Venezuelian Aggressor Only Changes 10% Of The Constitution!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
I say it's too soon to say if Chavez is another Hitler or not. Saddam Hussein was no Hitler either, but that didn't stop him from killing thousands of innocents. Chavez is becoming a dictator and that's all you need to know.

Chavez' becoming a dictator is something that the powers that be in our countries would like us to believe. **** them. I would take Chavez over Blair, Howard or Bush in a heartbeat. They've been repeating this for years now, despite it being utter bollocks, because they know if they keep repeating it, that the dumb public will just end up accepting it.

There is nothing wrong with being able to be leader for life. Many countries have no term limits. New Zealand doesn't. Every so often a leader will come along who is so popular that they just keep getting elected. Pierre Trudeau was the Canadian Prime Minister for 16 years with a short break of less than a year towards the end. Was Trudeau a dictator? Of course not (unless you are one of these nuts from the Western Provinces who he *****slapped). Trudeau was just an incredibly popular politician. So is Hugo Chavez.

We have good reason to doubt anything that the US government or pro US sources have to say on this matter. The US doesn't like Chavez for obvious reasons (none of which have anything to do with democracy), and many Americans have embarked on a PR campaign to discredit him.

But who believes the US government or US conservatives. You would have to be a skull-****ingly stupid idiot to believe anything those ****bags say. And the US media is simply a joke. In countries with a properly free press, the situation is somewhat different.

Chavez was within his rights to close down that TV station, and it was the right decision. This is a TV station which was an active part of a coup against the democracy, and which spent a lot of its time referring to him as a "******" on screen. You tell me what would happen to a major US network if it fomented a coup, and habitually referred to prominent African-American politicians as "******s" on air.

Most of the accusations against Chavez are just horse **** spread by his political opponents. He's wildly popular in Venezuela, except among the scumbag middle classes who are pissed that they can't loot the place any more. **** them. They deserve to be ground into the dust for the crap they've pulled in the past. Chavez isn't being anywhere near hard enough on them IMHO.

And that is the truth. If it was me I would **** the middle classes over as hard as I could. They are vampires, who have sucked the life out of that country for years. But Chavez is much more moderate than me.

We have absolutely no reason to believe the Venezuelan opposition and the private press. They have been exposed as liars for everyone to see. **** them. If I have to choose between their anti-democratic crap and Chavez stuff, I choose Chavez.

So what if Americans don't like him? **** them. The American establishment are a bunch of corrupt anti-democractic bastards who would would improve the world by setting themselves on fire. The US establishment has been completely discredited since Bush came to power, and no sane person pays them any heed. Whiney American liberals are similarly deluded. Have they any idea how it used to be before Chavez? Of course not. The guy is trying to drag his country towards being a modern democracy. That requires a democratic opposition. So far, none exists, so he keeps winning. We already know what the opposition are going to do, since they showed us during the coup.

What sticks in their craw is that Chavez keeps winning internationally verified elections. I think he and his party have won ten at the last count. How many Western administrations have won that many elections? Not many. Painting the guy as a dictator is stupid. He's been on the block more than most politicians. Some dictator. So we get the crap that he is "dictator-like" or is accruing "some dictatorial powers". In other words, he's not a dictator, but we really want to call him one, so we will do our best to fudge the issue.

And Americans having the temerity to criticize Venezuelan elections when their last few elections have been marred by voter fraud.

Nothing you say matters as long as he keeps getting elected. If that's what the people want, then it's up to them.

[lord of the mark]

From Human Rights Watch, neocon tool:


Venezuela: TV Shutdown Harms Free Expression
(Washington, DC, May 22, 2007)—The Venezuelan government’s politically motivated decision not to renew a television broadcasting license is a serious setback for freedom of expression in Venezuela, Human Rights Watch said today. The decision will shut down Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), the country’s oldest private channel, when its license expires on May 27, 2007.

President Hugo Chávez is misusing the state's regulatory authority to punish a media outlet for its criticism of the government. The move to shut down RCTV is a serious blow to freedom of expression in Venezuela.

President Hugo Chávez has repeatedly threatened to cancel RCTV’s license ever since he accused it of supporting an April 2002 coup attempt. On December 28, 2006, he announced during a military ceremony that the order not to renew the channel’s 20-year license had already been drafted.

“President Hugo Chávez is misusing the state’s regulatory authority to punish a media outlet for its criticism of the government,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “The move to shut down RCTV is a serious blow to freedom of expression in Venezuela.”

Of the three commercial stations accessible in all parts of Venezuela, only RCTV has remained strongly critical of the government. The other two—Venevision and Televen—were themselves accused of supporting the attempted coup and subsequent anti–government protests. But both have since removed virtually all content critical of the government from their programming.

Venevision’s license is also due for renewal on May 27, but the government has remained silent about the channel’s future, in contrast to its repeated public attacks on RCTV.

Officials defend the decision by pointing out that the government is merely exercising its right not to renew RCTV’s broadcasting license when it expires. However, no procedure was established to enable RCTV to present evidence and arguments in its favor; the criteria on which the decision was based were not established clearly beforehand, nor was there any application or selection process allowing RCTV to submit an application for continuation of its concession.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon

There is nothing wrong with being able to be leader for life. Many countries have no term limits. New Zealand doesn't. Every so often a leader will come along who is so popular that they just keep getting elected. Pierre Trudeau was the Canadian Prime Minister for 16 years with a short break of less than a year towards the end. Was Trudeau a dictator? Of course not (unless you are one of these nuts from the Western Provinces who he *****slapped). Trudeau was just an incredibly popular politician. So is Hugo Chavez.

Please tell me about the time Trudeau tried to pull off a military coup himself, before being elected?

[Kontiki]

Trudeau didn't change the rules to make sure he could stay in power. It would be much less suspicious if there wasn't something specifically prohibiting Chavez from extending his rule which he is actively trying to remove.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


Chavez' Whiney American liberals are similarly deluded. Have they any idea how it used to be before Chavez?

they know it was more complex than ranters on either side care to admit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3mulo_Betancourt

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Trudeau didn't change the rules to make sure he could stay in power. It would be much less suspicious if there wasn't something specifically prohibiting Chavez from extending his rule which he is actively trying to remove.

Quite true. Running for more terms because there is no term limit doesn't present any problems. But taking away a constitutional barrier to serving more terms just looks like a blatent grab for power (or rather, to not give up the power once you've tasted it).

A better thing to do would be, if he thinks the rule is so horrible, to remove it, but make it apply to the next President and beyond.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
A better thing to do would be, if he thinks the rule is so horrible, to remove it, but make it apply to the next President and beyond.

He doesn't disagree with the rule, and he didn't break the rule. He didn't break any rules.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious


He doesn't disagree with the rule, .

Then why did he propose changing it?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Then why did he propose changing it?

Proposing changing a rule doesn't mean you oppose it. It just means you think it needs some changes. Did welfare reformers oppose welfare? Possibly some, but not all.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Proposing changing a rule doesn't mean you oppose it. It just means you think it needs some changes. Did welfare reformers oppose welfare? Possibly some, but not all.

they opposed the welfare laws as they existed at the time, yes. Thats why they proposed changing them.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Quite true. Running for more terms because there is no term limit doesn't present any problems. But taking away a constitutional barrier to serving more terms just looks like a blatent grab for power (or rather, to not give up the power once you've tasted it).

HE'S NOT TAKING IT AWAY!!!!!

He's proposing that the rule be changed, and holding a national referendum where the voters will decide whether to accept the change.

Oh the horror...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon


HE'S NOT TAKING IT AWAY!!!!!

He's proposing that the rule be changed, and holding a national referendum where the voters will decide whether to accept the change.

Oh the horror...

then IS should have said "

"Quite true. Running for more terms because there is no term limit doesn't present any problems. But MODIFYING a constitutional barrier to serving more terms just looks like a blatent grab for power (or rather, to not give up the power once you've tasted it). "

The contrast with the Trudeau or FDR situation stands.

as for the referendum, ive addressed that above.

[Agathon]

@ LOTM

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-jones30may30,1,7685393,print.story?coll=la-news-a_section

Hugo Chavez versus RCTV
Venezuela's oldest private TV network played a major role in a failed 2002 coup.
By Bart Jones
BART JONES spent eight years in Venezuela, mainly as a foreign correspondent for the Associated Press, and is the author of the forthcoming book "Hugo! The Hugo Chavez Story, From Mud Hut to Perpetual

May 30, 2007

VENEZUELAN President Hugo Chavez's refusal to renew the license of Radio Caracas Television might seem to justify fears that Chavez is crushing free speech and eliminating any voices critical of him.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Committee to Protect Journalists and members of the European Parliament, the U.S. Senate and even Chile's Congress have denounced the closure of RCTV, Venezuela's oldest private television network. Chavez's detractors got more ammunition Tuesday when the president included another opposition network, Globovision, among the "enemies of the homeland."

But the case of RCTV — like most things involving Chavez — has been caught up in a web of misinformation. While one side of the story is getting headlines around the world, the other is barely heard.

The demise of RCTV is indeed a sad event in some ways for Venezuelans. Founded in 1953, it was an institution in the country, having produced the long-running political satire program "Radio Rochela" and the blisteringly realistic nighttime soap opera "Por Estas Calles." It was RCTV that broadcast the first live-from-satellite images in Venezuela when it showed Neil Armstrong walking on the moon in 1969.

But after Chavez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to another endeavor: ousting a democratically elected leader from office. Controlled by members of the country's fabulously wealthy oligarchy including RCTV chief Marcel Granier, it saw Chavez and his "Bolivarian Revolution" on behalf of Venezuela's majority poor as a threat.

RCTV's most infamous effort to topple Chavez came during the April 11, 2002, coup attempt against him. For two days before the putsch, RCTV preempted regular programming and ran wall-to-wall coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chavez. A stream of commentators spewed nonstop vitriolic attacks against him — while permitting no response from the government.

Then RCTV ran nonstop ads encouraging people to attend a march on April 11 aimed at toppling Chavez and broadcast blanket coverage of the event. When the march ended in violence, RCTV and Globovision ran manipulated video blaming Chavez supporters for scores of deaths and injuries.

After military rebels overthrew Chavez and he disappeared from public view for two days, RCTV's biased coverage edged fully into sedition. Thousands of Chavez supporters took to the streets to demand his return, but none of that appeared on RCTV or other television stations. RCTV News Director Andres Izarra later testified at National Assembly hearings on the coup attempt that he received an order from superiors at the station: "Zero pro-Chavez, nothing related to Chavez or his supporters…. The idea was to create a climate of transition and to start to promote the dawn of a new country." While the streets of Caracas burned with rage, RCTV ran cartoons, soap operas and old movies such as "Pretty Woman." On April 13, 2002, Granier and other media moguls met in the Miraflores palace to pledge support to the country's coup-installed dictator, Pedro Carmona, who had eliminated the Supreme Court, the National Assembly and the Constitution.

Would a network that aided and abetted a coup against the government be allowed to operate in the United States? The U.S. government probably would have shut down RCTV within five minutes after a failed coup attempt — and thrown its owners in jail. Chavez's government allowed it to continue operating for five years, and then declined to renew its 20-year license to use the public airwaves. It can still broadcast on cable or via satellite dish.

Granier and others should not be seen as free-speech martyrs. Radio, TV and newspapers remain uncensored, unfettered and unthreatened by the government. Most Venezuelan media are still controlled by the old oligarchy and are staunchly anti-Chavez.

If Granier had not decided to try to oust the country's president, Venezuelans might still be able to look forward to more broadcasts of "Radio Rochela."

I want LOTM to answer me one question.

"Would a network [e.g. ABC, NBC or CBS] that aided and abetted a coup against the government be allowed to operate in the United States?"

Please answer the question and avoid your mealy mouthed platitudes.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

they know it was more complex than ranters on either side care to admit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3mulo_Betancourt

That guy died almost 20 years before Chavez came to power, and hadn't been president for nearly 40 years. What's your point?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
@ LOTM
"Would a network [e.g. ABC, NBC or CBS] that aided and abetted a coup against the government be allowed to operate in the United States?"

Please answer the question and avoid your mealy mouthed platitudes.

Would a military officer who'd attempted a coup d'etat be allowed to run for president of the US?

Cmon man, coups were part of the game, and Chavez made them part of the game, for the first time since Jimenez was overthrown.

Then he gets all holy, a broadcaster who supported a coup several years earlier loses its license. Others who supported the same coup dont, cause theyve stopped criticizing Chavez.


Since then he has insured that there is NO opposing voice in venezualan broadcast media.

Do you honestly beleive that has nothing to do with the election returns?