President Hugo Chavez gets powers to remake Venezuela

This does not give Chavez the ability to enact legislation without the assembly. The assembly can block any "decree" at any time during the legislation process.
No, the legislation enabling these powers is so broad that it gives Chavez the power to rule as a de facto dictator.
 
Like I expected.

This does not give Chavez the ability to enact legislation without the assembly. The assembly can block any "decree" at any time during the legislation process.

The hand picked assembly that is made up of 100% Chavez's party members. That deck is preaty stacked. Can you say ruber stamp? Lets not get into political prisioners or disent stifeled by Hugo's gones that partake in such democratic pricipels like shuting down media outlets that don't praise the government and its leader.
 
No, the legislation enabling these powers is so broad that it gives Chavez the power to rule as a de facto dictator.

Why must you lie? The legislation is such that the assembly can block any decree at any time, or revoke these powers altogether.

Essentially, they're very similar to such legislative powers many presidents have around the world, ie. American presidents and their fast track powers.
 
The hand picked assembly that is made up of 100% Chavez's party members. That deck is preaty stacked. Can you say ruber stamp? Lets not get into political prisioners or disent stifeled by Hugo's gones that partake in such democratic pricipels like shuting down media outlets that don't praise the government and its leader.

Huh? He has 116 of 160 seats in the national assembly. Having an elected majority is against no democratic principle or international law that I'm aware of. Perhaps you could show me the section of the UN charter that says that no governing party is permitted to possess a majority in it's nation's assembly?

And you know nothing. Shutting down media outlets? Yeah, if a radio station in the land of the free and home of the brave was advocating violent destruction of the government, you'd bet it would be shut down too except without all the neoconservatives whining about it.
 
Huh? He has 116 of 160 seats in the national assembly. Having an elected majority is against no democratic principle or international law that I'm aware of. Perhaps you could show me the section of the UN charter that says that no governing party is permitted to possess a majority in it's nation's assembly?

And you know nothing. Shutting down media outlets? Yeah, if a radio station in the land of the free and home of the brave was advocating violent destruction of the government, you'd bet it would be shut down too except without all the neoconservatives whining about it.

Spin it all you want.I notice you don't and cant refute the truth so try to twist it. Show me in the UN charter...bla....bla....bla

I know much. Like political prisoners and disent beeing ruthlessly crushed is par the couse in Hugoville.
 
This gives me a great idea. Let's give President Bush similar powers in the United States. It would improve national security, healthcare, etc...



Spoiler :
NOT!
 
No, the legislation enabling these powers is so broad that it gives Chavez the power to rule as a de facto dictator.

The president is supposed to respect the will of the people.
 
Spin it all you want.I notice you don't and cant refute the truth so try to twist it. Show me in the UN charter...bla....bla....bla

I know much. Like political prisoners and disent beeing ruthlessly crushed is par the couse in Hugoville.

You said that he controlled "100%" of the assembly. He doesn't. His party has 116 seats, a majority. That isn't spin, that isn't twist. For a decade the Liberal Party of Canada had a majority in that country's parliamnet. I don't know how you can call simply number spin. Could you elaborate on that?

And of course, citing proof to back up your claims is beneath you.
 
You said that he controlled "100%" of the assembly. He doesn't. His party has 116 seats, a majority. That isn't spin, that isn't twist. For a decade the Liberal Party of Canada had a majority in that country's parliamnet. I don't know how you can call simply number spin. Could you elaborate on that?

And of course, citing proof to back up your claims is beneath you.


So I was wrong he only controls 70+%


Whats beneath me is continued debating with a boy who talks about NK as a modle nation. Good by you are the weakest link.

Read up on political prisoners.
http://infovenezuela.org/cap5_en_7.htm
http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200403020624
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3571383.stm
http://proveo.org/political_prisoners_venezuela.pdf
http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2006/12/more-venezuelan-political-prisoners.html


Read up on shut down the press.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6215815.stm
http://www.narconews.com/Issue30/article808.html


Why don't you go back to telling us how great North Korea is.
 
I know I'm gonna get hit with Godwin's Law, but this is exactly how the Nazis rose to power in Germany. First, Hitler tried a revolution (Chavez tried a coup), but it didn't work. Then Hitler went the legal, political route, which is what Chavez did by him getting elected. Then both men got friendly majorities in the Legislatures and passed laws granted "emergency powers" to Hitler, and in the case of Chavez, "rule by decree". Now, I'm not saying Chavez is gonna invade all of South America and start a genocide, but he's definitely going to be a dictator and won't surrender power till he's dead or the Venezuelans fight back.
 
They will follow the Soviet Union's lead and tank.
 
Suddenly the smell of sulfur is drifting over here.
 
Ihe's definitely going to be a dictator and won't surrender power till he's dead or the Venezuelans fight back.

Are you wilfully blind or what? I wrote, and you can easily check it up for yourself, that this is not the first enabling law passed, Chavez had had one passed in 2000, and that didn't stop him from submitting to a referendum and elections again.

@skadistic:
I read:
"These detentions gave rise to cases in which some officers went beyond the legitimate use of force," he said in the report, citing seven cases of torture and 17 of "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment".

Human rights groups said detainees were subjected to severe beatings, burnings, electric shocks and mock executions.

and I thought it was a news piece about routine practices by US soldiers in Guantanamo or Iraq… but then:

But he also criticised the opposition leaders, accusing them of "instigating violence" and saying that the troops had been fired on by protesters.

This, along with his claim that none of the detainees could be considered political prisoners because they had been disrupting public order, has angered the opposition.

I understood it couldn't be that, these ones might really be at least guilty of violent acts, unlike some people imprisoned and tortured at the US administration's orders.

Many media outlets, including RCTV, supported a bungled coup in 2002 and a devastating general strike in 2003 that failed to unseat the president.

The press freedom campaign group, Reporters Without Borders, said the proposed move would be a grave violation of freedom of expression in Venezuela.

Tell me, what would happen to a US television network that supported any failed coup that attempted to overthrow the democratically elected president, legislative bodies and supreme court of the US? Chavez was actually very tolerant with these guys.
 
Wich is why people who elected him in the first place, knowing the man and his obvious intentions, should have known what type of person they were putting in power. It's their problem now.
Thanks for the lesson though. :rolleyes: :p

Sorry If I was a bit rude.
 
You should be happy Chavez is remaking Venezuela, he is doing a pretty good job, he just ins't going far enough.

You're kidding, right?

Where's your anti-authoritarianism? Out the window when a self-proclaimed socialist gets in office?
 
Venezuela is officially a dictatorship.
 
Top Bottom