Chavez lost

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by BeBro
Maybe she's a nazicommie

Potato, Potataho.

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by Kidicious


And they put Hitler in power, did they not?

To be fair, a lot of people paved the way to put Hitler in power, including the communists of that era.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by jkp1187


To be fair, a lot of people paved the way to put Hitler in power, including the communists of that era.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by rah
Or Chavez if you think he will allow himself to lose the next election.

Supposedly he lied about the last election. His referendums lost by a wide margin and he wanted to just claim they passed but the military said they'd over throw him if he did. Instead Chavez agreed to admit they failed but changed the numbers of the vote so that he could claim he barely lost.

[chequita guevara]

Supposedly the moon is made of green cheese. The landings were faked.

This from the same people who claimed that Chavez supporters were gunning down anti-Chavistas, and then used it as an excuse to launch a coup, even though other cameras showed that the Chavez supporters were shooting at snipers and the speech by the military officers ousting demanding Chavez resign because of the violence turns out to have been taped the day before the shootings.

[Agathon]

Chavez sounds strange to us because his audience is poorly educated Latin Americans.

Despite what you think, he's no buffoon. He deliberately creates a clownish persona because he doesn't want to be seen as an elitist or an authoritarian. If you think Chavez is a buffoon, then you obviously believe that George Bush, the scion of a wealthy northeastern family, is a Texan good ole boy.

There have been several times over the past decade where Chavez has had the opportunity to frustrate democracy to push forward his own agenda. Thus far, he has resisted the temptation to do so (although he's grumbled about it).

People like Oerdin simply don't understand Latin America. What you have there is a minority of wealthy individuals, almost all of colonial descent, keeping the rest of the people (particularly the indigenous citizens) in absolute poverty by means of authoritarian government and various political shenanigans. If it is ever going to be fixed, then that needs to change. Chavez and Morales are trying to change it by political, non-violent means. Whether or not their actual policies succeed is besides the point. Their genuine legacy will be countries that function as genuine political units, and not as disparate power blocs striving for dominance by any means necessary.

We take for granted in our countries what they don't have. Sure, there are competing interests in countries like the US or Canada, but there is an overwhelming social consensus that when the votes are in, everyone has to live with the result. People may not like Bush, but their response is to campaign against him or look for political means for his removal. Almost nobody, apart from a few radicals, would advocate overthrowing him by force. This consensus is what makes the US function as a political unit.

Many Latin American countries don't have that. A lot of people who live there have historically had absolutely no say in the kind of government they had. That means they had to be removed from the political equation, most often by the threat of force or economic devastation. They are oligarchies which control the political institutions by force, not consent.

When people say the US and Bolivia are run by rich people, they mean different things. The US is run by rich people, but is nevertheless a political unit. Bolivia was run by rich people who behaved like the mafia towards other citizens.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The problem with the above argument is that neither Fidel or Raul Castro or Morales acts with a "clownish persona". I don't think they believe that they are seen as elitists by the people.

So I think your argument fails on that account.

[Felch]

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei?

Yeah, because socialism is sooooo right wing.

[chequita guevara]

Nazis weren't socialists any more than the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The problem with the above argument is that neither Fidel or Raul Castro or Morales acts with a "clownish persona". I don't think they believe that they are seen as elitists by the people.

So I think your argument fails on that account.

Chavez is descended from peasant stock, like Morales. Both, also, have a distinct lack of decorum, although Morales is considerably more humble. Fidel in his early years was considerably more brash than he is today. While Castro did come from an upper class family, none of these men were "bred" to rule, unlike the POTUS apple who fell far from his father's tree.

That said, while I think Chavez chose his words poorly, tying Merkel to Hitler is terrible uncouth, I don't think Merkel deserves any more respect than any other human being. The world would be a lot better off if all leaders were subject to regular humiliation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, no one is saying Merkel does (well no one here). However, I'd expect that most people would agree that not calling a person Hitler is respect to be shown a normal human being .

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, no one is saying Merkel does (well no one here). However, I'd expect that most people would agree that not calling a person Hitler is respect to be shown a normal human being .

Chavez called her Hitler?? That's new to me...

[snoopy369]

You read the OP, right?

[Hueij]

Yep...

From the OP:

"She is from the German right, the same that supported Hitler, that supported fascism, that's the Chancellor of Germany today," he said.

If that equals being Hitler then there sure are a lot of Hitlers in Germany nowadays.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What do you think is the implication of that sentance? Really...