Nope! No dictator here! Nothing to see! Move along!

[RedRalph]

Public television is the closest/only thing we have, and that rails against the government every day - no-one get's banned by the government there. It's policies are determined by its board of directors. And no, political events paid for by political parties with political donations (not taxes) are not the same thing.

and in Venezuela the majority of TV stations are privately owned, anti govt (to the point of calling for its overthrow, and sometimes actually participating in a coup) and legal. Even the one that was "shut down" wasnt shut down it all. It no longer broadcasts except on Cable. Like HBO

 

[Ecofarm]

State owned stadiums... terrifying alright. they have them all over Europe. dont lose too much sleep over the idea

Does your head-of-state decide who is allowed to play there? Or is it run like a private business where individuals must pay to utilize the facilities under equal-opportunity laws?

There's a difference, no matter how much you would like fake laughter to obscure those differences.

 

[Ecofarm]

and in Venezuela the majority of TV stations are privately owned, anti govt (to the point of calling for its overthrow, and sometimes actually participating in a coup) and legal. Even the one that was "shut down" wasnt shut down it all. It no longer broadcasts except on Cable. Like HBO

And what percentage of Venezuelans have cable TV? Less than 30%.

 

[FredLC]

Bearing in mind the points I made in my first post, how is he a dictator?

- Chavez is democratically elected, true; So was Hitler. Thing is that he is obviously using a prevalence in power to perpetuate himself, while it is a trait of democracy that power should be held only temporarily. While this does not invalidate the fact he was elected (and I never disputed he was), it indeed draws criticism as a subversion of democracy.

- While most nations have laws of national security (In Brazil, for example, it is a crime to pursuit the breaking of the Federal Union), this applies for politically aiming (backing canditates with this agenda, for example) those goals, not for merely speaking them up as ideas. Simply exposing them should be covered by a free speech clause. And while I can see this ideas banished from a state-backed by public power, any nation that revokes the license of a private self-sustained station just because it does not like the station's political ideals is, IMHO, imposing political censorship, what is again a trait of dictators (same goes for expelling people, specially citizens).

- I would not support a coup (power vacuum) in Venezuela by any means; It does not alter the fact that Chavez is abusing his position though. Not one tiny bit.

- How well a government does in fueling economy has nothing to do with oit being politically free or not. Take Pinochet for example.

- Again, I never disputed that Chavez is not guilty of a debauchery of Venezuela's system (except that he is pushing for amendments that allow for consecutive re-elections; should this be approved, it should apply only for the next president, not for the one in charge), and this is kind of a "white coup", even if the term is alarmist.

- Many of Chavez critics are as bad as him, in the other spectrum. There is no lack of criticism towards Bush and the neocon bozos, or towards deceased Pat Robertson, though, are there? Again, the facts that his enemies aren't saints do not excuse Chavez's sins.

I think people on Venezuela backs Chavez at their own peril, as he is clearly subverting the democracy in the country. However, you are right, it seems to be the will of people. Hence, obviously, attempts at coups, US or UN invasions, or whatnot, would all be terribly wrong. What can I say about this, except that I hope people there will come to their senses before the suggestions that he deserves to be taken by force start becoming lucid criticism instead of political drivel.

Regards .

 

[RedRalph]

-I think people on Venezuela backs Chavez at their own peril, as he is clearly subverting the democracy in the country. However, you are right, it seems to be the will of people. Hence, obviously, attempts at coups, US or UN invasions, or whatnot, would all be terribly wrong. What can I say about this, except that I hope people there will come to their senses before the suggestions that he deserves to be taken by force start becoming lucid criticism instead of political drivel.

Regards .

how can you subvert democracy by enacting the will of the people? Its a contradiction in terms????

the govt here could easily ban performers. Wasnt Marilynn Manson banned by certain ststes from playing in Privately owned venues in America?

 

[Ecofarm]

Do I hear calls for a ground invasion?

"Vene, this is armchair, over."
"Armchair, this is Vene, over."
"We are a go for ground invasion, out".

Woohoo!

 

[Stapel]

Does your head-of-state decide who is allowed to play there? Or is it run like a private business where individuals must pay to utilize the facilities under equal-opportunity laws?

There's a difference, no matter how much you would like fake laughter to obscure those differences.

Though I agree with you here, Ecofarm, some nuancation is missing.

Most governments, in most democratic nations, actually can prohibit artists from performing in a stadium (totally regardlees of who owns the place), without the use of a court. If the government thinks the show is a danger for the nation, a lot is possible. Of course, this a rarely used method in properly functioning democracies.

For the rest, Chavez is an idiot and I trust the Venezolan people will vote him away, once they see he hasn't a solution either.

However, the earlier conservative right wing governments haven' t exactly propelled Free Economy either. Fact is that the oil money has never been used to feed the economy. Socialism is not the soultion (it never is), but one can't blame the people to vote against earlier failure.

 

[RedRalph]

For the rest, Chavez is an idiot and I trust the Venezolan people will vote him away, once they see he hasn't a solution either.
.

Well obviously the majority of the poeple there think he does have a solution, or else they wouldnt be voting him in. how is it that you can predict the future of Venezuela better than the Venezuelan electorate? you are entitiled to your views but obviously most people in Venezuela feel he is the best man for the job

 

[Stapel]

Well obviously the majority of the poeple there think he does have a solution, or else they wouldnt be voting him in. how is it that you can predict the future of Venezuela better than the Venezuelan electorate? you are entitiled to your views but obviously most people in Venezuela feel he is the best man for the job

I'm not so sure the Venezolans think he has the solution. My point is that others have tried and failed and now the Venezolans have opted for a different concept. So, it's not at all that obvious the majority of the people think he does have the answer.

The run to the far-left is simply a logical reaction to the failure of the conservative right.

 

[RedRalph]

I'm not so sure the Venezolans think he has the solution. My point is that others have tried and failed and now the Venezolans have opted for a different concept. So, it's not at all that obvious the majority of the people think he does have the answer.

The run to the far-left is simply a logical reaction to the failure of the conservative right.

Again with the false logic... "if I dont like a guy, he was only elected cause theres nothing better." In actual fact, Chavez has an enormously enthusiastic grass roots political movement going, MVR. the people liked him so much, they voted him back in EIGHT times. They liked him so much about 1m of them marched on Miraflores when he was deposed. the people who vote for him call themselves chavezistas. Hradly the behaviour of people who only settle for a politician because theres nothign better going. I dont think John Kerry would have got that type of support had he won 04, when he would have genuinely been elected only because the other guy was worse.

 

[FredLC]

how can you subvert democracy by enacting the will of the people? Its a contradiction in terms????

the govt here could easily ban performers. Wasnt Marilynn Manson banned by certain ststes from playing in Privately owned venues in America?

Wrong things can happen in the US too, just to make it clear.

Two - as I said, Hitler was elected democratically. A person in power using that power to slowly and surely get more power, until a point where he is unchallenged and untouchable, is subverting democracy, specially because mostly the people who vote don't have much of an ample political vision, and won't see it coming. Remember the criticism ogf the patriotic act? Chavez is doing much worse: Imagine Bush managing other four consecutive terms as president?

You can subvert democracy 'democratically" when you use your democratically attained power in order to make sure that your remaining in power will be less and less dependent of the will of people in the future.

Regards .

 

[RedRalph]

Wrong things can happen in the US too, just to make it clear.

Two - as I said, Hitler was elected democratically. A person in power using that power to slowly and surely get more power, until a point where he is unchallenged and untouchable, is subverting democracy, specially because mostly the people who vote don't have much of an ample political vision, and won't see it coming. Remember the criticism ogf the patriotic act? Chavez is doing much worse: Imagine Bush managing other four consecutive terms as president?

You can subvert democracy 'democratically" when you use your democratically attained power in order to make sure that your remaining in power will be less and less dependent of the will of people in the future.

Regards .

so whats the solution? If the people arent making the right choice? well I think we know the answer to that, we saw what happens with Hamas. the whole point of democracy is to reflect the will of the electorate, if there are free and fair elections than surely the person the majority want as leader being elected is flawless democracy? if chavez had declared himself president for life, that'd be one thing. but he hasnt. there seems to me to be more elections/referendums in Venezuela than anywhere else. If he keeps winning, then democracy is working

 

[FredLC]

Again with the false logic... "if I dont like a guy, he was only elected cause theres nothing better." In actual fact, Chavez has an enormously enthusiastic grass roots political movement going, MVR. the people liked him so much, they voted him back in EIGHT times. They liked him so much about 1m of them marched on Miraflores when he was deposed. the people who vote for him call themselves chavezistas. Hradly the behaviour of people who only settle for a politician because theres nothign better going. I dont think John Kerry would have got that type of support had he won 04, when he would have genuinely been elected only because the other guy was worse.

In Brazil there was a march pro military government of the 64 Coup d'etat. The "March of the housewifes, with God, against Socialism", if you can believe in this cheesy name.

Thing is, politicis tend to polarize people. I wonder just how sizeable is the opposition.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

so whats the solution? If the people arent making the right choice? well I think we know the answer to that, we saw what happens with Hamas. the whole point of democracy is to reflect the will of the electorate, if there are free and fair elections than surely the person the majority want as leader being elected is flawless democracy? if chavez had declared himself president for life, that'd be one thing. but he hasnt. there seems to me to be more elections/referendums in Venezuela than anywhere else. If he keeps winning, then democracy is working

Perhaps he is saving the dismissal of legitimacy for when he looses popular support; in the meantime, it's useful to parade how the people love him. But he is certainly gaining momentum towards the capacity to dismiss the necessity of public support.

Nevertheless, did you see what I proposed as solution? Just the hope that Venezuela come to it's senses. I certainly don't support any kind of military or political action against him, out of utter respect for the will of the people of Venezuela.

Regards .

 

[RedRalph]

In Brazil there was a march pro military government of the 64 Coup d'etat. The "March of the housewifes, with God, against Socialism", if you can believe in this cheesy name.

Thing is, politicis tend to polarize people. I wonder just how sizeable is the opposition.

Regards .

a march, yeah, but thats very different from a fair and free elction being won. the opposition appears to constitue around 35% of the population.

Man if I was Brazilian or Venezuelan, I wouldnt be able to stop myself drooling over the women long enough to give flying fcuk about politics

 

[FredLC]

Sure, but it shows just that the march when he was deposed don't mean anything.

Just to exemplify: I don't have a tiny bit of sympathy for current Brazilian government, that I see as incompetent and corrupt. However, should anyone try to depose it by coup (call it power vacuum or not), I would gladly march against such action side by side with government enthusiasts, as a coup is ALWAYS a bad, wrong and dangerous thing.

That does not mean I think things are great as they are now.

Regards .

 

[RedRalph]

Sure, but it shows just that the march when he was deposed don't mean anything.

Just to exemplify: I don't have a tiny bit of sympathy for current Brazilian government, that I see as incompetent and corrupt. However, should anyone try to depose it by coup (call it power vacuum or not), I would gladly march against such action side by side with government enthusiasts, as a coup is ALWAYS a bad, wrong and dangerous thing.

That does not mean I think things are great as they are now.

Regards .

OK, thats a fair point. But I believe (I know I cant prove) most of the people marched to have Chavez and MVR reinstated, not in protest at the assault on the institutions

 

[Stapel]

Again with the false logic... "if I dont like a guy, he was only elected cause theres nothing better." In actual fact, Chavez has an enormously enthusiastic grass roots political movement going, MVR. the people liked him so much, they voted him back in EIGHT times. They liked him so much about 1m of them marched on Miraflores when he was deposed. the people who vote for him call themselves chavezistas. Hradly the behaviour of people who only settle for a politician because theres nothign better going. I dont think John Kerry would have got that type of support had he won 04, when he would have genuinely been elected only because the other guy was worse.

Well, some Venezolans might think he has the answer. However, I'm quite sure he hasn't and one day he will be voted away.

 

[skadistic]

Well, some Venezolans might think he has the answer. However, I'm quite sure he hasn't and one day he will be voted away.

Voted away? Thats if they are still allowed to vote when that time comes.I don't see a power mad dictator who has slowly given himself more and more power giving it up when that time comes.

 

[RedRalph]

Voted away? Thats if they are still allowed to vote when that time comes.I don't see a power mad dictator who has slowly given himself more and more power giving it up when that time comes.

Actually I dont see anyone who fits that description having a second, never mind third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eight referendum on his rule. but you just dream whatever fantasy you like, facts clearly have no place in your POV anyway