Chavez once again porves he's a tin pot dictator in the making.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm not concerned about if he gives to the poor, in fact I rather like that. What I am concerned about is his dictatorial tendencies, Che's refusal to admit them, and that Che called me a liar because I said Venezuela only produced 2.5 mbpd. The facts are in and the amount is 2.5 mbpd not the 3.4 mbpd that Chavez is claiming. I want Che to admit he was wrong and say he's sorry.

Well, I'll trust OPEC a lot more than I'll trust the previous yahoos you were quoting. You, however, were claiming that Venezuelan oil output had dropped 50% (which means that private companies must have doubled or trebled their output to make up the loss).

I know Chavez is claiming 3.4 mpbd. I haven't seen any evidence that he is correct, nor have I claimed that he was. The IEA (International Energy Agency) initially claimed last year that Venezuela was only pumping 2.5 mpbd, but then revised that number upwards to 2.9 mpbd. I quoted and linked that earlier in the thread.

I'm glad to see that you are now only claiming that Chavez only has dictatorial tendencies, rather than that he is hell bent on becoming dictator. This represents a significant moderation in your stance. It shows that you can learn. Frankly, everything on this is pure supposition. You can claim he is a dictator because he sought and has received the authority to rule by decree on some economic issues, but then you'd have to admit that four other presidents of Venezuela from 1961 to 1999 were dictators also, since they also had that authority.

Seeking to do away with the limitations on term limits is not evidence that he is a dictator. Ronnie Reagan made noises about doing the same thing, and however much I may have hated the man, I wouldn't call him a dictator.

So, no admission of error nor any apology on my part . . . at least not to you. A 10% drop in oil production isn't enough of a drop to claim Chavez is destroying his country's future.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin

And this is why I insulted you. Because you once again show your utter ignorance of the history and situation in Latin America and specifically Venezuela. The Latin American elites are total bastards. The have done, are doing, and will do whatever it takes to maintain what they see as their rightful privileges. Lie, cheat, steal, torture, murder, it matters not. The poor are deserving of nothing but contempt to them. These people are the reason that I became a communist in the first place.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kidicious
He's only taken power from the people who were keeping the poor from getting their share.

Parliament?

[chequita guevara]

It was constitutional.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It was constitutional.

That's relevent to what I asked or the post I quoted in what way?

[chequita guevara]

I don't waste that kind of effort on you, Mr. One-liner.

[DinoDoc]

Yet you can't help yourself when it comes to pressing reply.

[chequita guevara]

[Flubber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


A 10% drop in oil production isn't enough of a drop to claim Chavez is destroying his country's future.

Nope -- nor would him maintaining production be proof that he was bettering Venezuelan fortunes in the long run.


I dislike Chavez for two reasons

1. I distrust his dictatorial bent. The fact that others have had the powers he has does not sway me from the view that he is interested in long term power for Chavez. I actually think that he is egotistical enough to believe he is acting in his country's best interest even if he were using force to hold power.That Chavez loyalty is becoming a pre-condition for many benefits is not surprising but still a bit alarming.

2. HE is a communist. I see this system as fundamentally flawed for nation-states. Perhaps he can make it work better than it has in the past. If he can, my views may change but right now I simply do not believe in the communist system

[chequita guevara]

I don't know whether he's a commie or not, to be perfectly honest. There's a bit of nepotism and corruption going on and he could well have just decided that left-rhetoric will serve his interests better than right-leaning rhetoric. I think it's likely he's a genuine leftist, but I can't say with certainty this is the case. I will learn more this weekend when I meet with a Venezuelan Trotskyist.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
2. HE is a communist. I see this system as fundamentally flawed for nation-states. Perhaps he can make it work better than it has in the past. If he can, my views may change but right now I simply do not believe in the communist system

First, it's not a communist system.

Second, it would take much more than that to change your mind.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious

First, it's not a communist system.

Perhaps not completely otr not yet but he seems to have a lot of the rhetoric down

Originally posted by Kidicious


Second, it would take much more than that to change your mind.

You have no idea what would be required to change or not change my mind. I suspect I am much less rigid in my views than you are. My job frequently requires me to switch side on issues and I frequently abandon a viewpoint when facts change.

So bring me one highly functioning communist nation-state and I would defintely change my views on the viability of the system and perhaps even my views on its desirability.

THat criteria perhaps begs the question though. If you have to .. . . I don't know . . . . kill all those people that disagree with you . . . . you will excuse me if I wouldn't see that as high-functioning even though you might ( or might not-- I don't recall where you stood on the whole "kill your opposition thing")

If your pre-condition is that your model needs to be world wide or it does not work . . I dispute your viability. The world is divided into nation states and will be for the forseeable future. For a societal model to actually work, it must be able to survive and even prosper in that environment

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber

Perhaps not completely otr not yet but he seems to have a lot of the rhetoric down

Such as ...

You have no idea what would be required to change or not change my mind.

Let's see. I say you will never change your mind.

I suspect I am much less rigid in my views than you are. My job frequently requires me to switch side on issues and I frequently abandon a viewpoint when facts change.

So bring me one highly functioning communist nation-state and I would defintely change my views on the viability of the system and perhaps even my views on its desirability.

THat criteria perhaps begs the question though. If you have to .. . . I don't know . . . . kill all those people that disagree with you . . . . you will excuse me if I wouldn't see that as high-functioning even though you might ( or might not-- I don't recall where you stood on the whole "kill your opposition thing")

If your pre-condition is that your model needs to be world wide or it does not work . . I dispute your viability. The world is divided into nation states and will be for the forseeable future. For a societal model to actually work, it must be able to survive and even prosper in that environment

And that pretty much confirms it since thats what communism is.

[Dinner]

Che, you are being retarded again. You claim that I don't know anything about Latin America; which is provably false but besides the point. Chavez now gets to rule by dictate thus by definition he is a dictator. You attempt to justify his being a dictator by pointing out there have been other dictators in Venezuela in the recent past 50 years.

So what? Dictators are bad. Period. It doesn't matter if in the past there were other dictators because what Chavez has done is take a functioning democracy and turn it into a dictatorship. That's bad no matter if other people were also dictators. I'm never argued anything else and all you can offer in the dictator's defense is a red herring argument.

You and I both know that if it was a right winger who was doing similiar things you'd be crying a river yet when a left winger does the same things you bend over backwards to make excuses for him. That's just hypocracy.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


And that pretty much confirms it since thats what communism is.

which

the "killing the people that disagree with you" part?