Venezuelian Aggressor Only Changes 10% Of The Constitution!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


They may, I'll admit, be shut down right after a failed coup if they advocated it (probably because there would be some raid on the editor and whatnot for being part of the coup, whether they were or weren't), but it'd be allowed to come back fairly quickly, I'm sure. Like pro-Confederate newspapers right after the ACW.

Oh for God's sake.

It's not that RCTV was just advocating Chavez' overthrow. They colluded in it. They weren't just reporting it and giving opinions, they were part of the conspiracy, engaging in false reporting and deliberately falsifying news reportage and news video in collusion with and at the direction of the coup plotters. This is all documented fact.

If you look around the net, you can find video of them the day after the coup (when it still seemed successful) bragging about their involvement on air, and laughing at the success of their "plan". Some of the coup leaders even joke with a journalist about the pretence of media objectivity, and then they just laugh about it all being planned. It's not as if they were standing on the sidelines cheering – they were an integral part of the coup mechanism.

I suppose it's arguable whether the US government would suppress a news network that simply reported sympathy for and urged a coup. However, it seems insane to think that a network that was an active part of the criminal conspiracy would not be shut down and those responsible imprisoned, and probably given the death penalty.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I believe theres actually something to that. I dont think you realize that the CPUSA actually had influence in 1940. At the very least, to get some folks on the left to accept what they otherwise might not have done. I also dont think you realize that the trotskyites were organizing strikes by the merchant marine, at a time when the UK was living on a shoe string across the Atlantic.

The ANTI-communists influenced the government. Remember the Palmer Raids. You can't honestly think that the CPUSA could have that kind of influence. They had influence, ON THE LEFT. That doesn't translate into passing laws unfortunately. At best they might have had some influence into how the bill was written, and my have protected themselves. To suggest otherwise is just a conspiracy theory. OMG Teh Red Menace!

In any case there was no shutting down of major newspapers, some of which were bitterly hostile to Roosevelt and the "Jew deal" And yes, being associated with Jews was far less popular in the USA at that time than being associated with persons of color is in Venezuala today.

What are you trying to say? The CPUSA was anti-semetic or something. You really have this all wrong. This has nothing to do with jews or having indian blood in Venezuela.

If you will notice the "On June 27, 1941, the SWP's offices in Minneapolis and St. Paul were raided by the FBI which seized large quantities of communist literature" that is the same as shuting down a newspaper.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

But Chavez did not stand idly by, he defeated the coup.

No he didn't. He sat in prison on an island while the common people of Caracas protested outside the Miraflores and persuaded the Presidential Guard to arrest the traitors.

There is more threat of a coup, but there is a very real threat that Chavez popularity could decline, and so he needs to eliminate as many opposition voices as he can get away with.

And he is right to do so in cases where the opposition is not only opposed to his regime, but to popular democracy. Don't give me that crap about the poor opposition. The first thing they did after the initial coup was impose censorship.

Your arguement comes down to the permanent crisis IS mentioned before. and if ever things calm down, Chavez will use either actions or rhetoric to stir up MORE crisis, thus justifying further crackdowns.

Another claim which you have absolutely no evidence for.

Thats why the TV shutdown must be seen in context. The context of the change on term limits. The nationalization of the oil company, and the politicization of employment there. etc, etc.

All of these things have been endorsed by Chavez and his party being elected time after time. The change on term limits will be put to a referendum. If the Venezuelan people don't like it, they can vote against it (and they might well).

The problem here is that your "arguments" are full of crap. Chavez is enlarging the role of the government, and he's also changing various things. Big deal. It's not like he's doing this without public consultation. The voters have had the chance to throw him out multiple times (including the recall vote), and they have had as many times to send him a message by voting down his party.

So far he keeps winning these elections. These elections have been certified by international observers, including people like Jimmy Carter. If Chavez ignores the result of the referendum or the next presidential election because it doesn't go his way, then you will have a right to complain. Until that happens, your attempts to paint him as anti-democratic are nothing more than flatulence. Sure, he may be concentrating power in the government, but the majority of voters seem to either be fine with that, or are willing to accept it because the opposition are worse. Similarly, Thatcher went about destroying unions and the traditional support bases of the left. Yet, I don't see you complaining about that. But it's not like Thatcher did this without public support, since a plurality of Britons voted for her, and continued to do so in subsequent elections.

The remaining opposition news stations are still pumping out anti-Chavez propaganda, and have been since the coup. It seems to have done him little harm at the polls. Chavez is far more popular than Bush among his own people, and the media is far more hostile to him than it has ever been to Bush. The majority of Venezuelans like him: get a clue.