Hugo Chavez fisting, not fingering, Bush
- Thread starter rockwool
- Start date
Isnt this the same a-hole who authorized killing unarmed protestors? Calling Bush a coward? Nice.
What about the A-Holes that authorized killing unarmed civilians?
Oh wait, those were Iraqis and Lebaneese.
They don't count.
What about the A-Holes that authorized killing unarmed civilians?
Oh wait, those were Iraqis and Lebaneese.
They don't count.
Im just saying its hyprocritical for him to say the ****, I didnt pick a side
You're thinking of the rally in Caracas in the beginning of April 2002 that led to the military coup, on the 11/4, that overthrew Chavez who was the democraticly elected president.
Unfortunately for the coup makers, there was an Irish documentary filmcrew in Caracas making a documentary about Hugo Chavez who captured the truth of what happened during that rally.
The privately owned media played an active role in displaying the rally as beeing attacked by the police/army, but this documentary will show that was just well orchestrated acting by the protesters and filmed from the "right" angles by the media.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=the+revolution+will+not+be+televised&hl=en
It's a really good documenatary that has won a lot of prizes in filmfestivals around the world. It is called "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised".
Yeah, another good documentary that has won a lot of prizes is "The Panama Deception" about the Panama invasion of 1989.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-446387292666223710&q=the+panama+deception&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-446387292666223710&q=the+panama+deception&hl=en
Paratrooper comander Vs spoilt kid who used daddys money to draft dodge?
Yeah I'd call shrub a cowardly bully boy in comparison.
oh c´mon, you are giving chavez too much credit.
he isn´t exactly a textbook example of democracy.
pushing political oponents into submission by meassures not so distant from castro, noriega or franco isnt what democracy is about.
he isn´t exactly a textbook example of democracy.
pushing political oponents into submission by meassures not so distant from castro, noriega or franco isnt what democracy is about.
btw, that paratrooper commander, did a coup d´etat and scrambled and bombed his own people with jet fighters in the meanwhile.
in my book he isnt actually much higher than dubya.
Oh don't get me worng.... I don't have much compasion for either of them... I was only posting about the coward bit.
And Bush is an absolute chickensh1t in comparison.
And Bush is an absolute chickensh1t in comparison.
You'd lump noriega with castro and franco?
I'd put him closer to torrijos, and I'd put chavez between the two. I'd put bush below all three, but above the first two.
Now if sarah is sitting next to bob and bob is sitting two seats from david...
franco for an honest lead. i´d push chavez under castro. on par with trujillo (by what we know for a fact about him today), but with good chances of rowing forward as more facts sprout in the future.
i´d put bush over trujillo. over fujimori, over chavez, but pushing for a close finish under the favorites. too bad for the race he is limited to 2 terms.
bush might not be as bad in relative terms, but given his power, in absolute numbers dubya is running a heck of a race.
btw, there was an very cool article lately on the economist about oil, chavez and state interests. it should make a for a good thread if somebody can find the text online.
LOL, why am I not surprised of your posts? :biggrin:
Chavez man, he is actualy doing someting for the vast majority of Venezuelans that has lacked in all other previous governments. To prove this, his popularity has steadily risen to 60% at the last presidential election. The amount of people that voted in his first election of 1998 was just under 11millions. At the election in 2002 they were above 14,3millions. That is a 30% increase, democracy has never been stronger in Venezuela!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_political_events_of_Venezuela
"pushing political oponents into submission" -What does that mean? Chavez has been ruling that country acording to their constitution.
Franco was a fascist dictator, enough said. Castro is democraticly elected (I know that ain't what you've been told but take a look at the Cuban constitution and you'll see for your selves)!
Noriega, I can't speak about until I read up on him.
Cut from wikipedia:
"Chávez and the 1992 coup attempt
Main article: Venezuelan coup attempt of 1992
Members of the Venezuelan military, including Hugo Chávez, attempted a coup d'état in 1992 to remove the democratically elected president, Carlos Andrés Pérez from power. The coup, which resulted in the deaths of 80 civilians and 17 members of the armed forces, failed and its supporters were jailed for treason. President Pérez was eventually impeached and convicted of corruption and his successor Rafael Caldera released the coup leaders from jail in 1994. Chávez's role in the coup made him popular, leading him to run for president in 1998."
I wonder who those 80 civilians were. I wouldn't call anybody of a corrupt government like Pérez's "my people", but I would see it as my duty to the country to get rid of that isht.
How can you compare Chavez to Bush? Chavez has since day 1 worked against analphabetism and for health programs for ALL venezuelans (with help from Castro). What has dubya done for the poorly educated and for the uninsured people in the US? Denada.
rock, you're arguing with a guy that lives in Venezueala or Tibet or one of those other little Mexicos. He probably knows Chavez.
I'm going to feel sorry for the family that I have in that country... when that man does something stupid, and I believe he will.
Anyway... thats the stupidest post I have seen in a while. That guys is far more crazy than Bush is... he gripes about Bush being crazy but having a lot of power...the thing is Chavez has no power... If he had the power of Bush, we'd all be in big trouble.
Anyway... thats the stupidest post I have seen in a while. That guys is far more crazy than Bush is... he gripes about Bush being crazy but having a lot of power...the thing is Chavez has no power... If he had the power of Bush, we'd all be in big trouble.
dude, wtf?
castro is "democratically" elected because by cuban laws, they are a "single party state". that means castro will always win by default being him the head of the "single party". jesus ****ing christ, get a grip.
what would happen if bush outlaws every party but the republican party, and he called elections and considered himself democratically elected, because he is the head of the single party?
about chavez, there is way too much to say. a side of my family lives up there, i go every few months and see the stuff from close.
he represents anything but a democracy abiding ruler. its more of an ochlocracy shifting towards the "single party state" idea.
http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200403020624
the dude owns the media and has anybody by the balls under a few blanket-statements laws in the constitution. like private property is dependant upon "social interest", a blanked law used to retaliate against any opposition.
(I'm about to ruin this thread)
Hitler was pretty goddamn popular in his own country too. Doesn't prove anything.
He told me he was Samoan. :biggrin:
I haven't seen anything that's pointing to that Chavez would commit an act of terror. Bush on the other hand, isht, not only a terrorist against his own (not proven) and everybody else, but he has taken away a lot of the rights that a democratic society should have.
Man, I've read their constitution. Yes they are a "single party state" but they elect individuals, not parties. There are 4 different elections organized in; 1.neighourhood, 2.municipal, 3.parliament, 4.presidential. In the presidential election only the parliament has the right to vote. I know, different kind of democracy from other countries, but they have been under US threat from day one and that has made their system different.
All democracies are different. Personaly I find the Brittish laughable because of their "House of Lords" where you inheret a seat if you are a noble.. Very undemocratic.
Ochlocracy. The richest clique of the population complainig because they as oligarchs have to share PDVSA, the state owned petroleum company, with the rest of the people. Well buu mf huuu, sharing sucks obviously. But why is it an ochlocracy? The people have spoken. First in 1998 when Chávez was elected president with 56%. Then Chávez was re-elected in 2000 with 59% of the vote.
Later "A recall election was held on 15 August 2004, and Chávez won (that is, he was permitted to stay in office) with approximately 60% of the vote. Leaders and supporters of the opposition refused to accept the results of the election claiming fraud, although the Organization of American States and the Carter Center certified the referendum." Majority rules, but the rich can't accept that now when there is a non corrupt government that isn't providing them with greater wealth.
I can back that up (from wikipedia):
"Parliamentary elections of 2005
Main article: Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2005
On December 4, 2005, five of Venezuela's major opposition parties boycotted the elections (half of the candidates of these five parties actually withdrew from the elections, representing 10% of the total number of candidates), charging that they were not being administered fairly; a random verification of 45% of the electronic votes (verified open source software was used) with paper ballots proved that the results of these elections were accurate. The last opinion polls prior to the elections had indicated that the Chávez alliance would have won around 150 of the 167 seats in the National Assembly, an indication that the opposition may have tried to avoid a historical defeat."
"Chávezs party, the Movement for the Fifth Republic (MVR), won 114 or 68% of the 167 seats in the new National Assembly, with the rest going to allied parties."
There is no reason for Chavez to ban other parties as you see. Doing that and creating a "single party state" would only have a negative effect so it would be totaly utterly stupid. "150 out of 167 seats" means that it hardly exists any opposision, but still they are making a lot of noice. How? If "the dude owns the media", how can they be heard? Only channel 8 is state owned. That is the channel he has his weekly program "Aló Presidénte". All other channels are private and that is why so few can make so much noise!
Please explain that last bit to me with the "blanked law", "blanket-statements" and "social interest". I don't understand the meaning of these words.
You're right, some times it means a lot of germans were cleverly misslead. In this case it means majority rule, and, they get to make their minds up every 6 years when there is a new election, or as in 2004 when the opposision collected enough names to ask for a vote of referendum.
Dude, Wikipedia is not exactly what I would call a great source. When an online knowledge base actively solicits information from those who use it, it can not be entirely dependable. How many times has Wikipedia been scammed?
I dont claim to be an expert on Venezuela, but I dont think anyone would call it the perfect democracy('cept Chavez!). But then again, neither is the US...
I dont claim to be an expert on Venezuela, but I dont think anyone would call it the perfect democracy('cept Chavez!). But then again, neither is the US...
Latin American politicians sucks balls, I want to see how Africa is going to stand up and kick our butts.
I'm not an expert on Venezuela either but from what I've seen, Venezuela has taken a turn away from a path it shared with all other Latin American countries (and the greater majority of the world) that meant that the rich lived in abundance, the poor felt their situation was hopeless and that they had no means of changing it, and this was due to corrupt politicians no matter if they called them selves right or left and had a party name that had words like "revolutionary", "workers", "socialist", or what ever you assosiate with a party that claims to think of the poor primarily.
But don't talk about perfect cus nothing is. The moment you can call your self the champ is brief, and for no longer than til the end of the following competition, the week after, which you might loose.
Nothing is constant, everything has to develop with time or it will be out paced. So is it with the current administration in Venezuela, they have only had 8 years to work towards their view of what is "perfect". You set a few goals you have to reach within a time and work on them till you do. Then you take out new goals towards perfectness/a better society/utopia and work on them, and agian, and again, this never stops.
Well, it shouldn't stop, like it has in Sweden where people think that we live in a perfect democracy, and where politicians consider any wishes to change our democracy is critisism which IT can't take becasue it might collapse... That is how wishes for changes are looked at but ofcourse not outspoken in that sentence.
I see the same thing all around the world. It is the power that corrupts them. Mankind is not strong enough to handle that much power and not loose its humbleness, its empathy, and its understanding of how other people might live. How can one with a salary of a politician understand the daily life of a low income, single parent with two kids to feed and all the surounding isht they need. People don't posess that insight even if the purposefully aren't neglecting it because of wickedness. We are not that advanced so that we can have a pyramid society. There are no "few elders" (like in sci fi movies) that is going to lead the masses to the better.
We need to flatten that pyramid out as much as possible, give more power from government to state; from state to municipality; and from municipality to something even smaller, like in Cuba where they are organized in "neighbourhoods". That way every man can feel he has more power of his daily life and not that all desicions are made way over his head. The EU is doing the opposite, it's centralizing power...
What I mean by all this is that there is nothing that is perfect but we should never stop strive for it. Like an athlete that puts up goals, step by step, to improve his technique, so should our societies do with the current view of what democracy is and of all the smaller daily problems that exist.
Wikipedia, I call it a great source just because it is open for anybody to edit. If a subject gets disputed it will say so, and even if it doesen't in this case people know to question if what they read is correct. Which is good!
On the other hand you have encylopedias published by the same big coorporate media owners that that own TV news stations and newspapers. Why should their printed view of the story be automaticly credible? Because it is an old and accepted way rather than the internet? Bias is automaticly put into a expressed view consiously or subconciously by the one expressing it, becasue of the knowledge he has on the subject and becasue of his social origin which has shaped him through life.
On top of that you have the owner of that media conglomerate who wants his TV/newspaper news to express a sertain view, like FOX's neo con bias. Same dudes publish them encyclopedias and have an editor there going "you have to rewright this" about sertain topics.
You don't think the Vietnamese share the official view of what happened there with the vast majority of people in the US, do you? But if you look that conflict up in the encyclopedia, do you think you will find the view of the Vietnamese there or the one ot he US? (this was just an expmple but you understand what i'm trying to show here).
The internet is a dangerous weapon pointing at the politicians that rule all of our corrupt governments. It has taken over and improved the role that newspapers, that were started by different syndicates and workers parties, had in the 19th and beginning of the 20th century which aimed to get the word and view of the "little man" out to the masses. In todays society these papers have become a part of the ruling class, the leaders that have been corrupted by the power over time, and now spit at grass roots movements and call them "activists" as if it was a bad thing to take your own situation in your own hands instead of leaving it to the cylinderhats.
When I look at Venezuela that is what I see; the "small people" organizing and taking active control of their lives which they now feel they have some influence over thanks to Hugo Chavez.
you suffer from the worst case of first world naiveté i´ve seen on the internet. you read indymedia, dont you?
you complain about the "corporate media", yet you swallow everything from the state media and propaganda departments of cuba and venezuela. (between the 2, i tell you from experience, state medias suck way more).
the "ideal" states you are quoting, are nothing but the incorporation of governments. the worst of the 2 worlds combined to bend people over.
you complain about the corruption of "corporations alligning with governments", yet somehow you think when "governments allign with corporations" (the same thing but in a different order), the outcome will be diametrically different.
ask the cubans, north koreans....
btw, "small people taking active control" does not equal political persecution, nor erases crass wrongdoing.
in other words, saying a thief is a "good father" wont get you acquitted in any court.
Africa, I know even less about but from what it seems they lack the light that exists in Latin America. Mercosur will help to shift the balance away from what is in the interests of the US and to what is in the interests of the Latin Americans. The TV channel that was started a few years ago (which Uruguay, Venezuela, Colombia, Cuba and some more own together, forgot its name..) will help in the infowar.
Cuba isn't isolated any more, the Venezuelans have realized that they've been fed a bunch of lies from their previous governments, and now they finaly have doctors in the poor neighbourhoods, Cuban doctors that go to palces that no middle/upperclass Venezuelan doctor wanted to set their foot at, to show them what kind of people Cubans are and what kind of society they have.
In Nicaragua the only thing that is holding the Sandinistas away from power is the US threats at every election they have that all US backing (that is considerable) is going to be withdrawn. But as Latin America is changing with Evo Morales's Bolivia, Argentina, Brasil, I will be surprised if there won't be a major shift of power towards the real left all over the continent over the next 10-12 years.
Mexico damn it, Louis Obrador! they have to recount ALL ballots to to avoid a scandal, and any thing else and is an insult of democracy.
In the Carribean there are changes too, but there the US normaly invades and abolishes the democraticly elected leader...
These are good years to come man, things haven't looked so positive since the late 60's LSD era in San Francisco. You should listen to some Jefferson Airplaine/Starship to get the vibe!
you suffer from the worst case of first world naiveté i´ve seen on the internet. you read indymedia, dont you?
btw, "small people taking active control" does not equal political persecution, nor erases crass wrongdoing.
in other words, saying a thief is a "good father" wont get you acquitted in any court.
I understand how you see it that way, as I see that you are of a priviliged class that thinks he has a lot to loose economicly on a powershift towards a real left. Materialism is sheit, some people are slaves to it like magpies (birds) are to shiny things. Well if that is all one has on his mind then he stands a lot to loose, yes.Show me this political persecution and crass wrongdoing because I don't know what you are talking about.
i think you got stuck on the marxist idea of economy being a fixed sum deal.
Show me this political persecution and crass wrongdoing because I don't know what you are talking about.
i dont have a lot to loose if poor people get money. hell!, even from a stricly egoist POV, it´d be actually on my best interest if more people have more money.
more people with spending money = more costumers, more demand, cheaper goods, cheaper imports and hopefully a domestic market strong enough to require the need for domestic manufacturing = more taxpayers = lower taxes = more business oportunities. that alone would be pretty awesome actually. without even going into moral issues and social improvement.
it was the rise of the middle class in the last 10 years in peru (thanks for the most part to liberal market policies) what brought a crapload of improvement "to the people", open markets, cheaper goods, higher REAL wages (as seen by consumer spending, and a dramatic increase in leisure spending at every socioeconomic level) not seen since before the 70s leftist dictatorships, and the 80s socialist democracy (sunk the economy with 7 digit cummulative inflation, and hit the hardest at the lowest income brackets).
start here.
http://caracaschronicles.blogspot.com/2005/10/chavez-faq.html
Fixed sum deal? Please explain.
The middle class has got it better here too, partially due to that their innercity apartments, that used to be succesfully cooperatevly owned, were put out for sale to prises under market value. And partially because of the Social democrats shifting to a liberal politic and less progressive taxasion.
All this has done for society is increase the segregation between the innercity people and them living in apartments in the suburb. It has also increased the elitism among those becase people tragicly identify them selves through their possesions.
The working class has not benefitted this last two decades, but that is nothing you will notice much of on the streets since everybody has bigass loans. The EU has made daily life purchases (food) more expensive. The differences are more noticable foor the workingclass in Greece. Their food prices ahve gone up enourmously while good like washingmachines have become cheaper. But if you're struggeling to buy food you don't care about electronic products.
Anyways, the middleclass has got it better there and here, which is good but what about the workingclass, they are the most needy so they should be served first. Kids on the streets are still sniffing glue to stop them from feeling hunger. That **** is what Evo Morales and Chavez is commited to before the middleclass. I totaly suport that.
What 70's leftist dictatorships and 80's socialist democracies in Latin America are you talking about?
Edit: I will check them two articles out little bit later.
by fixed sum deal, i meant the whole notion some people have (which borrows a lot from marx interpretation) that in economics what you gain is at the expense of somebody else.
by 70s leftist dictatorship, i referred to juan velasco alvarado and his economic reforms that ruined peru, and for the 80s socialist (not "socialist" properly speaking) alan garcia perez (yes, he got elected again this year, gotta love stupid people) and his estatization of banking, socialization of enterprises, currency control and market intervention that ultimately led to extraordinaty hyperinflation, food shortages and speculation, rampant unemployment, demolished wages and dramatic rise in poverty in less than 5 years.
and by "middle class improvement", that includes social mobility. its not about the middle class getting wealthier, but more about the middle class getting bigger.
the idea that truly helping "the working class" means given them the opportunity to jump into middle class, or raising their living standard to what previously was a middle class living standard.
by 70s leftist dictatorship, i referred to juan velasco alvarado and his economic reforms that ruined peru, and for the 80s socialist (not "socialist" properly speaking) alan garcia perez (yes, he got elected again this year, gotta love stupid people) and his estatization of banking, socialization of enterprises, currency control and market intervention that ultimately led to extraordinaty hyperinflation, food shortages and speculation, rampant unemployment, demolished wages and dramatic rise in poverty in less than 5 years.
and by "middle class improvement", that includes social mobility. its not about the middle class getting wealthier, but more about the middle class getting bigger.
the idea that truly helping "the working class" means given them the opportunity to jump into middle class, or raising their living standard to what previously was a middle class living standard.
Well that would be extra crazy. No I dont think he is going to do something that stupid, besides I cant imagine a Latino suicide bomber. I think he will do something stupid policy wise.
That speech... WTF was that all about... that just hints stupidity right there.
"Okay guys point the camera this way... make sure to get a few donkies on camera... now watch this boys, I'm gonna talk lots of sh!t about something I am not at all involved in."
BTW I am in no way saying that I agree with Bush... but I also think that calling out leaders of countries is moronic... Bush has his list of Axis of evil and Chavez... well he has his donkey rants where he challenges Bush to a fight... how childish is that. he comes off like an american redneck.
He says as he types on his computer in Stockholm...
"Fixed" or "Zero" Sum - There can't be growth in wealth that benefits all, only distribution of wealth at the gain of some and the equal but opposite expense of others. To be true, would require that economic growth is at the exact pace of population growth...
I see what you're saying but he does have the right to be pissed at "mr burro" after the April 11 coup the US was involved in. The US involvment in Venezuelas politics have continued, like it has critisezed V for buyng weapons and called it the begining of an arms race in the region, LOL, dubya who doubled the US's already tremendous military expenses... :biggrin: What business of the US is it if V decides to modernize the machinegusn of its soldiers that have been in service since 1952?!!
The US has emposed an arms embargo on V who has for years asked for supply parts to its 11 out of 22 F-16's that are grounded. So they turned to Russia instead.
What you see in Chavez's action is a repulsion of US policies that many Latin Americans politicians have but don't dare to say. You can't complain about beeing called a donkey if you behave like one. Well, bush can cus he's got the power to do so...
The US has emposed an arms embargo on V who has for years asked for supply parts to its 11 out of 22 F-16's that are grounded. So they turned to Russia instead.
What you see in Chavez's action is a repulsion of US policies that many Latin Americans politicians have but don't dare to say. You can't complain about beeing called a donkey if you behave like one. Well, bush can cus he's got the power to do so...
Well, it could be an old computer... it is. I like to simple in general but I wouldn't mind some more memory and speed in this mf...Later, gotta walk the wookies.
no chit, and to top that, he was telling that to a peruvian in peru.
Alexis, how is the trout fishing in Peru?no chit, and to top that, he was telling that to a peruvian in peru.
there is trout in the andes, about 4 hours east of lima and 10000ft high.
but the north shore has the most pretty kick ass fishing zones. marlins and stuff. big game, 500 pounder merlins are not unheard of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabo_Blanco,_Peru
but the north shore has the most pretty kick ass fishing zones. marlins and stuff. big game, 500 pounder merlins are not unheard of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabo_Blanco,_Peru
meh, I dont care about the deep sea stuff. I just like to fish small water in the hills, while camping and riding usually. Id rather catch a 20" trout than a 300lb Marlin, but that's just me.
I would like to check out the riding and fishing there someday. I want to drive from Alaska to Argentina but Im afraid I'll get taken out in the columbia or nicaragua or something. A tour of central and south america just doesnt seem safe.