded?

*by "liberal democracies" I mean states that contain the features of a democratic government in order to exclude de facto dictatorships and One Party Rule states.
Superiority does not necessarily imply success. Anyone who works in software can tell you that; heck, anyone who uses software can tell you that. Making something that works is engineering, but making something that people want is all marketing.

Note that I'm not a monarchist, but I'm not a democrat either. Democracy needs checks and opposition from intellectual peers to stop the majority from exploiting or being exploited, just as Autocracy needs to be similarly limited by its populace.

I must ask precisely what you think Americans have built for themselves (I like the phrasing, but I'll get to that once you answer), and how much of that was because of the fact that the place has elections every few years or so.

Compare living standards now to those of 200 years ago. And a lot of the technologies that made that possible grew out of democratic states.


The question I have for all those who dislike democracy is "So, what do you want to do?" Barring of course the handwave "machine" and "genetically engineered person" explanations (nice if feasible, but currently not feasible.)

I've never argued that democracy is a perfect system, but I do think that it is better than any tried so far.

So, tell me about your system of government. Why is it better?

Compare living standards now to those of 200 years ago. And a lot of the technologies that made that possible grew out of democratic states.

And what proof do you have that these advances would not have occurred in other government types? Early forms of immunization came from not democratic states, but tribal villages in Africa and Imperial ancient China where the idea was later exported to the west and worked on.

And none of this has anything to do with government forms.


The question I have for all those who dislike democracy is "So, what do you want to do?" Barring of course the handwave "machine" and "genetically engineered person" explanations (nice if feasible, but currently not feasible.)


Rule by fiat, via an isolated but all powerful ruling system wherein each and every potential ruler is educated to the highest possible standards of political knowledge, economics, diplomacy and related issues to governance. Emphasize long term planning lasting several decades if not more.

Power is divided among the various government branches, each having their own head. Each branch head is isolated from the other except for official meetings, preventing any form of hidden collusion.

Minimal contact with external entities, especially lobby groups. The less paths to subversion, the better.

Ideally, the government heads would be faceless, but raised from scratch to maximize efficiency and unbiased governance while having the bite to enforce rule.

Advantages:
1: Minimum external influences in governance. An untouchable government is one difficult to corrupt from outside and getting in should be impossible.

2: Competent governance. Government actually raised to govern, not CYA and siphon funds for golf courses.

3: Minimum bias. Assuming that its nurture and not nature that determines behavior, carefully created education systems in the grooming process should prevent retarded rulings based on prejudices.

4: No feel good empty laws. None of that pandering to voter base with pork legislation to build bridges to nowhere.

Flaws:

1: Who teaches the teachers? May necessitate the creation of a ruler's enclave, which introduces internal politics. Will require constantly evolving qualifications and background testing to keep out subversive elements.

2: Firebrands. Faceless governments are easy targets for rabble rousers and power mongers during times of discontent. Do NOT negotiate. Negotiation is a sign for further concessions. Difficult issue to resolve. Suppression as a last resort only. Discredit optimal choice.

3: External influences: Current political stage unfavorable to rules by fiat. Will require careful diplomacy. Action depends on national strength.

4: Loyalty of armed branches. Impossible to maintain human law enforcement branches and keep from being corrupted to some extent. May require some form of hidden anti-corruption agency.

5: Implementation. Extremely difficult to create the correct conditions.

You notice that I'm not doing anything about the general state of imbecility of the populace? It's an exercise in futility. Better to have competent, uncorrupted rulers with fiat rule than the best charlatan who has 4 to 8 years to line his/her pockets.

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

JFYF: the actual president of France is Nicolas Paul Stéphane Sarkozy de Nagy-Bocsa

You are here assuming the role of anti chavista, you said well The Presiden OF Venezuela ¿dosen´t incumb to ALL the Venezuelans? ¿What was he doing there REPRESENTING to Venezuela or playing ping pong with a bunch of dudes?

No, if someone tells the president of Venezuela to shut up, it only "incumbs" the president of Venezuela. As of "representing", I can't understand how the people of your political group both bash the doctrine of political representativity and claim you are representing us all at the same time. You are not a logical people, don't you?

As well, I have thought many times that when Chávez travels, and gathers with other heads of state, he goes with the same attitude as playing ping pong with a bunch of dudes.


And you did it againg: THE PRESIDENT Chávez... they were in a diplomatic meeting not in a dinner or a Dominos match

Chávez behaved like in a Dominoes match, got the answer of a Dominoes match...I can't see why are you complaining.

NOP, Bush doesnt had enought brain or IQ to make a frase, the ORIGINAL was made by JESUS of Nazareth (Lc11 14-23) ... and by the way I dont need doctrines nor religions.

What? you don't need those?, but if the XXI century socialism doctrine is based in the words of the christ! Of course, is based on christ and atheism at the same time, so no leftist can feel wronged. Again, you people are really logical, don't you?

AAAh OK, you said everything cause you are a guru, I thought that you saw the video. And you dont know anything about the king leaving, the important thing the only thing that matters is the show of the king yelling ¿and you are not taking the side of anti chavista? yeah right

I am taking the side of an anti chavista from the beginning. I haven't denied it. I fail to see what your point here is.

I saw the video, yet nothing in said video let me know why the King left, given what happened earlier. I usually do not comment about things I don't know about. I can see you do all the time.

Is a shame that you cannot understand a poem, but the poem doesnt said that Bolívar resurrected, said that Bolívar walk againg every 100 years when PEOPLE awake. Chávez its just ONE of the MILLIONS, and right now he carry OUR word around the WORLD... ¿its dificult?

I understand the poem given the historical background it was written, and Neruda's political affiliation. What I cannot understand is the reason of why you included it in your post. So, the parallel is that Chávez is a new Bolívar, then?

Go and tell it to 600.000 CIVILIANS DEAD Iraq people, another 100.000 in Afganistan, go and READ the patrotic ACT

Lets see...if you want to get into this Mancomunidad, I suggest you take this piece of argument to a different thread for that is its own thread. However, to answer this "point" it has nothing to do with Fascism. I see you have zero idea what fascism is.

And yes, I have read the patriot act. However it has nothing to do with Fascism. If you want fascism, why not look at Italy where Fascism was born.

¿did you? take it easy, is almost impossible, couse have HUNDREDS of sheets, but is pretty nice that the TV and PRESS cannot take a PHOTO of the coffins of the dead soldiers.

So tell me what this has to do with Fascism? Whatever happened to the word HONOR? Why should dead soldiers be used for political gain? None! They should not be used for political gain BY EITHER SIDE!!!

Go and tell that to the FAMILIES of the tortured people in CLANDESTINE jails AROUND the world encovered for the CIA even in Europe, Guantanamo, Abu Graib.

You still are not proving the point of fascism.

¿IS Guantanamo the true face of the FASCISM?

Nope

¿is posible put a person in jail without any charges, without any kind of legal deffinition? Yes, Hitler did, he call it JEWISH. :cool:

Ohhh godwin. Once you learn what fascism is, then come back.

Compare living standards now to those of 200 years ago. And a lot of the technologies that made that possible grew out of democratic states.


The question I have for all those who dislike democracy is "So, what do you want to do?" ?The fascists/Royalist/FrancoFanboys/etc... wont answer, because they cant. or because their answer smell bad.

The fascists/Royalist/FrancoFanboys/etc... wont answer, because they cant. or because their answer smell bad.

Actually...no I'm not going to say it.

The fascists/Royalist/FrancoFanboys/etc... wont answer, because they cant. or because their answer smell bad.

Begging your pardon, ol' chap, but was it the "democratic" states, or the "liberal" states. I suspect the response will be that it was the liberal ones.

Actually...no I'm not going to say it.come-on
http://www.trincoll.edu/~sharris/gifs/sports_entertainment/Just_Do_It_nike.jpg
;)

The fascists/Royalist/FrancoFanboys/etc... wont answer, because they cant. or because their answer smell bad.

Well then funny man, what does that make me and the fact that I did answer?

I did answer?you did?.. what was your answer?

Well then funny man, what does that make me ..I dont know.. the jury is still out..
Like I said.. I though you were joking or sarcasm-ing.

But -allow me to be clear here- there would be nothing inherently wrong with you being a Fascist or a Franco Fan or a Royalist.. or anything like that. I am a Free-Speech soldier.. all the way.

you did?.. what was your answer?

Post #354

Rule by fiat, via an isolated but all powerful ruling system wherein each and every potential ruler is educated to the highest possible standards of political knowledge, economics, diplomacy and related issues to governance. Emphasize long term planning lasting several decades if not more.Interesting.

I think the Soviets and China have tried this.. the Soviets did go from " having almost no electricity.. to winning the space race" in a relatively short time".. and then the sky fell...

China is doing much better..

The only problem I have with this system is that it can work great.. until a future generation of rulers.. fall to the human flaw of materialism and start stealing money. Absolute power can corrupt absolutely.
I like it better if its a temporary fix.. a few decades.

Disclaimer: I am not saying Presidents -and Congressmen- do not steal (they do.. shitloads) but it should be easier to steal in a elections-free system.

Interesting.

I think the Soviets and China have tried this.. the Soviets did go from "not having a electricity to winning the space race" in a relatively short time.. and then the sky fell...

You forget though that the USSR did not win the space race.

You forget though that the USSR did not win the space race.

Depends on your definition of "space." If you define "space" as "the moon," then indeed, they did not.

You forget though that the USSR did not win the space race.Dont be a sore loser..
give to Cesar what belongs to Cesar..

Depends on your definition of "space." If you define "space" as "the moon," then indeed, they did not.

And since the moon is in space and JFK stated that the goal was to land a man on the moon within 10 years....

And since the moon is in space and JFK stated that the goal was to land a man on the moon within 10 years....Yeah, but races involve being the first one somewhere, so a "space race" would involve getting into space first. And since space is in space and the Russians launched Sputnik before Armstrong made it to the moon...

Sure, we won the moon race, but the Soviets were the first to send a satellite out, first to put an animal into space, and the first to put a man up there.

And since the moon is in space and JFK stated that the goal was to land a man on the moon within 10 years....JFK could say "I did have Marylin Lewinsky Monroe smoke my cigar..."

Why the hell do you believe every word that comes out of his mouth ?

Its like when you say about Iraq war reports "it the US gov says so.. then it must be that way" .. its silly.

Could it be OD that we did put a man on the moon within 10 years of that said speech?

Could it be OD that we did put a man on the moon within 10 years of that said speech?yes.

Like I said.. dont be a sore loser.. Give to Cesar what belongs to Cesar.
we won the moonrace.

What's with all the hair-splitting bickering about the 'Space Race'? Those with frothing knee-jerk support for the US are always going to say that they 'won' it by being first on the Moon, whilst the Russians and anyone who wants to get a rise out of the reactionary segment of the US population will say that the USSR 'won' by being first to put a man in orbit. It's pointless, playground-style "nyah nyah nyah" stuff.

Besides, if we want to use the analogy then the 'Space Race' should be thought of as being like one of those daft, hugely long 'iron man' events... and we've not even reached the first corner yet. ;)

Compare living standards now to those of 200 years ago. And a lot of the technologies that made that possible grew out of democratic states.
A lot of them did. And a lot of them came out of countries like Germany, Russia, Italy and so on, which weren't really democratic at all. I don't think the political system has as much to do with it as the economic one and generally the skills of those who watch it.

So, tell me about your system of government. Why is it better?
I've generally developed the idea of a "rule by constitution". Two sources, if you're interested:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=543191&page=7 - from Post 100 onwards
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=528128 - an older, and not fully updated, but more complete version

I think it is better because it is less likely to lead to individuals having their existence compromised because of a majority vote.

Interesting.

I think the Soviets and China have tried this..

Soviet Russia? Hardly. Stalin and his successors all had external backgrounds and their training to rule came from being the most vicious of the lot.

Imperial China came close, but suffered from severe issues in court where the eunuchs had too much power as well as significant infighting and collaboration with the eunuchs in the rear palace. They occasionally had good rulers who got above it all, but most of them were either rotten or powerless due to the eunuchs.

In both cases, people from outside the system came in, and in great numbers. This is the exact opposite of the system I proposed.

You forget though that the USSR did not win the space race.

The USSR won the space race by being the first to go to space. The US won the race to the moon because they wanted to one up the Soviets.

If you want to use the idea that just because someone went further into space, they "won" the space race, then obviously whoever goes to Mars next will win it. And then after that, Jupiter, the Oort cloud, the list goes on.

Don't use buzzwords to define winning conditions.

Go and tell it to 600.000 CIVILIANS DEAD Iraq people, another 100.000 in Afganistan, go and READ the patrotic ACT ¿did you? take it easy, is almost impossible, couse have HUNDREDS of sheets, but is pretty nice that the TV and PRESS cannot take a PHOTO of the coffins of the dead soldiers.


Patriotic Act has effectively been subdued and the reason its so long is because U.S. laws tend to be like that, its to ensure that we fix loopholes and don't give our government too much power and Venuezala could learn a lot from that if thats not how your laws are written ;), The Afghanistan war is a legal war, Of course the press cannot take photos of coffins of dead soldiers but we don't shut those press stations down say like chavez.

Then but why are the masses 'idiots', they are 'idiots' because capitalism keeps them apathetic and indifference to public affairs, and cynical to politics, 'liberal' democracy intentionally makes 'democracy' a superficial fast so that people don't trust it, loose interest and don't care, thereby keeping the capitalist elites and their cronies in power. In socialism full universal and free education is achieved because their is no reason to keep some people undereducated because everyone understands the issues fully rather than being slaves to what the right-wing media tells them to think.

And that Universal education is the thing that pumps out the "montage" of achievements the Socialist countries have come up with. :rolleyes:

Interesting.

I think the Soviets and China have tried this..
If by tried this you mean they treated the children like chattle and literally beat and whipped perfection into them then yes you are correct.
the Soviets did go from " having almost no electricity.. to winning the space race" in a relatively short time".. and then the sky fell...
China is doing much better..
Mostly because they invested what little funds they had at the time into it and threatened everyone involved with death if they couldn't fulfill thier demands. And you also forget that china is doing much better mostly from the economic support gained by capatilism as well as their huge abundance of sweatshop labor, not because of any "humanist" system.

You are here assuming the role of anti chavista, you said well The Presiden OF Venezuela ¿dosen´t incumb to ALL the Venezuelans? ¿What was he doing there REPRESENTING to Venezuela or playing ping pong with a bunch of dudes?




In a diplomatic meeting most of the time people try to show each other respect and not make offensive comments because its called diplomacy. Chavez did neither. Oh and I'm so happy I've been labeled, "Anti Chavista" cause your either with him or against him right? everything has to be absolute and black and white.

I am a Free-Speech soldier.. all the way.

And you support chavez? :eek: hmmm.

Because democracy is the "in" thing that everyone wants, like the Nintendo Wii. Unlike the Wii, it doesn't necessarily mean it's particularly wonderful.

"Get the new shiny method of government, NEW in time for Xmas - DEMOCRACY XP (TM)"

Me being a humanist and all, Democracy has always been in. Before that there were essentially three types of government in a modern civilization: Oligarchy, Monarchy and dictatorship. they all amounted to essentially the same thing. Note: I know republic is different than a Democracy, I just don't feel like dealing with that subject right now. I seek the form of government that helps advance the human race as a whole and allows the people to advance through learning, science and overall growth into better humans.

I would argue that Chavez has always been off his rocker. He out of touch with reality and fails to understand the way a functional society works. He doesn't care about the responsibilities he has undertaken. Instead, he has taken to robbing his people of the resources and products that they have worked for, giving them in return falsehoods and empty promises.:headbang:

Patriotic Act has effectively been subdued and the reason its so long is because U.S. laws tend to be like that, its to ensure that we fix loopholes and don't give our government too much power and Venuezala could learn a lot from that if thats not how your laws are written ;), The Afghanistan war is a legal war, Of course the press cannot take photos of coffins of dead soldiers but we don't shut those press stations down say like chavez. The US LAWS? Let see:
Vietnam?
Camboya?
Iran-Contras?
Panama Invasion?
Hoover puting DRUGS on the "neggers" neighborhoods for destroy the black Panter movement?
CIA making ILEGAL and cover JAILS in OTHER countries?

But is significant when you say that "OF COURSE" that press cannot take that photos ¿and the so PURE right of FREEDOM? ¿whats happen? if you take that photo ¿What exactly says the law that could HAPPEN to that media?

You attack Chavez couse He "COULD" do the things that US "DO" all the time and you DEFEND them... ¡Good for you!

El Mundo Al Revés.

Me being a humanist and all, Democracy has always been in. Before that there were essentially three types of government in a modern civilization: Oligarchy, Monarchy and dictatorship. they all amounted to essentially the same thing. Note: I know republic is different than a Democracy, I just don't feel like dealing with that subject right now. I seek the form of government that helps advance the human race as a whole and allows the people to advance through learning, science and overall growth into better humans.

Dont look anymore you are talking about SOCIALISM :cool:

Imho Chavez is not revolutionary enough, I would prefer Jacobin style ideological courts to try and execute political dissidents, plus forced deportion of Catholic and religious leaders and other reactionary business figures.

The US LAWS? Let see:
Vietnam?
Camboya?
Iran-Contras?
Panama Invasion?
Hoover puting DRUGS on the "neggers" neighborhoods for destroy the black Panter movement?
CIA making ILEGAL and cover JAILS in OTHER countries?

But is significant when you say that "OF COURSE" that press cannot take that photos ¿and the so PURE right of FREEDOM? ¿whats happen? if you take that photo ¿What exactly says the law that could HAPPEN to that media?

You attack Chavez couse He "COULD" do the things that US "DO" all the time and you DEFEND them... ¡Good for you!

El Mundo Al Revés.


LOl, good stuff. I am assuming you were not one of the 80,000 protesters marching against Chavez not long ago.

Imho Chavez is not revolutionary enough, I would prefer Jacobin style ideological courts to try and execute political dissidents, plus forced deportion of Catholic and religious leaders and other reactionary business figures.

You're no better than Stalin, who racked up ~30 million kills in his tenure, not to mention sending people to prison, gulags etc.

The forced deportation and killing of dissenters kind of kills "humanist" Socialism and Communist polices, don't you think?

You're no better than Stalin, who racked up ~30 million kills in his tenure, not to mention sending people to prison, gulags etc.

The forced deportation and killing of dissenters kind of kills "humanist" Socialism and Communist polices, don't you think?

Actually I believe in an absolute radical classlessness, and that can only be established when reactionaries loose their heads.

Actually I believe in an absolute radical classlessness, and that can only be established when reactionaries loose their heads.

Heh, but that still supports killing people you don't agree with. Sure does remind be of some of the most colorful and murderous people of history. And to make matters worse you're killing for something that can never be achieved, human nature doesn't allow for it.

Heh, but that still supports killing people you don't agree with. Sure does remind be of some of the most colorful and murderous people of history. And to make matters worse you're killing for something that can never be achieved, human nature doesn't allow for it.

Which begs the questions: is it wrong to kill for the right reasons ?
If not, what are the right reasons ?

I seek the form of government that helps advance the human race as a whole and allows the people to advance through learning, science and overall growth into better humans.

Not possible without significant reengineering of humans at the genetic level.

And you're making a grand mistake. The greater the aggregate total of a collective, the stupider it will become.

Actually I believe in an absolute radical classlessness, and that can only be established when reactionaries loose their heads.

You mean when everybody loses their heads. Total equality is bunk. Impossible to achieve under any realistic circumstances.

you did?.. what was your answer?

I dont know.. the jury is still out..
Like I said.. I though you were joking or sarcasm-ing.

But -allow me to be clear here- there would be nothing inherently wrong with you being a Fascist or a Franco Fan or a Royalist.. or anything like that. I am a Free-Speech soldier.. all the way.And you support chavez? :eek: hmmm.of Course I support President Chavez.

I dont support the 6 hour day..

but I do support President Chavez, for years people all over LatinoAmerica have been repeating their teenaged children: "the Yankees rule.. and there is nothing we can do about it."
..as of today (the day Chavez was re-elected).. the youngsters can point to Chavez and say: "You are wrong, Someone can do something about it."
no, I am not talking about Baseball.

The US LAWS? Let see:
Vietnam?

A mistake but also the war/conflict was poorly runned. Micromanaged seems to be the word I would choose.

Camboya?

Cambodia actually. And we should not have bombed it but then, we were trying to cut off the flow of supplies into Vietnam.

Iran-Contras?

Weapons for hostages! Something I disagree with but then...I was way way to young to care.

Panama Invasion?

A notorious drug lord, incharge of a country, sending drugs into the United States. Yea I can see why we invaded the country. Not to mention, we promptly turned the country back over to civilian authority afterwards.

OOPS! did I say that last sentence out loud?

Hoover puting DRUGS on the "neggers" neighborhoods for destroy the black Panter movement?

Proof?

CIA making ILEGAL and cover JAILS in OTHER countries?

But is it illegal if the other countries allow it?

But is significant when you say that "OF COURSE" that press cannot take that photos ¿and the so PURE right of FREEDOM? ¿whats happen? if you take that photo ¿What exactly says the law that could HAPPEN to that media?

Nothing. We have this thing called honor when it comes to our soldiers and many of us do not like them to be used as political pawns in anyone's game. Do you understand that?

You attack Chavez couse He "COULD" do the things that US "DO" all the time and you DEFEND them... ¡Good for you!

El Mundo Al Revés.

Except that Bush has not shut down ANY papers or TV stations for disagreeing with him or criticising him.

But is it illegal if the other countries allow it?

Shady area. If the US government forbids the torture of prisoners, is it illegal for a US police officer on duty to torture someone in a country where the local government doesn't mind ?

Opinions vary. Some countries already punish citizens for breaking their countries home laws abroad for some issues, e.g. child molestation (countries like Thailand are a favourite holiday destination for adults that wish to fuck a 12 year old).

And a government doing things it itself forbids is of course quite... odd.

Aside from that, several countries were used for prisonertransport and illegal jailings without their knowledge.

LOl, good stuff. I am assuming you were not one of the 80,000 protesters marching against Chavez not long ago.80000 is nothing.. a Football cup gets you more people and.. they would even burn police cars, destroy TVnetwork trucks and break thousands of windows.

Probably because they were being shot at by people in those cars and buildings.[sarcasm] Pro-Chavez militants? No :sniper::sniper:, of course not [/sarcasam]

The US LAWS? Let see:
Vietnam? .
Defending an ally who was attacked with the intention of conqering?

Oh how I'd love to hear this one

Camboya?
Wait....youre MAD at us for bombing a country ruled by POL POT?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?


Iran-Contras?
Which you never would have heard about unless for OUR justice system. Yes, we did screw up, but we addmitted it and fixed it

Panama Invasion?
While personally I'd favor the legalization of some drugs, even I understood this one

Hoover puting DRUGS on the "neggers" neighborhoods for destroy the black Panter movement?

Never heard this one before. Do tell

CIA making ILEGAL and cover JAILS in OTHER countries?
Once again....if it wasn't for us, you never would have even heard about this. And notice how we're trying to shut it down?

But is significant when you say that "OF COURSE" that press cannot take that photos ¿and the so PURE right of FREEDOM? ¿whats happen? if you take that photo ¿What exactly says the law that could HAPPEN to that media?
A small fine, I think. Much better than using them as political scapegoat, or shutting them down completely

You attack Chavez couse He "COULD" do the things that US "DO" all the time and you DEFEND them... ¡Good for you!

El Mundo Al Revés..
No, I attack Chavez for trying to gain more power and for losing touch with reality, and trying to use oil as a weapon by trying to get OPEC to raise prices.

How would you like it if we nationalized our food industry (which produces 35% of the worlds food supply), and used it as a weapon against YOU? But of course, the USA is always evil, and always terrible.

Thats not a bad idea, mind you. Would bring a couple people (lookin at you, Saudi Arabia) back down a few pegs.

Dont look anymore you are talking about SOCIALISM :cool:

Problem is Socialism has this annoying habit of not advancing anything. Show me the massive scientific achivements that your socialism has achieved, show me the amount of new technology that it has created and maybe I'd agree with you. Also socialism has this thing where it often turns people into sheep dependent on the government for any further suppport, not creating any real economic oppurtunities, and essentially giving out the same dribble over and over again.

The US LAWS? Let see:
Vietnam?
Camboya?
Iran-Contras?
Panama Invasion?
Hoover puting DRUGS on the "neggers" neighborhoods for destroy the black Panter movement?
CIA making ILEGAL and cover JAILS in OTHER countries?

But is significant when you say that "OF COURSE" that press cannot take that photos ¿and the so PURE right of FREEDOM? ¿whats happen? if you take that photo ¿What exactly says the law that could HAPPEN to that media?

You attack Chavez couse He "COULD" do the things that US "DO" all the time and you DEFEND them... ¡Good for you!

El Mundo Al Revés.
Hoover never did that, I think you're talking about Reagan whom I actually doubt ever did that even with all the conspiracy theories. Panama invasion, dude smuggling in illegal drugs into the U.S., needs to be takin down. Like Corneliu said about taking photos, we don't like people using it to stir things up. If the press had something like that it would just use it as a way of starting controversay and essentially trivilizing the deaths of those soldiers. In the law you essentially get a large fine for doing so. We don't shut those businesses down unlike Chavez. Don't agree with vietnam but if we were going to continue down that path anyway Cambodia is justified, not telling the people about it is not. However, thanks to the enormous power of the press we have in this country that doesn't get shut down by its leaders, we learned about the Cambodian attack.

of Course I support President Chavez.

I dont support the 6 hour day..

but I do support President Chavez, for years people all over LatinoAmerica have been repeating their teenaged children: "the Yankees rule.. and there is nothing we can do about it."
..as of today (the day Chavez was re-elected).. the youngsters can point to Chavez and say: "You are wrong, Someone can do something about it."
no, I am not talking about Baseball.

That sounds a lot like the sort of stuff we heard out of Africa from folks like Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe.

This thread is STILL going? Everyone forgot this even happened 3 minutes later.

80000 is nothing.. a Football cup gets you more people and.. they would even burn police cars, destroy TVnetwork trucks and break thousands of windows.

for a population of 26,023,528, thats still quite a lot.

80000 is nothing.. a Football cup gets you more people and.. they would even burn police cars, destroy TVnetwork trucks and break thousands of windows.

Ever cross your mind that football is, to most of the people, more important than politics?

of Course I support President Chavez.

I dont support the 6 hour day..

but I do support President Chavez, for years people all over LatinoAmerica have been repeating their teenaged children: "the Yankees rule.. and there is nothing we can do about it."
..as of today (the day Chavez was re-elected).. the youngsters can point to Chavez and say: "You are wrong, Someone can do something about it."
no, I am not talking about Baseball.

Blah blah, it only means that he's taking advantage of the latin american people with false hopes and lies. And I know I've made this comparison before but he is just like how Idi Amin is portrayed in The Last king of Scotland.

Not possible without significant reengineering of humans at the genetic level.

And you're making a grand mistake. The greater the aggregate total of a collective, the stupider it will become.

I'm talking about slow evolution of human beings through a beneficial society. And I don't know whether I agree about the greater total of a collective thing, sounds a bit sketchy.

That sounds a lot like the sort of stuff we heard out of Africa from folks like Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe.others like you have already called him Hitler (like 50 times)..

turning around and calling him Amin or Mugabe is not going to make an impact.

good try.. better luck next time and thank you for playing ;)

I'm talking about slow evolution of human beings through a beneficial society. And I don't know whether I agree about the greater total of a collective thing, sounds a bit sketchy.

Any form of beneficial society like that would eventually be torn down by those who want more in their lot than the same thing their peers have before you could get any real dividends.

Humans are inherently greedy.

OH SHIT. He pissed off a constitutional monarch. A right-wing figure. Kak syurpriz.

Sorry I didn't reply earlier. I was full of rage.

others like you have already called him Hitler (like 50 times)..

turning around and calling him Amin or Mugabe is not going to make an impact.

good try.. better luck next time and thank you for playing ;)

Well then, not really trying to deny it are we? Personally I think that he's more like Idi Amin and Mugabe because he trys to play the whole "our country was a victim of imperialism so it gives me a mandate to do whatever the hell I want."

I hadn't checked out this thread for a long time now :-/ but anyway here is my raction on something LONG ago...

Not really. Most of the money comes from oil money, which before was concentrated into a tiny upperclass and taken by transnational corporations.
I heard there still is a large amount coming from middleclass instead of upperclass (certainly not most but just). But then again, I don't know the tax system and in most western countries you also pay loads of taxes.

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.¨
There you have a good point so I guess on that issue I rest my case



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.



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.



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".

Well on the democratic point i did indeed forget to mention the grass-root democracy thing but then again it was not really a complete analysis but just an opinion.
But being a democrat is rather defined by how much you co-operate with other parties than how much you reform the democratic system. But well the oposition in deed doesn't appear to be likely to co-operate and Chavez is quite laxist with them indeed *I doubt trying to do a coup falls under the parliamentary immunity*.
I do support the grassroot democracy system and it will last for generations but let's be honest: it only reinforces his power. He is democratic (in his reforms) but he's not a real democrat.

I hadn't checked out this thread for a long time now :-/ but anyway here is my raction on something LONG ago...
Gravedig much?

thats a pretty long necro.
Chavez us a nut. the US warns him about a coup attempt a month before it happens and he still is convinced "The us is coming to get me OMG"

OH SHIT. He pissed off a constitutional monarch. A right-wing figure. Kak syurpriz.

Although Juan Carlos I, himself, is probably right-wing, he has supported the left-wing numerous times and is one of the principle reasons why the 1981 coup attempt failed - he is also the man who 'allowed' such a quick, easy and painless transition to democracy in Spain in 1976. It should be indicated that Juan Carlos' reaction was because Chavez was interrupting President Zapatero, a left-wing president.

He actually finished the nationalisation of the largest steel company in the country today, after the unions and management failed to settle a round of wage bargaining. Told the workers that the company was now socialist and belonged to the people.

I thought about making a thread about it, but I figured I might as well wait two or three years and use it as an example to make a more general thread about how nationalisation is not a great idea.

Although Juan Carlos I, himself, is probably right-wing, he has supported the left-wing numerous times and is one of the principle reasons why the 1981 coup attempt failed - he is also the man who 'allowed' such a quick, easy and painless transition to democracy in Spain in 1976. It should be indicated that Juan Carlos' reaction was because Chavez was interrupting President Zapatero, a left-wing president.

I thought Zapatero was the prime minister of Spain.

He actually finished the nationalisation of the largest steel company in the country today, after the unions and management failed to settle a round of wage bargaining. Told the workers that the company was now socialist and belonged to the people.

I thought about making a thread about it, but I figured I might as well wait two or three years and use it as an example to make a more general thread about how nationalisation is not a great idea.
He also proved that Godwin's law also applies to politics a day or two ago by pretty much calling Merkel a Nazi.

I thought Zapatero was the prime minister of Spain.

President is the right title.

He also proved that Godwin's law also applies to politics a day or two ago by pretty much calling Merkel a Nazi.

Godwin? I swear it was a straw man, actually. Biggest strawman I have seen, as big as the Wicker man.

Godwin? I swear it was a straw man, actually. Biggest strawman I have seen, as big as the Wicker man.
Godwin's law states that in an internet debate, it's only a matter of time before someone makes a comparison to the Nazis. Quite frankly, Chavez couldn't be more wrong, considering that the CDU, Merkel's party which he claims was what brought Hitler to power, wasn't founded until after WWII, and by a man that strongly opposed Nazism. Seemed like an ad hominem and strawman meant to distract from her statement that he doesn't speak for all of South America.