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 »

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Wow, he's just getting more and more batshit insane...

My country puts the clocks forwards and backwards one hour at various points during the year to increase the amount of daylight we have. There is a campaign to change permanantely to British Summer Time (GMT+1) to keep crime down etc. If Chavez thinks it's a good idea to increase the amount of daylight then he would have a lot who agree around the world. Does Canada not operate a daylight saving time in the summer? If so do you think they're mad?!

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo this is true. but it's also a given he will win subsequent elections and this could only be a first step for him towards something much more drastic.

Given or not - it's irrelevent to the debate, the only thing that is relevent is that there will be an election where the people will judge him on how he has ruled

quote:

wrong. we have the Constitution, he has law by decree now. who does that, really?

The British government for a start. The Labour Party has a majority in government which means no other party can out vote them on any law they want to introduce. They also introduced the Parliament Act meaning the House of Lords can only veto a new law for two years, at which point they will be over ruled by the House of Commons and the law will pass.

But that wasn't my point. My point was that when the Founding Fathers came up with the American political system they intended the Presidency to be a secondary power to Congress. Yet as the years went by, more and more power was stolen by the Presidency until we get the position today where the President is the more powerful and Congress are secondary.

quote:

prior to that: "the Supreme Court is under the control of his followers, the Assembly is 100% -- all of the members of the Assembly are backers of President Chavez. The Electoral Council is very clearly stacked with his followers. The former president of the Electoral Council, who supervised the 2004 vote count, is now his vice president." again i ask you where the nuance is in that? i do realize that it's for 18 months but my God man what if that happened in your country? my country? the f**kin outrage would be bloody

Well I discribed my country above. And I have no idea how the voting procedures work in other areas of Venezuelan government. Is the Electoral Council a second tier of government, like the American Congress? And are members elected? If so it would stand to reason it is stacked full of Chavistas (just like if there were strong Republican feelings you may find the president Republican and a strong majority in Congress also Republican) As for the Supreme Court, all governments select their top judges, in fact, hasn't Bush recently been criticised for this?

quote:

that's an opinion and it's yours. not everyone shares that opinion. for instance in Venezuela.

My point is, whether or not Chavez changes the law to allow indefinate terms is not an indicator on its own of a dictatorship - I think it's a good idea, you don't - not the issue

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Which one of the 48 countries I've lived in, worked in and travelled through?

Any of them - unless you have conducted a socialogical analysis of why people in those countries are unemployed, or you can point to someone elses socialogical analysis, then you have no right to make sweeping statements about the unemployed being lazy and unwilling to work (you're also falling for the same trap as Firestarter when you try and create the impression that unemployment benefits = social security. They don't. Only a small proportion)

quote:

Maybe you don't like how it sounds. It's just how it is in life, you don't put someone who's barely capable of flipping burgers, turning up to work mostly on time and then stick them in charge of something like an aerospace factory.

Indeed. That was my point was it not? There needs to be someone "flipping burgers" in order for MacDonalds to survive as a company. The exact same phenomenon happens on the macro level as well.

quote:

I've always paid for mine out of my own pocket.

Good for you (so do I through compulsary National Insurance) but that's not what I asked is it? Do you think universal health care should be available to all?

quote:

Compulsory superannuation.

I don't see the problem with that as it's effectively a pension tax (tho this should still be supplemented by government funds should circumstances arise where people have not been able to pay into this scheme - the lowest paid, disabled, etc)

quote:

Only if they're milking the dole for all it's worth. Nothing like the incentive of actually having to work for survival once in awhile to bring back a serious dose of reality to a bunch of what's effectively, developed country, charity milk-sops. I'll pay for a well and have paid for wells in Africa years before I'd willingly pay 'charity tax' for public housing in the UK, US or Au. Why? Because at least I know the people who are getting it will make the most of it and not waste it sitting around in their living rooms playing computer games and drinking piss.

What percentage of the unemployed in the UK, Oz or US spend their time "sitting around their living rooms playing computer games and drinking piss" and are not actively seeking work?

quote:

What about them? They're public servants and you're starting to waddle off topic.

Not in certain capitalist ideologies they're not. They would be privatised and operate only for those that pay for them (just like privatised doctors only work for those that pay for them). And of course, the companies that own them (and whoever owns them) become very powerful. But in our societies, the police/fire service/military are part of the welfare state.

quote:

I always know where I stand with a company, they're out to make a profit rather than provide a charity.

Then why the hell would you want them in charge of vital services like health or pensions or any other industry we rely on to survive?!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Given or not - it's irrelevent to the debate, the only thing that is relevent is that there will be an election where the people will judge him on how he has ruled

so you don't think he has consolidated power like a man determined, ney, destined to remain in power for longer than what would be considered normal in a "democracy"? c'mon dude, seriously.

quote:

The British government for a start. The Labour Party has a majority in government which means no other party can out vote them on any law they want to introduce. They also introduced the Parliament Act meaning the House of Lords can only veto a new law for two years, at which point they will be over ruled by the House of Commons and the law will pass.

thats not law by decree. not by a long shot.

quote:

But that wasn't my point. My point was that when the Founding Fathers came up with the American political system they intended the Presidency to be a secondary power to Congress. Yet as the years went by, more and more power was stolen by the Presidency until we get the position today where the President is the more powerful and Congress are secondary.

omg now you've been fed misinformation. the Constitution from the very begining has clearly set aside enumerated powers of the Federal government with clearly determined States powers as balances called the reserve powers. what has happened since the founding fathers was what was called the American Civil War and expanding free markets. the Executive didn't steal these powers.in fact the States had to have had a 2/3's say in the matter regarding the requisite Ammendments to those powers. and from a distance it may look like the President holds all the cards because he is our voice on a ever growing global stage and in times of volatility. but he is nothing without the other two branches of government just like the other two to are little without him.

quote:

My point is, whether or not Chavez changes the law to allow indefinate terms is not an indicator on its own of a dictatorship - I think it's a good idea, you don't - not the issue

well that remains to be seen because clearly things are-a-changin.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hey, you anti welfare people. does it ever occur to you that a pittance given to the down-trodden actually works as a fairly successful method of social control? ive been from one side of the political spectrum to the other, but ive always viewed welfare in those terms to a certain degree. a subservient level of subsistence, keeps them away from you imo.

Doesn't seem to work very well so far and I live in a comparatively nice suburb, it just means that they have to catch the bus to come and bother me. In the last 3 years I've had one attempted burglary, my car stereo stolen and stuck a 9mm in the face of someone who thought I was easy to mug. For awhile I thought I was just unlucky but it appears I was probably luckier than quite a few other people.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Any of them - unless you have conducted a socialogical analysis of why people in those countries are unemployed, or you can point to someone elses socialogical analysis, then you have no right to make sweeping statements about the unemployed being lazy and unwilling to work (you're also falling for the same trap as Firestarter when you try and create the impression that unemployment benefits = social security. They don't. Only a small proportion)

I know it doesn't go down well with the intelligentsia out there to listen to someone like me who goes out, travels and talks to people.
It's far easier to heckle, deride and insult my intelligence, read your books, articles than actually go out into the big wide world and see just how much it reeks of human idiocy and laziness.
But like I said, I call it how I see it and I've seen more or less some degree of it everywhere in every developed nation.
People content to sponge off the system because it's easier than getting off their arse and doing an honest days work or shirking because they think it's easier than actually working and one day they'll magically win lotto, or a horse race, pay off that $30,000 credit card debt and live happily ever after.
It's a load of crock and its endemic everywhere.
At least in Africa, people where dirt poor because of hard luck, bad governments nationalising everything and killing off anyone who disagrees, the developed world seems to want to inflict it on themselves like some kind of ghetto credibility.

I'm cutting this short, it's late and I'm tired.

quote:

Do you think universal health care should be available to all?

Not for anyone in a middle class income bracket. The medical community has economically over-valued itself for too long, they need knocking back into place with genuine competition, which would lower prices and thus make it more available to everyone.

quote:

But in our societies, the police/fire service/military are part of the welfare state.

And have been since longer than living memory, regardless of socialist/democratic leanings.

quote:

Then why the hell would you want them in charge of vital services like health or pensions or any other industry we rely on to survive?!

Because I know where I stand
I don't like most large companies and I don't have to like what they do, however I know my enemy in this case and I know what they will do as predictably as the sun rises.
You on the other hand are quite happy to invest your faith, future and country into the hands of what are essentially people who decided that power was intoxicating, got into politics and are kept there by some over-advertised, over-budgeted popularity contest... which I might add are kept where they are by the same said, blithering morons who keep electing them.
It's quite easy to poke at the corporate sector and make wild gesticulations about how we're all being boned by advertising into buying crap we don't need in amounts which send us into crippling debt.
I make very little distinction between the vapid consumer and the vapid voter who idles up to the polling booth after a long stint of what is essentially advertising plastering some power mad toerag's gormless mug all over every light pole, newspaper, wall and TV set from here to kingdom come.
Your same idiot who loves big TV's, fancy cars, clothes and getting into debt, is the same idiot who votes and unlike you, I have no faith in my fellow human beings to do anything in my direct benefit so I look after myself as best I can.

And that is where I do make the distinction.
The corporate sector will sell me something which once the transaction is done, lets me keep it forever and not bother me again. The political sector under someone like Chavez, is quite happy to just take it all away for the benefit of the state and give it to people who haven't earned it. To some lesser degree I'll put up with taxation in more moderate circumstances because it does keep the country running, at a huge amount of wasted money in most circumstances.
And I'm not exactly sure where I stand when it comes to power seekers who get elected by idiots, it's too much of a variable, maybe we'll get Ghandi, maybe we'll get Mugabe

Unless you can back up your claims that everyone who claims dole does it because they don't want to work then it's nothing more than lazy prejudice.

I also notice you've not acknowledged the fact that unemployment benefits only constitute a fraction of the total spent on social secuity - the majority being spent on health care and pensions - why is that?

If you're going to continue to equate the welfare state (and your criticisms of it) to unemployment benefits then your arguments simply do not stand up.

quote:

regardless of socialist/democratic leanings

This is the second time you've made this mistake iirc. Firstly, I have said many times now that I am not arguing from a Marxist/Communist (pure socialist) position. However, a basic understanding of what pure socialism is will tell you that it is the most democratic political ideology there is. Capitalism in its purest conception, is the least democratic political ideology there is. The political system practiced by Western nations is neither purely capitalist or socialist. It is a blend. The name of the political ideology is Liberal Democracy. My prefered political system is called Social Democracy (which is very similar but with a stronger welfare state and certain industries nationalised - primarily natural monopolies where the laws of competition cannot be applied, and therefore, should not be in private ownership)

The term "democratic" can be applied to a wide range of political ideologies and is not a unique ideology in itself (just like "socialism" is not a unique ideology in itself and can be used to discribe a number of different ideologies ranging from Marxism/Communism to the political system we live in today)

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith It's far easier to heckle, deride and insult my intelligence, read your books, articles than actually go out into the big wide world and see just how much it reeks of human idiocy and laziness.

Could not of said that better myself......
I have been called Jock, Red Neck, ignorant, ass and so forth on this board....
there are allot of these types you described on here that love to sit here after they heard the latest prof or read some book or watched some youube video then they adopt some belief or idiotic POV that makes me fear for the future...... (911 ring a bell?)

Kind of like wearing a Che shirt, or towing the party line for Chavez, The Beard (Castro) or even a group of people that will cut our heads off for just having an account on Great SATAN's Trance Addict Board.
As long as that ignorant in the real world person gets his rocks off by insulting the very country, culture or people that gave them an opportunity to learn and to make something out of their lives..... sad

quote:

Of course that's your contention. You're a first year grad student. You just got finished readin' some Marxian historian -- Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'til next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you're gonna be talkin' about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year -- you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.

so true....

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Could not of said that better myself......

Unfortunatley I haven't done any of what she accused me of. If that's how she wishes to intepret it then that's her problem, not mine. It certainly wasn't intended to come across like that (and imo it doesn't come across like that)

I have never said I know any more than anyone else because of my education, and my education definately should not mean I know any more than anyone else - I have opinions based on what I have found out for myself, just like everyone else.

Telling someone their opinion doesn't count because they have an education however, seems a little odd, and makes it sound like your arguments have dried up (and don't have the decency to admit it)

Oh and LazFX, lets say my opinions are based on academic sources - what are yours based on?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Oh and LazFX, lets say my opinions are based on academic sources - what are yours based on?

The same and life....

what?? can't a Hispanic have an edumacation?? huh?? massa??

and thats the prob, you stated that you know nothing about Venezuela. But you will sit here and try to convince people that have probably heard about him most of their young adult lives....

thats not saying you are stupid, its that you are ignorant.. ever heard the phrase "there are always two sides to a story"?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley And as someone who knows nothing about Venezuala, perhaps you could provide me with some trustworthy source to back up your claims that Venezuala is a dictatorship? Was Chavez not elected by the people?

how about news from immigrants, stories of family's loosing everything, Drs and Professors jailed, Media sources getting shut down.
But if its reported by CNN, ABC, BBC, or anyone that is against your POV of what a trusted news source is, it all ...... Bollocks??

oh and jorge........ I was the dirt poor of all poor, almost went as far as getting on Welfare while both my wife and I went to university...with a baby at home. I worked my ass off and now a few years later I have a job with the feds, make damn good money, sending all of my kids; 3 to private schools and you know what..... *I still think that their should be free medical, schooling and others. I admire what Chavez wants to do, cause once a socialist always a socialist
but he is going about it the wrong way.......
unlike some on here, I remember where the fuck I came from....I feel for the poor, but I detest the Lazy.

Well if you're basing your opinions on your education then you, like me, must be wrong!!!

The reason I want to know about Chavez is prescisely because I can see holes in what is reported about him that just don't seem to add up. The original point to this thread, and the reaction from certain posters, is the best example I can give. IMO, a non-story has got the right-wingers in a rage and there must be some explanation for that.

But no, I don't know a hell of a lot about Venezuela, other than what I have picked up recently.

You give the example of "media sources getting shut down" - which suggests this is a common practice by Chavez (that's certainly the impression I get from you and others and certain sections of the media) - but from what I have skimmed through recently, I have only seen that one TV station has had its licence renewal rejected - RCTV, the company accused of supporting the CIA-backed coup. Now you tell me how Americans view al-Jazeera just for having a different point of view, and how some US politicians want to bomb their HQ in Qatar! How would they react if that station encouraged military action against the US mainland?!

What I also discovered is that 80% of the media in Venezuela is rabidly anti-Chavez. That doesn't quite tie in with the notion of mass media censorship does it?

You then say about Drs and Professionals being jailed, but don't go into any details. For all I know these people are innocent, or they may be serial killers! Can you tell me what they went to jail for?

You also need to tell me what class immigrants critical of Chavez come from because if they are from poor backgrounds their criticisms will be a lot stronger than those from the upper classes who have lost out to Chavez'z economic policies

(And congrats for breaking out of the Ghetto! It's obviously possible but would you say it's the norm?)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley (And congrats for breaking out of the Ghetto! It's obviously possible but would you say it's the norm?)

Actually, that reminds me of a good point to back up my arguments that capitalist societies require certain proportions of people at different levels of the employment ladder - most at the bottom.

You were from an unprivalaged background but managed to escape because you and your wife bust your arse and went to Uni. That's fine, but in the UK (can't speak for any other countries) degrees are becoming less and less meaningful as more people go to uni. My parents followed a similar route to you - coming from the poorest of poor families but taking advantage of free university education (and I mean completely free plus a grant each year of study, unlike today where it costs £2k + a student loan to cover living expenses) and only few went to university. Today, around 35% go to uni with a government target of eventually 50%! Today, there are 40 graduates for each graduate job, if the governments targets are met that means there will be around 60 graduates for each graduate job.

So you can kinda see that the amounts of jobs out there at different levels stay constant, and even with a degree, you more likely than not not to get a graduate job because there aren't enough. Only a fraction of graduates will make it to the dizzy heights Capitalizt seems to think everyone can get to.

If everyone had a degree, no matter what background they came from, most of them would still have to flip burgers in MacDonalds...

quote:

ever heard the phrase "there are always two sides to a story"?

MY POINT EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley My country puts the clocks forwards and backwards one hour at various points during the year to increase the amount of daylight we have. There is a campaign to change permanantely to British Summer Time (GMT+1) to keep crime down etc. If Chavez thinks it's a good idea to increase the amount of daylight then he would have a lot who agree around the world. Does Canada not operate a daylight saving time in the summer? If so do you think they're mad?!

Daylight savings and what Hugo is purposing aren't even scientifically related...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Daylight savings and what Hugo is purposing aren't even scientifically related...

Ok then, scientifically, more sunlight is good for you because of vitamin D

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley If you're going to continue to equate the welfare state (and your criticisms of it) to unemployment benefits then your arguments simply do not stand up.

True, 6+ years on and off in international sales, business auditing and sales coaching in the US, UK, Australia, Japan, most of SE-Asia and Europe make me completely ignorant to the facets of human nature, employment and people's predilections in and out of the workforce.
Sorry if I'm not qualified enough to call a spade a spade...

quote:

This is the second time you've made this mistake iirc.

I keep saying it because I don't agree with you.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith True, 6+ years on and off in international sales, business auditing and sales coaching in the US, UK, Australia, Japan, most of SE-Asia and Europe make me completely ignorant to the facets of human nature, employment and people's predilections in and out of the workforce. Sorry if I'm not qualified enough to call a spade a spade...

Do you know what the welfare state is?

quote:

I keep saying it because I don't agree with you.

Eh? There isn't any scope for disagreement! I'm telling you what democracy, capiatlism and socialism actually means because you've demonstrated that you don't know!

By saying socialism and democracy are at opposite ends of the political spectrum suggests you don't know what either term means.

Sorry if you think that means I'm calling you a "drop kick" (whatever one of those is) but I'm honestly not, it's just you can't criticise socialism by saying it's not democratic when everything ever written about socialist ideologies says that it is!

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith True, 6+ years on and off in international sales, business auditing and sales coaching in the US, UK, Australia, Japan, most of SE-Asia and Europe make me completely ignorant to the facets of human nature, employment and people's predilections in and out of the workforce. Sorry if I'm not qualified enough to call a spade a spade...

Yeah, I know... all of that real life experience and you still are, after all, just a woman....

ha ha ha

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Yeah, I know... all of that real life experience and you still are, after all, just a woman.... ha ha ha

Quite. While you and Lillith are patting yourselves on the back about how your life experiences give you some kind of God given right to comment on issues as if your words should be taken as Gospel by everyone else, perhaps you'd both like to comment on the thread I started about media censorship in Venezuela? No doubt you've both read it and both use censorship of the media to prove Venezuela is a dictatorship, yet neither of you have commented on that thread? Strange

Yeah I know, back in the kitchen, stop out-earning Laz and shut my mouth.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Quite. While you and Lillith are patting yourselves on the back about how your life experiences give you some kind of God given right to comment on issues as if your words should be taken as Gospel by everyone else, perhaps you'd both like to comment on the thread I started about media censorship in Venezuela? No doubt you've both read it and both use censorship of the media to prove Venezuela is a dictatorship, yet neither of you have commented on that thread? Strange

actually, I care not if you take my words as "gospel" Jorge. I really don't, but if for once I made you look up, do research or what ever you do to get your ideas from; then my job is done.

No knock against you or anyone, but one has to live inside the books and outside the class room in order to reach full enlightenment.


now I leave this thread with this...........





i smoke way tooo much


ha ha

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Yeah I know, back in the kitchen, stop out-earning Laz and shut my mouth.

why you got to bring dollars in this?? huh?? shit man we should of never let ya women learn to read! Fock!!!! Now get in there and cook me a chicken pot pie!!

ha ha ha

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX actually, I care not if you take my words as "gospel" Jorge. I really don't, but if for once I made you look up, do research or what ever you do to get your ideas from; then my job is done.

Erm but I did do some research and came to the conclusions I have.

quote:

No knock against you or anyone, but one has to live inside the books and outside the class room in order to reach full enlightenment.

Do you mean in order to comment on Venezuela I have to go to Venezuela? Have you been to Venezuela recently?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley No doubt you've both read it and both use censorship of the media to prove Venezuela is a dictatorship, yet neither of you have commented on that thread? Strange

I did, but you wanted hard cold facts. I help out my fellow man and give back to the community back home in Houston. Member of many charitable services that provides to many.... my main focus is on helping fellow Latinos from South of the Border.
Right now I give to the sponsoring of a Valenzuela family of 4. You know; help with school clothes, foods, rent and such. I heard from the horses mouth how this man lost his job, home, threats from the special police chavez uses and so forth; all due to being critical of Chavez. He feared for his life and his family.

but no matter, this is all in vain anyways.....
No one on this board can convince you other wise, its only you that can wake up

I read this the other day and thought about ya:

quote:

For a long time, I’ve defended Hugo Chavez. I thought that he was fighting a worthy battle against greed and corruption, against years of foreign domination and cronyism. I thought he was trying to improve the lives of poor people, while establishing a strong economy, an independent and self-respecting nation, and a vibrant democracy. But now, after watching events unfold in the past few months, I’m ready to admit that I was mistaken. Like many of those who lean left, I figured that Chavez’s megalomaniacal governing qualities were a bit unnerving, but not anything serious to be worried about. In retrospect, I realize that I was willing to overlook his authoritarian tendencies because of one main thing: his avowed commitment to social justice issues and his dedication to ending poverty. Recently, however, I’ve changed my mind in a major way. Although I have tried to remain optimistic, Chavez’s actions in the past few months clearly indicate that he is set on becoming a dictator. Perhaps a dictator dedicated to the poor, but a dictator nonetheless. The evidence is abundant (though I will just list a few of the most recent examples). In late 2006, for instance, Chavez canceled the operating license for RCTV, the second-largest tv channel in Venezuela and one of the most public forums for opposition to his regime. Was it just anti-Chavez activists who called foul to this act of censorship? Not at all. Indeed, José Miguel Vivanco, the Americas director for Human Rights Watch, referred to the incident as “clearly a case of censorship and the most grave step back in the region since [the 1990s media crackdown of Peru’s Alberto] Fujimori.” Then, in late January of 2007, in an unbelievably bold act, Chavez passed through the Venezuelan legislature a measure that gave him the power to rule by decree. For eighteen months, he was granted the ability to make sweeping economic and social changes without the direct consent of the legislature. Most recently, as The New York Times is now reporting, Chavez has decided to unveil a plan that would get rid of presidential term limits entirely. Unfortunately, with control of all branches of government, it looks like this blatantly undemocratic effort to become ruler-for-life might actually succeed: Willian Lara, the communications minister, said Mr. Chávez would announce the project before the National Assembly, where all 167 lawmakers support the president. Supporters of Mr. Chávez, who was re-elected last year with some 60 percent of the vote, also control the Supreme Court, the entire federal bureaucracy, public oil and infrastructure companies and every state government but two. Meanwhile, Chavez appears to be establishing a cult of personality, not unlike other authoritarian leaders: As Mr. Chávez, 53, settles into his ninth year in power, images of him have become impossible to avoid here. On billboards, posters and murals, he is seen hugging children, embracing old women, chanting slogans and plugging energy-saving Cuban light bulbs into sockets. The sum of these recent developments, combined with previous measures to stack the courts and the legislature, have solidified Chavez’s rule to the point where there should no longer be any doubt about the direction in which the country is headed. Chavez is pushing for dictatorial-like powers and there seems to be little hope, at least in the near future, of re-establishing any semblance of democratic governance. Unfortunately, many of us on the left have been silent on this issue for far too long. While we have been quick to criticize our own administration and other foreign governments (think Vladimir Putin) for undemocratic policies, there has been a tendency to overlook the authoritarian governing styles of leftist regimes like that of Venezuela. For some reason — probably because these leaders profess the dogma of economic equality and social reform — many of us on the left have defended these liberal autocrats. But it’s time to wake up and get our priorities straight. We should not be blind to what is going on in Venezuela. We can no longer forgive Chavez’s dictatorial tendencies merely because of his avowed commitment to the country’s poor. Indeed, it is a grave mistake to overlook tyranny or authoritarianism even when it is couched in the rhetoric of liberal reform and social justice. Ultimately, while Chavez’s vision of an end to poverty and the creation of a more equitable society is an honorable and an important one, his way of achieving these goals is not. Upholding democracy is infinitely more important than any of these other aims.

>>SOURCE<<

Are some of you so naive to believe that Chavez will turn Venezuela into a paradise in just one term? Especially with the long history of foreign [American] interference/intervention, wars, and poverty?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.