Chavez wins big in Venezuela!

[joncha]

So basically... you were just lying?

[Sava]

faciticist lies

[snoopy369]

Well, I remember it being canary yellow, and so does my GF. So perhaps the pic is poor, or he had a coat or something.

At least it has yellow arm bands visible.

[joncha]

You're just like Hitler.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by joncha
You're just like Hitler.

Nah, Hitler had a much better visual memory than I. And, was a lot nicer and more convincing when he talked.

In fact, I'm pretty much the opposite of hitler. I'm uncharismatic, unambitious, and have no armbands whatsoever.

[Dinner]

Do you at least have a mustache?

[joncha]

I bet he doesn't have a parrot. That makes him close enough to Hitler in my book.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I'm not necessarily claiming he won cheatily. As I said above, I don't have the resources to investigate this. It's not even that important to my point ...

My point was that it's not a good thing that this guy won. Hitler won his first election fair and square, also ... and up until probably 1943 could have continued winning them completely fairly. Chavez is a charismatic loon that not only likes power (as any decent leader does, at least to some extent) but is willing to use tactics that in the past have been indicative of a *dangerous* loon. He's been sounding very Saddam like lately ... and regardless of the US's poorly thought out attack on that country, Saddam was a danger if left unchecked (as proven in 1989). Chavez could become a dangerous leader in an area of the world that we should care a lot more about than we do ... and is in a position to place his country in direct opposition to the US and to the sane world powers, if he chooses to - which it looks like he may.

Further, he's not good for his country, as illustrated in my points above, and by any reasonable amount of research into the country. Google venezuela and corruption ... He's encouraging a culture of corruption and extortion, and basically destroying his country.

Oh, and Musharraf isn't a lick better (Assuming you're talking about Pakistan's president here?). Pakistan gets a 2.1 on the corruption rating system And he's certainly in power thanks to his own might, not due to votes. (Though there are ways of rigging an election that don't require actual ballot stuffing ... just discouraging voting, or controlling, directly or indirectly, the press, is enough. Didn't the CBC indicate only a 25% voter turnout??? That's pathetic, for a supposed party that is elected by 'the people' ... yet only elected by a majority of 25% of the people. Let me guess, the poorest 25% voted ...

Where to start....

Your "transparency index" is based on the opinions of business types and country analists ie. big biz and the CIA. Wake up!

All of the opinions about "corruption" in Venezuela posted here, pro and con, are just that. I'd put up the latest election in Venezuela against the Florida vote in 2000 any day. Chavez is decidedly NOT a "loon". It's just your ethnocentric prejudice about what a political leader is supposed to act like. He is a savy, charismatic populist leader who has the courage to act for the poor and to stand up to the traditional bully of the region.

As for your comparison to Hitler's rise to power, it's just a figment of your imagination. Hitler was helped to power by big business, as has been conclusively shown here on previous threads. Chavez is in power because of the support of the poor majority, and despite the fanatical opposition of big business in Venezuela. Finally, the US is prone to support fascist regimes in Latin America and they oppose Chavez. Hitler was a fascist - Chavez is not.

[snoopy369]

So which ethnicity am I, btw, to have an ethnocentric prejudice?

Any argument stating that the fact that the US doesn't support this guy makes him non-fascist is ... um ... lacking. Chavez is in power because of his charismatic ability to garner votes, and his staying power due to his ability to control the government and the press.

How exactly has he stood up for the poor? Hmm? He converted Venezuela from a country where you needed money to get into bed with big business, to a country where you need money to get into bed with the government. The country is still every bit as rich, conceptually, and every bit as poor, really. Perhaps the people at the bottom have a bit more, in the roman "bread and circuses" style of populist, charismatic dictators - but they're not fundamentally significantly better off.

I'd have no problem with him standing up to the US, btw - never have - but it's the way in which he does. I cheer every time Mexico stands up to the US (the two or three times they've done so ) ... because they do so diplomatically. Chavez is a much, much more dangerous leader. I'm not ready to put him in the Saddam category for sure - but he's sure showing signs of that sort of mentality. Don't forget, Saddam seemed like a nice guy too, decades ago ... as did Castro ... both sounded like they'd help out their country. Sigh.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by techumseh


Where to start....

Your "transparency index" is based on the opinions of business types and country analists ie. big biz and the CIA. Wake up!

Specifically to this point ...

Who exactly is supposed to do analyses of countries Country Analysts! Certainly business types might have a bias against this guy - mostly because he dispossessed a few of them - but I'd expect their opinions to matter to some extent; traders and businessmen are often the main people who have any interactions with foreign countries.

And don't discount the CIA ... they're not the CIA of the 60s, and even then, they gathered information in a surprisingly even-handed way, even if they did use that information in non-even-handed ways. The most effective weapon in espionage, is the truth ... regardless of which way it cuts.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by snoopy369
So which ethnicity am I, btw, to have an ethnocentric prejudice?

American.

Any argument stating that the fact that the US doesn't support this guy makes him non-fascist is ... um ... lacking. Chavez is in power because of his charismatic ability to garner votes, and his staying power due to his ability to control the government and the press.

Of course his ability to get elected is important - he IS a politician. Ditto his ability to control the government - he IS the president. As for his ability to control the press, well, you'll have to provide some proof for your statement, won't you? Is he as good at it as the Republicans?

How exactly has he stood up for the poor? Hmm? He converted Venezuela from a country where you needed money to get into bed with big business, to a country where you need money to get into bed with the government. The country is still every bit as rich, conceptually, and every bit as poor, really. Perhaps the people at the bottom have a bit more, in the roman "bread and circuses" style of populist, charismatic dictators - but they're not fundamentally significantly better off.

It's not true just because you say so. What's your evidence?

I'd have no problem with him standing up to the US, btw - never have - but it's the way in which he does. I cheer every time Mexico stands up to the US (the two or three times they've done so ) ... because they do so diplomatically. Chavez is a much, much more dangerous leader. I'm not ready to put him in the Saddam category for sure - but he's sure showing signs of that sort of mentality. Don't forget, Saddam seemed like a nice guy too, decades ago ... as did Castro ... both sounded like they'd help out their country. Sigh.

So it's only OK to stand up to the US if you do so politely? Gee Mr. Yankee, please stop overthrowing our elected governments. Please stop training torturers and death squads. Please let us control our own economies, Mr. Yankee. If we ask nicely, can we, please? God! You people.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by snoopy369

And don't discount the CIA ... they're not the CIA of the 60s, and even then, they gathered information in a surprisingly even-handed way, even if they did use that information in non-even-handed ways. The most effective weapon in espionage, is the truth ... regardless of which way it cuts.

They're not the CIA of the 60s? Have you been following the news lately about secret CIA torture prisons in Eastern Europe? What do you think you know about the CIA?

Specifically on Chavez, given the failed CIA led coup against him, what do you think the CIA 'country analysts' feeding "Transparency Watch" want you to think about the state of democracy in Venezuela?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by techumseh


They're not the CIA of the 60s? Have you been following the news lately about secret CIA torture prisons in Eastern Europe? What do you think you know about the CIA?

Specifically on Chavez, given the failed CIA led coup against him, what do you think the CIA 'country analysts' feeding "Transparency Watch" want you to think about the state of democracy in Venezuela?

Sorry, I left my tinfoil hat in the car ...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by techumseh

American.

Umm ... right.

[q=techumseh]
Of course his ability to get elected is important - he IS a politician. Ditto his ability to control the government - he IS the president. As for his ability to control the press, well, you'll have to provide some proof for your statement, won't you? Is he as good at it as the Republicans?
[/q]

Umm ... right. I suppose if W was asked about the media, he'd be glowing at its wonderful portrayal of him ...

and "control" I use to refer to absolute control. W doesn't have any meaningful power over ~40% of our government (Ie the democrats)... and iirc more states have democrat-led legislatures than republican (though I think it's fairly mixed overall).

[q=techumseh]
It's not true just because you say so. What's your evidence?
[/q]
I've posted evidence supporting my arguments... you haven't posted a bit so far.

[q=techumseh]
So it's only OK to stand up to the US if you do so politely? Gee Mr. Yankee, please stop overthrowing our elected governments. Please stop training torturers and death squads. Please let us control our own economies, Mr. Yankee. If we ask nicely, can we, please? God! You people. [/q]
It's expected to be diplomatic in relation to other nations (hence the word, 'diplomacy'). It's no more OK for the US to be undiplomatic (which it can be from time to time) than it is for Venezuela ... either nation has every right to financially or politically support whomever they want. The US never militarily intervened in the Chavez regime - at least not yet, and hopefully Chavez will never be as bad as I think he might. However, I don't think this is going to end up positively.

I'd appreciate it, as well, if you'd keep this confined to a discussion of the issues. "You people" is a personal attack, and not appreciated nor appropriate. Just because I'm an American doesn't mean you can dismiss my arguments by referring to my nationality derogatively, nor does it give you the right to do so at all.

[Dinner]

I gave up on techumseh when it comes to stuff like this a long time ago.