quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Actually, seeing that you're basing your entire argument around "google hits" - how about every month we do a Google search - every month G W Bush comes out with more dictator hits than Chavez, you can pay me �10?

C'mon Georgie, my entire argument? Or do you mean one post in a thread of hundreds? I guess your answer is no. It's ok if you're afraid of having to admit you're wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka C'mon Georgie, my entire argument? Or do you mean one post in a thread of hundreds? I guess your answer is no. It's ok if you're afraid of having to admit you're wrong.

Shakka, you came to the conclusion that Chavez is a dictator before you began doing any research on the matter, presumably because of what you had read in your media. You then seemed to have conducted all your reseach searching for evidence that says Chavez is a dictator, which we both know there is an abundance of.

You've gone about it back to front and all you have achieved is your predetermined goal of consolidating the views you had before you began to research.

I have identified several main accusations against Chavez. I have addressed each one to explain why I think the truth is not entirely the way the media has portrayed it.

You have not addressed any of my analysis.

You have not once given me an answer to my question of how America would have dealt with the media in Venezuela should they have taken the actions they did in America.

You have not once addressed the fact that the National Assembly is 100% pro-Chavez because of the opposition's boycott of elections.

You have not once acknowledged the fact that RCTV has not been shut down as it is able to broadcast on cable/satellite.

You have not once acknowledged the fact that international observers reported no wrong doing in Venezuelan elections, despite your claim a majority of Venezuelans want rid of Chavez (the source of which you have still not provided me with)

I have given all these answers in response to the accusations you keep repeating from your media. You keep repeating them and I keep repeating my answers. Until you address my answers then I'm afraid it appears we are at a stalemate...with you being the one we are waiting for to comment...

By the way, regarding the "shutting down" of RCTV...they don't look very "shut down" to me...

http://www.rctv.net/

Perhaps they moved their website out of the country?

http://www.networksolutions.com/who...domain=rctv.net

Nope, maybe not...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley By the way, regarding the "shutting down" of RCTV...they don't look very "shut down" to me... http://www.rctv.net/ Perhaps they moved their website out of the country? http://www.networksolutions.com/who...domain=rctv.net Nope, maybe not...

I posted that relivancy a few posts ago...
(are you actually reading what we're posting here?)

Still haven't answered why after 50 years of history RCTV shouldn't have a license other than having a conscience and opinion; heaven forbid!

We certainly don't see our stations being shut down when they have an opinion on their leader...
In the States, there wouldn't be any stations left!

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r I posted that relivancy a few posts ago... (are you actually reading what we're posting here?) Still haven't answered why after 50 years of history RCTV shouldn't have a license other than having a conscience and opinion; heaven forbid!

You're deliberately dodging my question. You know why RCTV's channel 2 licence was taken away, because the government wanted the frequency that reached the most people for their own TV station. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with that. It is the decision of the government whether or not licences are renewed.

You have stated time and time again RCTV has been "shut down" - will you admit that is a lie?

quote:

RCTV may have lost its free-over the air signal, but it is not out of business. In an article in the July 5, 2007 edition of AM New York, the head of RCTV, Marcel Granier said that he's considering taking the network's programming to cable or satellite. As of July 9, 2007, that has been accomplished. DirecTV Latin America and RCTV signed an agreement for the satellite service to transmit RCTV's programming to satellite subscribers in Venezuela and other parts of the world. The network will be broadcasting for DirectTV in the channel 103. Later came the deals with other national cable operators, Inter, formerly known as InterCable, and NetUno, both being the most important and known cable operators in Venezuela. The channel number will depend of the zone and region of the country for the cable operators. The broadcasting will officially begin in the three operators on July 16 at 6:00am(UTC-4). However, Mr. Granier also stated that the network's priority is still to return to viewers as a regular channel on the open airway. After its return, RCTV is the most watched channel in Venezuela despite being on cable. Only 30% of houses have cable in Venezuela but the total amount that view RCTV is higher than all viewers of TVES, Venevision, and all other channels. In Caracas and in Valencia twice as many people view RCTV than Venevision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCTV#E...oadcast_license

Now answer my question - what obliges Venezuelan governments to renew RCTV's licence?

Here's another question, why do you think political organisations should have hegemony over the media?

quote:

We certainly don't see our stations being shut down when they have an opinion on their leader... In the States, there wouldn't be any stations left!

Dodging the question again I see. Well I shall continue to ask until I get an answer out of you, the more times I have to ask the less and less weight your arguments hold.

What would happen to a media company in America that promoted and took part in a military over throw of the American government?

smiley, stop defending this scumbag. You are doing socialists everywhere a disservice.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You then seemed to have conducted all your reseach searching for evidence that says Chavez is a dictator, which we both know there is an abundance of.

Why do you suppose there is such an abundance of material that supports the contention of him being a dictator? Is there some sort of grand conspiracy at work here?

quote:

I have identified several main accusations against Chavez. I have addressed each one to explain why I think the truth is not entirely the way the media has portrayed it. You have not addressed any of my analysis.

What analysis? What have you analyzed? Simply stated, your assessment of the situation (specifically the article which started this thread with regards to unlimited term limits) is simply too glib. Your response was that it is not a big deal as "It would be like the American President wanting to change the electoral system to allow Presidents to stand for more than two terms - something common in a hell of a lot of countries."

Now come on George. There is a difference between a fixed number of terms, be it 1, 2, 5, 10, etc. But unlimited/? Surely you can see the difference. In America congressmen can serve unlimited terms, but that is because they do not have such concentrated power in the hands of one person. There is a difference, George, and it would be intellectually dishonest of you not to acknowledge it.

quote:

You have not once given me an answer to my question of how America would have dealt with the media in Venezuela should they have taken the actions they did in America.

What does this have to do with anything anyway? We're talking solely about Hugo Chavez and his own actions. The media is irrelevant. His actions are the facts.

quote:

You have not once addressed the fact that the National Assembly is 100% pro-Chavez because of the opposition's boycott of elections.

Where did you provide any citation or any evidence showing that any body was 100% pro-anything? 100%? 100% anything is suspect anyway, but I digress.

quote:

You have not once acknowledged the fact that RCTV has not been shut down as it is able to broadcast on cable/satellite.

Firestarter has addressed this with you ad nauseum.


By the way, I liked that you posed this on page 1:

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I don't know anything about Venezuala.

Backtracking this thread to show you some of the evidence that has been posted, but seemingly ignored by you.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Venezuela's National Assembly has given initial approval to a bill granting the president the power to bypass congress and rule by decree for 18 months. President Hugo Chavez says he wants "revolutionary laws" to enact sweeping political, economic and social changes. He has said he wants to nationalise key sectors of the economy and scrap limits on the terms a president can serve.. Pledge Mr Chavez approved 49 laws by decree during the first year of his previous term, after the assembly passed a similar "Enabling Law" in November 2000. Now the president says an Enabling Law is a key step in what he calls an accelerating march toward socialism. He has said he wants to see major Venezuelan power and telecoms companies come under state control. Mr Chavez also called for an end to foreign ownership of lucrative crude oil refineries in the Orinoco region. Critics of the president accuse him of trying to build an authoritarian regime with all institutional powers consolidated into his own hands. But, National Assembly President Cilia Flores said "there will always be opponents, and especially when they know that these laws will deepen the revolution". ....... In mid-March of 2005 Ch�vez passed legislation further clamping down on the press, by broadening controls on how the press can report articles deemed "disrespectful" or "insulting" of the government. Sentencing for such transgressions ranges between 20 and 40 months incarceration, depending on the gravity of the offense. Moreover laws have been passed against the media, tightening controls on what would be considered slanderous, carrying sentences up to 30 months and what would amount to tens of thousands of US dollars in fines. Numerous human rights organizations have expressed great concern over the incremental restrictions imposed by the Ch�vez regime on the Venezuelan media . Supreme Count To solidify his control over the Venezuelan Supreme Court, Ch�vez passed legislation in May 2003 to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices from 20 to 32 and appointing another 5 vacant posts, giving him a clear majority in the judicial branch of the government. He also allowed for the appointment of 32 reserve justices, all of which are loyal to him. It should also be noted that former justices were forced to resign after several "politically sensitive rulings". Many are very concerned that with the control of the courts, Chavez seems to have consolidated control over the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government.

etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. You failed to address any of this.

Are you familiar with the concept of putting a frog in boiling water? The theory goes that if you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it'll jump out lickity split. However, if you put that same frog in a cup of room temperature water and gradually bring it up to a boil, the frog will stay in the water until it reaches a temperature whereby it will kill the frog. Unfortunately, I believe you're taking a similar approach with Chavez and Venezuela. And I will say again, I believe time will prove myself and others on this side of the debate to be correct. It seems that your only real defense could be that Chavez is not a complete autocratic dictator yet. In due time, George. In due time.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I notice you did not highlight two events from the timeline (strangely enough) so here they are: Now tell me what would happen to those media companies in America?

I don't know. What would happen in England? Sweden? Switzerland? Perhaps if any of those governments took a similar action it would be challenged by courts on the basis of free speech, who knows. However, conjecture on what any other country would do is an irrelevant red herring. You asked what Chavez did to "control" or practice "hegemony" over media and I provided concrete examples. Do you think that everything that he has done is justifiable? Legitimate? Do you think that British, American, Swedish, etc., leaders would engage in similar practices and that if they did it would be acceptable? Are the EU's criticisms baseless? Come on this is getting silly ...

___________________
Retro ...

I don't call a 100% majority legislature a democracy. Sorry George.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Why do you suppose there is such an abundance of material that supports the contention of him being a dictator? Is there some sort of grand conspiracy at work here?

Because a lot of people have a vested interest in labelling him a dictator. Why is there 4 times as many articles suggesting G W Bush is a dictator? Following your logic you seem to be suggesting that if Venezuela IS a dictatorship, then America is 4 times more a dictatorship...stupid isn't it?

quote:

What analysis? What have you analyzed? Simply stated, your assessment of the situation (specifically the article which started this thread with regards to unlimited term limits) is simply too glib. Your response was that it is not a big deal as "It would be like the American President wanting to change the electoral system to allow Presidents to stand for more than two terms - something common in a hell of a lot of countries."

Since I began to look into Venezuelan politics I have found out a number of untruths in the "facts" presented by you and your media. Every accusation you have made against Chavez has not actually been a true reflection on the situation. When I have provided you with why this is, you simply repeat those accusations (as you do below)

quote:

Now come on George. There is a difference between a fixed number of terms, be it 1, 2, 5, 10, etc. But unlimited/? Surely you can see the difference. In America congressmen can serve unlimited terms, but that is because they do not have such concentrated power in the hands of one person. There is a difference, George, and it would be intellectually dishonest of you not to acknowledge it.

Here you go again, assuming that when political systems are done a different way to in America they MUST be wrong!

quote:

What does this have to do with anything anyway? We're talking solely about Hugo Chavez and his own actions. The media is irrelevant. His actions are the facts.

Erm yes we are talking about Chavez and his own actions, or more specifically, his lack of actions that would certainly been taken by any other government. Had media companies in America staged a military take over of the government, once things were back to normal, those media companies would be shut down and their owners thrown in jail fro treason - yet Chavez allows the media companies that staged the military coup in Venezuela to continue to broadcast? Sounds like the freest media in the world if you ask me - yet you will never comment on this fact will you?

quote:

Where did you provide any citation or any evidence showing that any body was 100% pro-anything? 100%? 100% anything is suspect anyway, but I digress.

Yes perhaps I was stepping a little over the mark with "100%" but it was to explain why Chavez is able to be granted any powers by the National Assembly. Opposition parties boycotted the elections: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4487686.stm

Which will obviously have meant Chavez supporters would win a land slide election. It would be like the Democrats boycotting the elections for House and Senate - the Republicans would have absolute majority and be able to grant Bush whatever powers he wanted

quote:

Firestarter has addressed this with you ad nauseum.

No he didn't. He still maintains RCTV has been "shut down" - the fact that it is still broadcasting, and one of the most watched TV stations in Venezuela show Firestarter's lies for what they are.

Would you like to comment on that?

quote:

By the way, I liked that you posed this on page 1:

Just goes to show how intelligent I am if I can learn so much in such a small period of time! My interest in Venezuela was provoked by the original article in this thread. I was interested by the rabid response it got from people like you when I could see straight through the spin that Chavez hadn't actually changed the law to make him unchallenged ruler for life like the article, and those that beleieved it, were trying to make out - I then wondered how many other accusations against Chavez were blatant untruths designed to portray this threat to corporate America in a certain light, and the results are pretty interesting I would say...

quote:

Backtracking this thread to show you some of the evidence that has been posted, but seemingly ignored by you.

I have not ignored "rule by decree" - I have referred to it several times (including in this post). Because of the oppositions boycott of the elections, pro-Chavez groups won a landslide in the elections giving them absolute majority in the NA. This allows them to grant Chavez as much power as they want. Unfortunately, that's the rules. It's sad the opposition decided not to stand as it is they who are making a mockery of the democratic process by refusing to take part in it and then complaining afterwards that Venezuela is a dictatorship. It's a dirty trick yet people like you fall for it.

The rule about being "disrespectful" or "insulting" against the Government is not one I can defend (if that IS what the law states). That is limiting freedom, altho I'm not sure how many, if any, have actually been convicted of it. The media is certainly rabidly anti-Chavez and would certainly have fallen foul of this law by now. Perhaps the "disrespectful" and "insulting" is actually about not promoting military coups against the government?! Either way, if that's what the law says it's wrong.

As for the Supreme Court - see control over the NA for the same explanation.

quote:

etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. You failed to address any of this.

I'm sorry but I think I have. I have tabled the accusations against Chavez and given you my take on them. Yet you never address those points. Instead you repeat the accusations as if that is somehow an argument against what I said. Let's take the media for example:

Step 1: Firestarter accuses Chavez of media censorship for shutting RCTV down
Step 2: Smiley says RCTV has not been shit down because it is still broadcastind
Step 3: Firestarter goes back to step 1

Or rule by decree:

Step 1: Shakka says Chavez is a dictator because he rules by decree
Step 2: Smiley says Chavez was granted those powers by the Parliament
Step 3: Shakka says Chavez "placed" his supporters in Parliament
Step 4: Smiley says the Parliament is Chavez dominated because of the opposition boycott
Step 5: Shakka goes back to step 1

quote:

Are you familiar with the concept of putting a frog in boiling water? The theory goes that if you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it'll jump out lickity split. However, if you put that same frog in a cup of room temperature water and gradually bring it up to a boil, the frog will stay in the water until it reaches a temperature whereby it will kill the frog. Unfortunately, I believe you're taking a similar approach with Chavez and Venezuela. And I will say again, I believe time will prove myself and others on this side of the debate to be correct. It seems that your only real defense could be that Chavez is not a complete autocratic dictator yet. In due time, George. In due time.

Maybe so. But as it stands, the information, once you have seen through the media spin, suggests there is not much difference between Venezuela and every other South American country, certainly not justifying the attention given to Chavez by the media and America.

It boils down to the nationalisation of Venezuela's oil fields and how this poses a direct threat to corporate America.

There is no way in a million years anyone in America would have even ever heard of Venezuela were it not for it's oil...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I don't know. What would happen in England? Sweden? Switzerland? Perhaps if any of those governments took a similar action it would be challenged by courts on the basis of free speech, who knows. However, conjecture on what any other country would do is an irrelevant red herring. You asked what Chavez did to "control" or practice "hegemony" over media and I provided concrete examples. Do you think that everything that he has done is justifiable? Legitimate? Do you think that British, American, Swedish, etc., leaders would engage in similar practices and that if they did it would be acceptable? Are the EU's criticisms baseless? Come on this is getting silly ...

Point 1: In any other country, a media company that staged a military coup would be shut down and it's owners thrown in jail for treason

Point 2: I asked how Chavez "controlled" or extended "hegemony" over the media because that is simply a lie. Before RCTV was taken off channel 2 the media was pretty much controlled by the opposition. Now it is a bout 50/50

I started this thread on the media in Venezuela, strangely neither you, Shakka or Firestarter contributed to it. Funny that considering your strong views on the subject:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...light=venezuela