Chavez is president for life

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I gather a lot of our resident "progressives" ( ) are happy because the "Jew" and "Homosexual" Capriles was defeated (yes, that's how he was described by the official propaganda machine).

21st Century Socialism: Keeping The Jew and The Gay in their place!

If you wish to lay the anti-Semitic card down, you must specifically justify it. Support for a candidate who supposedly made derogatory statements does not make the supporter racist. As it is, you're calling all Chavez endorsers or supporters anti-Semitic and anti-gay. Rail against the man for whatever you like, but keep the ad hominem bullying to yourself, because in painting such a picture, you're doing exactly what you're whining about him doing.

After the past four years, accusations of homosexuality just seem a bit...wimpy. When your candidates accuse each other of secretly being born in another country, worshiping in another religion, and being a Manchurian Candidate, then you can whine about the state of politics.

 

[Traitorfish]

Thesis: The liberal objection to Chavez is that he takes their ideals seriously. Classical republicanism viewed electoral democracy as an intervention by the people/The People into the state, the aim of which was to produce popular tribunes capable of holding the state to account, while modern liberals have consigned themselves to treating electoral democracy as nothing more than a jumped-up job interview, the aim of which is to select the best grey-faced managerial team. By treating democratic republicanism as a serious political project, Chavez threatens to give the whole game away.


(There's also the fact he's a two-faced weasly fat-headed demagogue, granted, but that's hardly unusual enough to explain the levels of hostility ol' Hugo garners.)

 

[luiz]

In other words, left wing bad, right wing good. It's exactly that kind of thinking that has kept Latin America from climbing out of poverty.

I don't see how you can conclude that from my post.
Lula's predecessor was a member of the Social-Democratic Party, a left-wing sociologist who was exiled during the military dictatorship. His main work as a sociologist was the "Dependence Theory" which is now part of the left-wing in explaining Latin America's underdevelopment (hint: it blames the US for a lot of stuff). Lula's opponent during the 2002 elections, who was the Health Minister in the predecessor's government, was a former president of the students' union who was also exiled by the military. As Health Minister he passed legislation that broke all the patents related to AIDS, and created the "genéricos" program so that local firms could manufacture imported medicine at low cost.

So Lula did not defeat the right, he defeated a different kind of left. A more educated and less corrupt left, but left still.

The right in Brazil is minuscule and for the most part was allied with Lula. What we have now is a dispute between a serious, european-style social-democratic party and the corrupt, clown-esque Workers' Party.

I would love to vote for a true liberal right-winger, but no such choice is offered me. I just voted for a radical socialist for Rio's mayor, because he had the best shot of defeating the ruling mafia (but he was nevertheless soundly defeated in the first round of elections). He was a member of a party called Socialism and Liberty - a far left offshoot of the Workers' Party who were kicked out for being too far to the left. In the last elections I voted for a Green Party pot head, who was once a left-wing terrorist that took part in the kidnapping of the American ambassador in 1969 (he can't set foot in the US until today because of it). Again, I can only choose between the mafia and non-mafia left, and I am going with non-mafia, thank you.

 

[luiz]

If you wish to lay the anti-Semitic card down, you must specifically justify it. Support for a candidate who supposedly made derogatory statements does not make the supporter racist. As it is, you're calling all Chavez endorsers or supporters anti-Semitic and anti-gay. Rail against the man for whatever you like, but keep the ad hominem bullying to yourself, because in painting such a picture, you're doing exactly what you're whining about him doing.

After the past four years, accusations of homosexuality just seem a bit...wimpy. When your candidates accuse each other of secretly being born in another country, worshiping in another religion, and being a Manchurian Candidate, then you can whine about the state of politics.

Sorry but no. The Chávez camp has utilized vicious anti-semitic propaganda throughout the campaign, and everyone who supports Chávez shows at the very least complicity with this horrible behavior. It's not an ad hominem since part of my reason to oppose Chávez is exactly the fact that he and his supporters are scum. It's not only about politics, it's also about fighting a fundamental evil.

And before a certain poster starts saying that anti-zionism is not anti-semitism, here's the issue: Capriles is not a zionist. He's not even Jewish, he is a practicing catholic who happens to be the grandson of Jewish Holocaust survivors. He has never spoken about Israel. So Chávez's thugs were not attacking him for his religion or his politics, they were attacking him for his ancestry. How classy is that?

The accusations of homosexuality were also disgusting, but not on the same level.

 

[innonimatu]

I always provide evidence of Chávez's dictatorial abuses, but when I do you either claim they are not valid or disapear from the thread.

You usually provide second-hand propaganda whenever Venezuela comes up. There is no lack of those around.

Civil servants and employees of state-owned companies being forced to attend Chávez rallies:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/04/world/la-fg-venezuela-chavez-20121005

The massive turnout in central Caracas sparked a protest from Democratic Unity coalition leader Ramon Guillermo Aveledo, who accused Chavez, 58, of forcing public employees across Venezuela to attend the afternoon rally or face dismissal.

Aveledo said he had obtained an internal memo from an official of the city of Vargas saying that attendance at Thursday's final campaign event was "obligatory."

Employees at the state-controlled oil company PDVSA have told The Times that their jobs depended on participation in pro-Chavez political rallies and wearing red shirts, the color closely associated with Chavez's "Bolivarian Revolution."

Where is the evidence? It's kind of hard to take this political rival at his word...

Murder of oppositionists:

You don't eve bother quoting someone else's propaganda on this one?

End of vote secrecy (see how the voting machine is connected to the biometric identifier, meaning the government can easily tell who voted for who:

I am totally, absolutely against any use whatsoever of voting machines, an unfortunate practice common in many third world countries. But this particular accusation in this case is not even made by the venezuelan opposition, who seems to have been satisfied with the audits they did:

VICENTE BELLO, OPPOSITION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CNE: We say that the vote is secret and secure and that they have complied in safeguarding these processes, from this point of view the electoral platform is satisfactory and it functions well and functions quickly

Chávez's monopoly of propaganda on all television:

http://www.economist.com/node/21563706

There you have it.

The style of the rabidly anti-Chavez (anti anything that challenges the moneyed interests) The Economist remains the same, I see. But I've got to love it how their on graphics dispel the lies in the text about the alleged debt problem. As for monopoly of propaganda, it's that basically the moneyed interests complaining that they can't fully leverage their advantage (private wealth) to achieve a monopoly on propaganda any more?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

But hey, according to the fat cow Dilma

So it's okay to be sexist, but anti-semitic is off the table.

Sorry but no. The Chávez camp has utilized vicious anti-semitic propaganda throughout the campaign, and everyone who supports Chávez shows at the very least complicity with this horrible behavior. It's not an ad hominem since part of my reason to oppose Chávez is exactly the fact that he and his supporters are scum. It's not only about politics, it's also about fighting a fundamental evil.

Actually that's exactly what ad hominem is. Unless someone says they believe something, you can't say that they believe it. Just because someone supports someone else doesn't mean they are automatically responsible for everything that person says and does, especially if they explicitly condemn it or distance themselves from that position.

 

[luiz]

You usually provide second-hand propaganda whenever Venezuela comes up. There is no lack of those around.

No, I provided several different and trust-worthy sources.

Where is the evidence? It's kind of hard to take this political rival at his word...

Uh, the newspaper I quoted interviewed PDVSA workers directly, not oppositionists, and they complained of being bused to rallies. How is that not evidence?

You don't eve bother quoting someone else's propaganda on this one?

Not sure I follow. I pointed out yet another case of the common Venezuelan phenomena of gunmen shooting and killing oppositionists. Not something very common in democracies.

I am totally, absolutely against any use whatsoever of voting machines, an unfortunate practice common in many third world countries. But this particular accusation in this case is not even made by the venezuelan opposition, who seems to have been satisfied with the audits they did:

This machine is different from the one we use in Brazil, for instance. It's quite clear that they could be used to destroy voter secrecy, as the biometric identifier is linked to the voting machine. There is no such thing over here and it would be completely illegal.

The style of the rabidly anti-Chavez (anti anything that challenges the moneyed interests) The Economist remains the same, I see. But I've got to love it how their on graphics dispel the lies in the text about the alleged debt problem. As for monopoly of propaganda, it's that basically the moneyed interests complaining that they can't fully leverage their advantage (private wealth) to achieve a monopoly on propaganda any more?

The issue is Chávez had several hours of propaganda on all TV stations every day while Capriles was limited to 3 minutes. This is a fact and made the dispute completely unfair and unequal.

So it's okay to be sexist, but anti-semitic is off the table.

How is it sexism? She is a fat cow, Lula is a fat pig, and what I think of Chávez is ban-worthy.

Actually that's exactly what ad hominem is. Unless someone says they believe something, you can't say that they believe it. Just because someone supports someone else doesn't mean they are automatically responsible for everything that person says and does, especially if they explicitly condemn it or distance themselves from that position.

Ad hominem is when you attack someone's character to discredit their arguments. I am attacking the character of Chávez' supporters to discredit their character. I think that siding with a rabidly anti-semitic camp is off limits as far as decent people go.

 

[Traitorfish]

How is it sexism? She is a fat cow, Lula is a fat pig, and what I think of Chávez is ban-worthy.

"Cow" is a slur that is used to describe women exclusively.

 

[luiz]

"Cow" is a slur that is used to describe women exclusively.

What about pig? Should I call her she-pig or something?

I gather that cow is a feminine word, so it's exclusive to women, but for me it's just the feminine version of the insult pig, so I see no sexist undertones. Politicians are called pigs all the time. In the future though I shall call her a pig (or she-pig) on English-speaking forums.

 

[Traitorfish]

The problem is specifying the gender in the first place. It has no relevance, so its only function seems to be imply that her gender somehow compounds her crimes. I'm inferring that in Brazil "pig" is also gendered, so I can see why "cow" might not be considered sexist there, but it doesn't translate well into English.

 

[luiz]

The problem is specifying the gender in the first place. It has no relevance, so its only function seems to be imply that her gender somehow compounds her crimes. I'm inferring that in Brazil "pig" is also gendered, so I can see why "cow" might not be considered sexist there, but it doesn't translate well into English.

Yes, pig is genedered over here and thus gender is always specified no matter what and so I see no problem with specifying it.

But point taken and from now on I shall use a different word. "That fat cretin" has a nice ring to it (and yes, I think that on sub-conscious level I discriminate against fat politicians. It just seems like they're feasting on public money!).

 

[Ondskan]

You sound like your rich ass finally got what it deserved ?
I'm sure that the fact that a socialist is running against a social democrat, the fact that poverty has shrunk from 50% to 15% according to the world bank and that Jimmy Carter acknowledged the elections to be the most democratic in the world with Obama praising the 80% turnout is a problem.

Yes the banks, nationalized. Just like in the UK, just like in Argentina, just like we should be doing all over the world.

Youl could go on forever after holes in the street? We have holes in the street in Sweden. I think you just ran out of juice. Now get out of your country!

 

[Ondskan]

If you wish to lay the anti-Semitic card down, you must specifically justify it. Support for a candidate who supposedly made derogatory statements does not make the supporter racist. As it is, you're calling all Chavez endorsers or supporters anti-Semitic and anti-gay. Rail against the man for whatever you like, but keep the ad hominem bullying to yourself, because in painting such a picture, you're doing exactly what you're whining about him doing.

After the past four years, accusations of homosexuality just seem a bit...wimpy. When your candidates accuse each other of secretly being born in another country, worshiping in another religion, and being a Manchurian Candidate, then you can whine about the state of politics.

I think he's one of those rich jews who never goes to a Synagouge but whose grandpa financed Hitler and Stalin.

 

[luiz]

I think he's one of those rich jews who never goes to a Synagouge but whose grandpa financed Hitler and Stalin.

And when I say left-wing anti-semitism is a serious concern people here say it's just my bias... yeah right.
THE JEWS ARE TO BLAME FOR HITLER AND STALIN! YOU READ IT HERE FIRST, FOLKS!

Keep on the struggle, mein kamerad! You ought to move to Venezuela and help Chávez get rid of the Jew!

 

[TheLastOne36]

You guys are right. Chavez is the best person ever and Venezuela is an example the rest of the 3rd world should follow.


*sigh*

 

[luiz]

You guys are right. Chavez is the best person ever and Venezuela is an example the rest of the 3rd world should follow.


*sigh*

We're just rich Jews who want to sell Venezuela to the Zionist Entity so that our race has a fresh supply of blood to drink. Why should anyone listen to us?

 

[ace99]

And when I say left-wing anti-semitism is a serious concern people here say it's just my bias... yeah right.

Keep on the struggle, mein kamerad! You ought to move to Venezuela and help Chávez get rid of the Jew!

You're confusing anti-antisemitism with anti-elite populism. There's little question that there is a portion of the world where Jews constitute an economically dominant minority in disproportion to their population. The same goes for the Chinese in countries like the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, etc..., the Indians in East Africa and Uganada, whites in Zimbabwe, and the Jains and Zoroastrians in India, etc.....

There may or may not be racial or religious elements in targeting these populations, but the single largest reason is economic. I recall reading an article involving the murder and robbery of a wealthy Chinese woman in the Philippines. When the police took the report they wrote down the purpose of the crime as "Revenge". Similarly when Idi Amin expelled the Indians from Uganda, when people rioted against the Chinese in Vietnam or Mugabe's policy toward the whites it's a cop out to call them racists without acknowledging that they were economically powerful minorities who were perceived as controlling excessive amounts of national wealth and industry. When Chavez calls someone a "Jew" it's not necessarily the religious group he's targeting but the economic group. For instance see Marx on the "Jewish Question" http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/ one of his earlier writings in which Marx identifies Jews with capital but the essay actually functions as a defense of Jews where Marx debates against another philosopher who argues that Jews should not be emancipated unless they are baptized as Christians, it's easy to smear it as anti-Semitic but it's best understood as an early attempt to understand capitalism and commerce, which Marx separates from Jews.

Modern day populist or "left" leaders likely lack the more sophisticated understanding that Marx developed, since it's easy to read that kind of work at face value.

 

[luiz]

You're confusing anti-antisemitism with anti-elite populism. There's little question that there is a portion of the world where Jews constitute an economically dominant minority in disproportion to their population. The same goes for the Chinese in countries like the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, etc..., the Indians in East Africa and Uganada, whites in Zimbabwe, and the Jains and Zoroastrians in India, etc.....

There may or may not be racial or religious elements in targeting these populations, but the single largest reason is economic. I recall reading an article involving the murder and robbery of a wealthy Chinese woman in the Philippines. When the police took the report they wrote down the purpose of the crime as "Revenge". Similarly when Idi Amin expelled the Indians from Uganda, when people rioted against the Chinese in Vietnam or Mugabe's policy toward the whites it's a cop out to call them racists without acknowledging that they were economically powerful minorities who were perceived as controlling excessive amounts of national wealth and industry. When Chavez calls someone a "Jew" it's not necessarily the religious group he's targeting but the economic group. For instance see Marx on the "Jewish Question" http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/ one of his earlier writings in which Marx identifies Jews with capital, it's easy to smear it as anti-Semitic but it's best understood as an early attempt to understand capitalism. Later on Marx extends this further to the capitalist, rather than solely the Jews.

When someone accuses a practicing Roman Catholic who never talks about Israel to be an "internationalist Zionist sellout" because he is the grandson of Jews, that's anti-semitism, not any stupid identification of Jews with wealth or the capitalist class (and referring to wealthy people as "Jews" is at the very least a very crass statement, at this day and age).

And then we have our resident stormtrooper Ondskan talking about "rich Jews whose grandparents financed Hitler and Stalin". Again, that's classic anti-semitism, not just a moronic identification of Jews with money.

 

[holy king]

Unfortunately, it is clear that Chavez will only leave power in a coffin.
Fortunately, it is clear that this day is not very far.

Really, though, what a disgrace that most other countries of Latin America, Brazil foremost, pretend that Venezuela is a democracy. Chavez threatned everyone who voted against him, destroyed the secret vote, forced all TV stations to broadcast his propaganda through several hours every day while denying even a minute to the opposition, and, if all of that isn't enough, run a campaign based on anti-semitism. But hey, according to the fat cow Dilma Venezuela is the greatest democracy pn Earth!

having the right orchestrate a coup against you and dragging you off to some godforsaken island tends to make you rather paranoid.

same old story, really.
the right is like the sociopathic little boy who regularly kicks the family dog until it becomes so aggressive it has to be put down.

 

[luiz]

Don't forget that Chávez attempted a coup against a democratic government in 1992... he was a rabid dog from day one.

Really, he is a typical Latin American military caudillo, a type that was very common from the 19th Century to the 50's and even beyond. Even his grand-standing against the US and the rich and defense of the "poor masses" is an old and tired script.