In Venezuela, It's Support Chavez — Or Else

[dannubis]

on the other hand the reps give away their secret agents when their husbands or wives don't agree with the foregn policy that is conducted.

pot kettle black

[Sandman]

Originally posted by snoopy369
That's when we'll know he's the real thing (ie, Hitler-ish dictator with global ambitions)

Then we'll know that he's a common tinpot.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Yeah

I'm just waiting for the 2 term limit to be repealed. That's when we'll know he's the real thing (ie, Hitler-ish dictator with global ambitions)

Still haven't gotten over this? what about countries that never had any term limit? all innately fascist?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Yeah

I'm just waiting for the 2 term limit to be repealed. That's when we'll know he's the real thing (ie, Hitler-ish dictator with global ambitions)

This is pretty pathetic.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
rewarding supporters is par for the course in the US also...

I'd think the fact that Rufus still has his job at State would be enough to put a stop to your attempt at equivalency.

[Mao]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Just another reason why few companies should be publically owned. In those cases where a company must be publically owned then there needs to be a firewall to prevent politicians from influencing things solely for their political benifit.

While I agree with your premise, I don't necessarily think your conclusion comes from it. Hell, American bosses were saying the same thing in some 19th century elections, and they were very much privately-owned companies.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Still haven't gotten over this? what about countries that never had any term limit? all innately fascist?

There's a difference between not having a term limit, and removing it such that you can continue ruling. The former is, perhaps, the will of the people and/or playing by the rules that were set when you joined. The latter is pure dictatorship.

I was tired last night, and perhaps "Hitler-ish ambitions" is an overreach ... I certainly don't mean to imply that he's gassing people ... but I have no doubt that he had dictatorial ambitions, and need only this last step to confirm them. I worry that he's pushing his country towards a point where he can do whatever he wants, including invade another country and make his countrymen feel that it was the fault of whomever he invades (they were too pro-american, or let's say Columbia, we have to invade to prevent the Americans from taking over) ...

A final question ... if Bush did any one of these things, how many threads would be rabidly posted in about them? Oerdin I give full props to for calling a duck a duck, but how many of the rest of you would be posing FAR more rabidly if Bush had done any one of these things ... and there's a VAST difference between political favoritism and out and out threatening of the common wo/man for his or her vote ...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Mao


While I agree with your premise, I don't necessarily think your conclusion comes from it. Hell, American bosses were saying the same thing in some 19th century elections, and they were very much privately-owned companies.

The state must take an active role in ensuring election fraud like this doesn't happen, like the US does (by making it illegal). Making a company publicly owned decreases dramatically the incentive for the state to do this. So long as private companies and the State are separate entities, they will have different agendas and therefore less likelihood of this happening.

Now, at the point in which corporations start running the government, we have problems ... but they'd have to all agree first and that's unlikely Democrats get plenty of campaign contributions hereabouts from corporations.

[dannubis]

what, invading another country for no reason ?

[KrazyHorse]

The latter is pure dictatorship.

Removing a term limit is dictatorship? YOU STILL HAVE TO STAND FOR REELECTION

Extending the term of the presidency would be dictatorship if the new, longer term were to take effect without an intervening election. Unfortunately for your case, nothing of the sort happened in Venezuela. In fact, Chavez stood for reelection before the old constitution would have required him to.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The latter is pure dictatorship.

Removing a term limit is dictatorship? YOU STILL HAVE TO STAND FOR REELECTION

Extending the term of the presidency would be dictatorship if the new, longer term were to take effect without an intervening election. Unfortunately for your case, nothing of the sort happened in Venezuela. In fact, Chavez stood for reelection before the old constitution would have required him to.

Um, yeah, keep believing that if you want, KH. Chavez was elected by a ridiculously high percentage of the vote. Even the most incredibly popular politicians in the US win by like 80%-20% ... the vote in his country was never going against him, and won't as long as he's in power. For reasons such as the above.

You don't have to officially abolish elections to be a dictator. Few people argue that Saddam wasn't a dictator, but he was 'elected' every so often also ... with a similarly ridiculously high percentage ...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Mao

While I agree with your premise, I don't necessarily think your conclusion comes from it. Hell, American bosses were saying the same thing in some 19th century elections, and they were very much privately-owned companies.

I'm not saying that private industry can't abuse it's position though doing what you described would be illegal. I'm saying to give a President the power to hire or fire workers based upon if they are supporters or not is just hugely abusive. At least if the companies are not owned by the government then there is another layer of seporation.

Plus it helps to cut down on general corruption since your removing more and more of the economy from the direct control of politicians who are likely corrupt. Or atleast if a politician is corrupt there is a small pool he can run rough shod over.

[KrazyHorse]

Did you not notice the fact that most of the major opposition boycotted the vote?



Snoopy, I don't even like Chavez. He's a bully and an idiot, in addition to being a little bit loony.

But his opposition (both in Venezuela and abroad) has really delegitimised itself through its spurious claims of voterigging, and over-the-top pejoratives (like comparing him to Hitler).

I'm glad to see you continuing this fine tradition.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The latter is pure dictatorship.

Removing a term limit is dictatorship? YOU STILL HAVE TO STAND FOR REELECTION

That election kind of becomes meaningless once you outlaw the opposition from being on the government owned TV and radio stations, rig all the election districts so that you get a big advantage, make it clear that only districts which vote for you will get any form of government development assistance, and go around arresting opposition candidates and firing their supporters. That's especially abusive since so much of Venezuela's economy is government or the nationalized industries.

I don't think anyone can call that democracy with a straight face. Well, fake boris will but we all know he is insane.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Did you not notice the fact that most of the major opposition boycotted the vote?

Yes, they boycotted for the reasons I stated in my previous post.