|
| 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...
|
