TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Hugo...doing it again.
Pages (21): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 »
RCTV........
| quote: |
| Venezuela's Media Coup Poor Endy Chávez, outfielder for the Navegantes del Magallanes, one of Venezuela's big baseball teams. Every time he comes up to bat, the local TV sportscasters start in with the jokes. "Here comes Chávez. No, not the pro-Cuban dictator Chávez, the other Chávez." Or "This Chávez hits baseballs, not the Venezuelan people." In Venezuela, even color commentators are enlisted in the commercial media's open bid to oust the democratically elected government of Hugo Chávez. Andrés Izarra, a Venezuelan television journalist, says that the campaign has done so much violence to truthful information on the national airwaves that the four private TV stations have effectively forfeited their right to broadcast. "I think their licenses should be revoked," he says. It's the sort of extreme pronouncement one has come to expect from Chávez, known for nicknaming the stations "the four horsemen of the apocalypse." Izarra, however, is harder to dismiss. A squeaky clean made-for-TV type, he worked as assignment editor in charge of Latin America at CNN en Espańol until he was hired as news production manager for Venezuela's highest-rated newscast, El Observador on RCTV. On April 13, 2002, the day after business leader Pedro Carmona briefly seized power, Izarra quit that job under what he describes as "extreme emotional stress." Ever since, he has been sounding the alarm about the threat posed to democracy when the media decide to abandon journalism and pour all their persuasive powers into winning a war being waged over oil. Venezuela's private television stations are owned by wealthy families with serious financial stakes in defeating Chávez. Venevisión, the most-watched network, is owned by Gustavo Cisneros, a mogul dubbed "the joint venture king" by the New York Post. The Cisneros Group has partnered with many top US brands--from AOL and Coca-Cola to Pizza Hut and Playboy--becoming a gatekeeper to the Latin American market. Cisneros is also a tireless proselytizer for continental free trade, telling the world, as he did in a 1999 profile in LatinCEO magazine, that "Latin America is now fully committed to free trade, and fully committed to globalization.... As a continent it has made a choice." But with Latin American voters choosing politicians like Chávez, that has been looking like false advertising, selling a consensus that doesn't exist. All this helps explain why, in the days leading up to the April coup, Venevisión, RCTV, Globovisión and Televen replaced regular programming with relentless anti-Chávez speeches, interrupted only for commercials calling on viewers to take to the streets: "Not one step backward. Out! Leave now!" The ads were sponsored by the oil industry, but the stations carried them free, as "public service announcements." They went further: On the night of the coup, Cisneros's station played host to meetings among the plotters, including Carmona. The president of Venezuela's broadcasting chamber co-signed the decree dissolving the elected National Assembly. And while the stations openly rejoiced at news of Chávez's "resignation," when pro-Chávez forces mobilized for his return a total news blackout was imposed. Izarra says he received clear instructions: "No information on Chávez, his followers, his ministers, and all others that could in any way be related to him." He watched with horror as his bosses actively suppressed breaking news. Izarra says that on the day of the coup, RCTV had a report from a US affiliate that Chávez had not resigned but had been kidnapped and jailed. It didn't make the news. Mexico, Argentina and France condemned the coup and refused to recognize the new government. RCTV knew but didn't tell. When Chávez finally returned to the Miraflores Palace, the stations gave up on covering the news entirely. On one of the most important days in Venezuela's history, they aired Pretty Woman and Tom & Jerry cartoons. "We had a reporter in Miraflores and knew that it had been retaken by the Chávistas," Izarra says. "[but] the information blackout stood. That's when it was enough for me, and I decided to leave." The situation hasn't improved. During the recently ended strike organized by the oil industry, the television stations broadcast an average of 700 pro-strike advertisements every day, according to government estimates. It's in this context that Chávez has decided to go after the TV stations in earnest, not just with fiery rhetoric but with an investigation into violations of broadcast standards and a new set of regulations. "Don't be surprised if we start shutting down television stations," he said at the end of January. The threat has sparked a flurry of condemnations from the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders. And there is reason for concern: The media war in Venezuela is bloody, with attacks on both pro- and anti-Chávez media outlets. But attempts to regulate the media aren't an "attack on press freedom," as CPJ has claimed--quite the opposite. Venezuela's media, including state TV, need tough controls to insure diversity, balance and access, enforced at arm's length from political powers. Some of Chávez's proposals (such as an ominous clause banning speech that shows "disrespect" to government officials) overstep these bounds and could easily be used to muzzle critics. That said, it is absurd to treat Chávez as the principal threat to a free press in Venezuela. That honor clearly goes to the media owners themselves. This fact has been entirely lost on the organizations entrusted to defend press freedom around the world, still stuck in a paradigm in which all journalists just want to tell the truth and all threats come from nasty politicians and angry mobs. This is unfortunate, because we are in desperate need of courageous defenders of a free press at the moment--and not just in Venezuela. After all, Venezuela isn't the only country where a war is being waged over oil, where media owners have become inseparable from the forces clamoring for "regime change" and where the opposition finds itself routinely erased by the nightly news. But in the United States, unlike in Venezuela, the media and the government are on the same side. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030303/klein |
| quote: |
| Venezuela, RCTV, And Media Freedom: Just The Facts, Please May 29th 2007, by James Jordan Lessons In Curtailing Media Freedom There are a number of ways to curtail press freedom. You can charge a journalist with murder and put him on death row-Mumia Abu-Jamal, for instance. You can grant special favors, privileges, and access to corporate media giants while raiding and shutting down low-power, independent radio stations, which the FCC does with some regularity. You could arrest independent journalists at anti-war demonstrations-again, a regular occurrence. For instance, I recall my friend and Indy journalist, Jeff Imig, who has been repeatedly threatened with arrest, while recording anti-war demonstrations in Tucson, Arizona, for violating the statute against filming federal buildings. Jeff finally got arrested-for jaywalking! Corporate press, on the other hand, seems to have free reign to jaywalk and film federal buildings at these same events-behavior I and countless others have witnessed! And then there is the Mother of All Media Manipulations: the blackout engineered by the Bush administration which blocks media from showing the arrival of body bags and coffins of newly dead soldiers "coming home" from Iraq. Those are some pretty good ways of curtailing freedom of speech. And they're each and everyone home grown right here in the good ol' United States of America. So what's the deal with Venezuela, anyway? So, pardon me if I'm just a little astounded by all this noise in the media, the Bush administration, the Senate and the House, about how Venezuela is "attacking" free speech and independent media by not renewing the broadcasting license of RCTV. Perhaps even more disturbing is that this ridiculous assertion is being repeated even among some persons on the Left. Just last week the Senate passed a condemnation of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez' refusal to renew the license. Senate Resolution 211 was sponsored by Richard Lugar, (R-IN) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT), with vocal, and disappointing, support from presidential contenders Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barak Obama (D-IL). Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL) has introduced similar legislation into the House. Puerto Rico's delegate to the House, Republican Luis Fortuno has outspokenly supported this legislation, which is surprising, considering his complete lack of action or outcry when the FBI was harassing Puerto Rican journalists in 2006. Anyway, who says bipartisanship is dead? Joining in these condemnations are a whole host of so-called "press freedom" advocates, lead by the National Endowment for Democracy funded Reporters Without Borders. One would think that the iron hand has fallen and the crackdown has begun in Venezuela. The facts, please? Corporate media seems to regularly forget that along with freedom of press is the responsibility of presenting facts to back up their news reporting. Well, dear reader, you are in for a rare treat-a discussion of some actual facts. The general situation is this: In April of 2002, there was a two-day, illegal coup carried out against Venezuela's electoral government, which involved the kidnapping and jailing of President Hugo Chavez. There were four major media outlets, along with others, who actively aided and abetted this coup (more later). In the intervening five years, none of them were closed, nor were any of their journalists incarcerated. Rather, the Chavez administration met with them, not to change their editorial slant, but to reach agreements preventing a repeat of such anti-democratic measure and the hyperbolic misrepresentation of facts, and also to discourage such continued infractions as the airing of pornography and cigarette commercials. Another important fact is that the heads of the media-monopoly in Venezuela, including Marcel Granier -owner of RCTV, also participated in the economic sabotage that occurred between 2002-2003. Yet, no one went to prison for endangering the country's social and economic stability. What is truly amazing is that it has taken five years for the Chavez administration to take action in any way against media that helped carry out this coup. Certainly, if the same thing happened in the United States, it wouldn't be tolerated. Just ask Aaron Burr or Timothy McVeigh what happens when folks plot against the existing, elected government. The fact is.you don't get away with it, you get punished, and pretty severely. Getting their broadcasting licenses renewed would be the least of their problems. When RCTV's broadcasting license came up for review, Pres. Chavez decided, after exhaustive research and study, not to renew the license. Chavez is legally responsible for renewing such licenses under laws which were enacted before he became president. The reasons given for not renewing the license cite RCTV's participation in the coup, plus the fact that RCTV leads Venezuelan media in infractions of communications laws. RCTV's problems pre-date the Chavez administration, having been censured and closed repeatedly in previous presidential administrations. RCTV leads Venezuela in its violation of communications codes, with 652 infractions. Another interesting fact is that our corporate media and distinguished Members of Congress have neglected to mention that on April of 2007 the government of Peru did not renew the broadcasting licenses of two TV stations and three radio stations for breaking their Radio and Television laws. It is obvious that Venezuela continues to be a target. What, then, are the facts behind the charges made by the Chavez administration? On the morning of April 11th, 2002, the first day of the coup, the anti-Bolivarian opposition had started a march from the headquarters of the state owned oil company. Across town, supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution were gathered outside the presidential palace. Breaking with its previously announced plan, the opposition changed directions and headed to the presidential palace, greatly increasing the chances of a violent confrontation between the two opposing sides. During the midst of this confusion, shots rang out from the rooftops, where snipers were firing on both crowds, resulting in the deaths of 18 persons, with 150 wounded. Reports on the opposition's four largest TV stations indicated the violence was the result of pro-Bolivarian gunmen, and this became the immediate catalyst "justifying" the coup. However, the testimony of eyewitnesses and videos taken from other angles show that a much different scenario was actually taking place. The following transcript is excerpted from the video documentary, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, which was produced for television in Ireland. It sheds important light on the sequence of events. Note particularly the quotation included from RCTV News Correspondent, Andre Cesara. NARRATOR: The opposition march was fast approaching and some in the vanguard seemed ready for a fight. With thousands of Chavez supporters still surrounding the palace a confrontation seemed imminent. Then at about 2:00 p.m., we saw the opposition march arrive. The army tried to act as a buffer between the two groups. [shouting] NARRATOR: We moved back into the heart of the Chavez crowds when all of a sudden the firing started. [sirens] NARRATOR: We couldn't tell where the shots were coming from, but people were being hit in the head. [gunshots] NARRATOR: Soon it became clear that we were being shot at by snipers. One in four Venezuelans carry hand guns and soon some of the Chavez supporters began to shoot back in the direction the sniper fire seemed to be coming from. WITNESS (in Spanish): One of the channels had a camera opposite the palace that captured images of people shooting from the bridge. It looks like they are shooting at the opposition march below, but you can see them, they themselves are ducking. They are clearly being shot at, but the shots of them ducking were never shown. The Chavez supporters were blamed. The images were manipulated and shown over and over again to say that Chavez supporters had assassinated innocent marchers. ANDRE CESARA, RCTV journalist (in Spanish): Look at that Chavez supporter. Look at him empty his gun. That Chavez supporter has just fired on the unarmed peaceful protesters below. NARRATOR: What the TV stations didn't broadcast was this camera angle which clearly shows the streets below were empty. The opposition march had never taken that route. With this manipulation, the deaths could now be blamed on Chavez. There is no doubt, and no dispute, that RCTV and the three other largest corporate television stations (Globovision, Venevision, and Televen) aided and abetted the ensuing coup throughout the three day period it was being carried out. They knowingly broadcast false and manipulated information, including the lies that Bolivarian supporters instigated violence against demonstrators, and that Pres. Chavez, as a result, had willingly resigned and left the country. Pres. Chavez had not resigned. He had been kidnapped and was being held prisoner by traitors within the Venezuelan military. During all this, RCTV hosted coup plotters, including co-leader Carlos Ortega of the corrupt and US government supported labor union, the CTV, and had broadcast Ortega's appeal rallying demonstrators to march on the presidential palace. RCTV and its partners undertook a complete blackout on reporting any news relating to the more than a million citizens who had taken to the street and surrounded the presidential palace in defense of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. Rather than broadcasting this news, RCTV treated its viewers to reruns of Tom and Jerry cartoons and the movie Pretty Woman. Vice-Admiral Ramirez Perez spoke for all his fellow coup plotters when told a Venevision reporter, "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you." His congratulations were premature, however, as multitudes of people in the street, with the aid of truly independent, community based media and patriots within the Venezuelan military were able to defeat this coup without firing a shot, returning Pres. Chavez to his rightful office on April 13, 2002. On the Job at RCTV-Eyewitness, Andres Izarra Speaks If any doubts remain as to RCTV's complicity in this coup, the voice of one of its own producers should lay them all to rest. Andres Izarra had worked as the assignment editor in charge of Latin America for CNN before being hired by RCTV as news production manager for Venezuela's highest ranked newscast, El Observador. Izarra says, quite clearly, "We were told no pro-Chavez material was to be screened". Later, RCTV officials would maintain that they could not film pro-Bolivarian demonstrations for security reasons. Even if that were true, Izarra notes, footage of these demonstrations was available from sources such as CNN. RCTV also continued broadcasting reports that President Chavez had willfully resigned and left the country, even though Izarra notes that they were receiving news to the contrary, and that Mexico, Argentina, and France had all issued statements condemning the coup and refusing to recognize the new government. Conversely, the United States welcomed this illegal government. Izarra says the last straw came for him when, "We had a reporter in Miraflores and knew that it had been retaken by the Chavistas.[but] the information blackout stood. That's when it was enough for me, and I decided to leave". Asked what he thought the response should be to this level of disinformation, Izarra replied, "I think their licenses should be revoked". Having had enough of corporate media's complicity in blocking news reportage, Izarra now serves as head of Telesur, the joint news channel broadcast by the nations of Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, and Cuba. As Patrick McElwee, of Just Foreign Policy, points out: "It is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chavez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves." Despite their participation in the coup, the Chavez administration entered into repeated negotiations with RCTV and its partners, Venevision, Globovision, and Television to make sure that such crass manipulation of the news would not occur again, and about other infractions. RCTV refused to reach any agreements. Despite the nonrenewal of its broadcasting license, cable and satellite broadcasts will still be available to RCTV; moreover they will continue to broadcast through their two radio stations in Venezuela. The new broadcasting license is being given to a public station, TVes-Venezuela Social Television, which will run shows produced mainly by independent parties. The station will be controlled not by the government, but by a foundation of community members, with one chair reserved for a government representative. TVes also hopes to reach into some of the most remote areas of the nation, not covered before by RCTV. The coup government and media freedom-an alternative? There is, indeed, an example that shows a real alternative to how Pres. Chavez and the Bolivarian movement deals with freedom of the media and freedom of speech. The two-day coup government of Pedro Carmona revealed that alternative. But, first, let's quickly review the general state of media freedom in Venezuela under the presidency of Hugo Chavez. Shortly after Chavez became president, media law was reformed so that it became legal for anyone who could broadcast to do so. In the United States, many fans of underground and independent radio speak fondly of "pirate" radio-low powered, but illegal stations broadcast from small, "renegade" transmitters. There are no "pirate" radio stations in Venezuela, because such stations are legal. Rather, there is a significant Community Media movement-community based and non-profit media production centers run locally by community volunteers. Corporate and opposition media also have great freedom in Venezuela. In fact, the radio and television airwaves, and the print media as well, continue to be dominated by corporations which support the opposition. There is no shortage of negative opinions and portrayals of Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution-in fact, these remain the standard among the for-profit news and entertainment industry. This concept is strange to those of us in the United States, where official party lines and major news sources are virtually indistinguishable from each other. But while corporate and community media both retain enormous freedoms in Venezuela, the April 11-13th, 2002 coup, and the two day coup government, provide a much different example. Once interloper Pedro Carmona had declared himself President of Venezuela, among the very first actions taken by the coup government involved the suppression of Venezuela's non-corporate media. Police troops answering to Carmona raided and shut down Channel 8, the government TV station. They ordered the Catholic Church's Radio Fe y Alegria to play only music and not report national events, lest they also be shut down. Carmona's raiders also hit a number of Community Media centers, closing down, among others, TV Caricua, Catia TV, and Radio Perola. Fortunately, reporters from Catia TV and Radio Perola were able to escape and recapture their transmitters. Because of this, they were able to provide mobile broadcasts to the people of Venezuela of the news that RCTV and its partners were blacking out. Another action taken by the Carmona government was to release the persons who had been arrested in connection with the sniper attacks that instigated the coup. Instead, coup forces arrested independent journalist Nicolas Rivera and accused him of participating in these attacks. The only weapon Rivera had had with him during these demonstrations was a tape recorder-obviously considered a threat by coup plotters. Rivera was freed after the two-day coup was defeated and democratic government was reestablished. However, the scars of his detention remained, with his face disfigured by the torture he had endured while incarcerated. Rivera's wife said that the forces that raided their home planted a sack of bullets on Rivera, beat both of them, and threatened to kill their children. Yet despite these attacks and threats to this journalist and his family, not one, single international organization in "defense" of press freedoms spoke out on behalf of Rivera. Perhaps it was in this case that Reporters Without Borders found its border. Also silent about these attacks on freedom of speech and press were both houses of the US Congress, both parties, the Bush administration..no, there was no resolution of any kind condemning the attacks by the coup government on these freedoms. Could that be because coup leaders were funded by Congress, via USAID and the so-called National Endowment for Democracy, and were aided, abetted, and advised by the Bush Administration, the State Department, and the US military? Just maybe these factors were an influence. Again: the Facts While Representatives and Senators weep bipartisan crocodile tears about supposed threats to media rights in Venezuela; while US and Venezuelan corporate press crow about the "unfair" targeting of RCTV; while even some segments of the US Left express "concern" about press freedoms in Venezuela; an examination of the facts leads one to this clear conclusion: these folks are full of a substance that emanates from the hind end of a male bovine. Fact: not renewing the broadcasting license of coup plotters, lawbreakers, and liars like RCTV is the kind of thing it takes to defend Venezuela and make it the haven of free speech, free media, and participatory democracy that it is today. Want to learn more about the movement to change US policy toward Venezuela? Visit www.vensolidarity.org and be sure and join the Emergency Response Network to receive regular action alerts! http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2416 |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt socialism = collectivism collectivism = opposite of individualism |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Capitalism = you pay for education (the richer you are the better your education the better your opportunities) Socialism = free education (wealth has no correspondence to opportunities equals economic equality) |
Thanks Shakka...for saving me time with the post above 
Also, nothing is "free" under socialism smiley. The costs are still there, and you are still paying for all of those so-called "freebies" through direct taxes, or through taxes that are passed on to you indirectly. We know you love to tax big business...but corporations simply shift their heavy tax burden to the middle class and the poor by charging higher prices and by paying lower wages than they otherwise would.. There is not much you can do to stop this. One way or another, everyone in a socialist country is going to pay for their "free" state benefits.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka That has nothing to do with the point he was making. The point is that socialism is not about the individual, rather it is the system for anti-individuals. |
| quote: |
| Also, there are plenty of public schools in capitalist societies. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley "The ironic thing is, that under "individualism" there is no economic equality. Economic freedom = economic unequality" |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt Also, nothing is "free" under socialism smiley. The costs are still there, and you are still paying for all of those so-called "freebies" through direct taxes, or through taxes that are passed on to you indirectly. |
| quote: |
| We know you love to tax big business...but corporations simply shift their heavy tax burden to the middle class and the poor by charging higher prices and by paying lower wages than they otherwise would.. There is not much you can do to stop this. One way or another, everyone in a socialist country is going to pay for their "free" state benefits. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt damn right...freedom is far more important than equality of outcome. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley How is economic freedom better than economic equality?! |
Socialism = economic equality = equality of opportunities
There is NO equality of opportunity under capitalism
Do you not understand that in a capitalist society, the more wealth you have the more opportunities you have. As capitalism requires an unequal distribution of wealth, that equates into an unequal distribution of equality.
Economic freedom does not, and never will, lead to equal opportunities (economic equality).
Economic freedom means individuals are allowed to consolidate wealth at the expense of other individuals in society. This gives the wealthier individuals more opportunities in life than those with less wealth.
Socialist polices aim to offset that phenomena by redistributing wealth more evenly (yes, through taxation) so that those less wealthy individuals can still have the same amount of opportunities as those at the weathiest echlons of society. For example, education standards at state schools will be as high as at private schools.
Under capitalism, if a rich person and a poor person need a kidney transplant, the rich person will get one because they can afford it. Under free health care they both get a kidney transplant because they both have equal opportnities...
Under a capitalist society, wealth is created by the people. In a socialist system wealth is owned and distributed by the government that played no part in the creation of said wealth.
Why is it that if so much wealth redistribution creates so much more economic "opportunity," that all of those newly created opportunities are so frequently squandered? Admit that it is the outcome that you are truly concerned with, not the opportunity.
shakka, don't debate this dumbass..
smiley's argument is pure emotion, and he is repeating the same economic fallacies he did three months ago...apparently he never learns. Don't waste your time.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka Under a capitalist society, wealth is created by the people. |
| quote: |
| In a socialist system wealth is owned and distributed by the government that played no part in the creation of said wealth. |
| quote: |
| Why is it that if so much wealth redistribution creates so much more economic "opportunity," that all of those newly created opportunities are so frequently squandered? Admit that it is the outcome that you are truly concerned with, not the opportunity. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt shakka, don't debate this dumbass.. smiley's argument is pure emotion, and he is repeating the same economic fallacies he did three months ago...apparently he never learns. Don't waste your time. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Socialism = economic equality = equality of opportunities There is NO equality of opportunity under capitalism Do you not understand that in a capitalist society, the more wealth you have the more opportunities you have. As capitalism requires an unequal distribution of wealth, that equates into an unequal distribution of equality. Economic freedom does not, and never will, lead to equal opportunities (economic equality). Economic freedom means individuals are allowed to consolidate wealth at the expense of other individuals in society. This gives the wealthier individuals more opportunities in life than those with less wealth. Socialist polices aim to offset that phenomena by redistributing wealth more evenly (yes, through taxation) so that those less wealthy individuals can still have the same amount of opportunities as those at the weathiest echlons of society. For example, education standards at state schools will be as high as at private schools. Under capitalism, if a rich person and a poor person need a kidney transplant, the rich person will get one because they can afford it. Under free health care they both get a kidney transplant because they both have equal opportnities... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX so basically, you want to make a welfare state?? Does Katrina mean anything to you?? |
If everyone is on welfare, who foots the bill? Do we all get to live in shanties? I pay taxes proudly and without much complaint, however, my government takes more than enough from me as is. Suddenly all I can think about is Brave New World.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Shakka If everyone is on welfare, who foots the bill? Do we all get to live in shanties? I pay taxes proudly and without much complaint, however, my government takes more than enough from me as is. Suddenly all I can think about is Brave New World. |
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gla/...2153144,00.html
Looks like it's not just Venezuela's poor that are benefitting from Chavez...now poor Londoners are reaping the benefits too!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt smiley stop bumping this thread, and stop defending this scumbag. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Until he abandons the democratic process then I'm afraid there's not much to see here (and the constitutional changes have to go to a national referendum...) You and your friends, on the other hand, appear to have no respect for democracy and support the undemocratic opposition who are at odds with the majority of the population... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt you know..my response was a mistake...I was viewing page 2 of the forum and thought it was page one...so you didnt actually bump this thread, and I did...f*ck!!! Chavez is an idiot, but I don't care about him, and very few people in America give a shit about what he does in his country. If the people of Venezuela allow him to consolidate power and become a dictator, that is their problem. You seem to have the idea stuck in your head that millions of Americans are aware of Chavez and "out to get him" in some way. The truth is we couldn't care less. We do however tend to root for free markets and more openness and checks & balances within government. Since Chavez is clamping down on those things, it would be nice if he gets overthrown...certainly good entertainment. But even if he stays in power, like I said..we don't care. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Capitalizt Chavez is an idiot, but I don't care about him, and very few people in America give a shit about what he does in his country. If the people of Venezuela allow him to consolidate power and become a dictator, that is their problem. You seem to have the idea stuck in your head that millions of Americans are aware of Chavez and "out to get him" in some way. The truth is we couldn't care less. We do however tend to root for free markets and more openness and checks & balances within government. Since Chavez is clamping down on those things, it would be nice if he gets overthrown...certainly good entertainment. But even if he stays in power, like I said..we don't care. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LazFX I would like to add my 2 cents while I am cruising at 420 ft what capitalzt states is true....to a point. America is concerned.... but not really..... its a poor fault of the american but we are the HDD/ADD kids on the block..... but we, from time to time seem to care......but then paris hilton gets fucked in low light and our attention pans. its pretty fucked up if you ask me and it makes me ashamed that there are other americans with that attitude.. it really does.... a any fan of History needs not to be a PhD to see that every thing Hugo has done to this day is leading up to a dictatorship. anyone with half a brain can see that. he has used the cloak of socialism to hide... and there are shits loads of people that has fallen for it. thats all I got to say about that......I need to head back up to 420 ft p.s. that attitude is no one here on the boards..... just being a poster on PDD shows that we are not like the rest of the sheep ... |
The problem is Shakka, if Chavez is a dictator, what is the solution if the people vote for him?
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.