Hugo, please shut up. You're over. You just could NOT leave well enough alone, could you?

[Redstone]

Now you've gone from being a ray of hope to being just another tinpot dictator.

What a disappointment.

Redstone

[Tom Joad]

1. The vast majority of venezuela disagrees with you.

[Codeine]

4. The majority of Americans voted Reagan into office.

Twice. Just because they were the majority didn't mean they didn't have their heads up their asses.

[Tom Joad]

18. and the reagan people agree with you on this. They hate democracy too.

They supported Contras. Overthrew another democratic state.

[Codeine]

21. I hate democracy?

News to me. I just don't dig Chavez -- I'm not advocating his overthrow by the US.

[Tom Joad]

29. Sure do show much disrespect for the people of Venezuela.

the people of Venezuela, because they want to develop their economy differently, they are being vilified by north American people who do have never suffered the poverty these people have. People in North American have also never suffered from US imposed fascism, like Pinochet.

Just a few years ago, the US was sponsoring a coup against the democratically elected govt, with the assistance of this media conglomerate. It lost.

[EFerrari]

33. In my grandfather's day, those station managers would have been

taken out and shot.

But Chavez followed the law, no matter that it took years. And for that he gets vilified. :wtf:

[Redstone]

45. But he stifles dissent nonetheless. Isn't that ALWAYS wrong? I thought it was.

Redstone

[EFerrari]

71. Not really. There are plenty of stations still open that are

owned by the guys that want him gone. This one just happened to be the most active, as far as I can tell, in the coup. And so when their license came up for renewal, he said nope.

Look at it this way. If you were a nutcase dictator, would it take you five years to shut down the guys who tried to take you out?

:shrug:

[donheld]

108. Look at it this way.

If this one just happened to be Fox News, and so when their license came up for renewal, he said nope.







Excuse me while I daydream :)

[EFerrari]

117. . . .

:)

[John Kerry VonErich]

134. Wrong

Fox News is a cable channel, free from goverment tampering, just like CNN, MSNBC, and Free Speech TV. If it was to be taken out, it's up to the cable or satalite providers. So it takes a corperation to take out a corperation.

[barb162]

74. It is. n/t

[EFerrari]

78. But that isn't what is happening here. n/t

[Marr]

104. Dissent? A foreign-funded group participating in an attempted coup is DISSENT?

Give me a break. If that happened here, they'd be in fucking Gitmo.

[H2O Man]

125. Really?

Always? Without exception?

Would you think there are differences between dissent that: {a} advocates change by means of public education and participation in democratic means; and {b} advocates violent change?

I think that the two can and should be recognized as different. I'm not sure that it is "ALWAYS wrong" to stifle dissent.

[EFerrari]

165. It's one thing to dissent. It's quite another to incite violence. n/t

[welshTerrier2]

135. Always wrong? well, no, not ALWAYS

i think you have to look at whether the dissenting is the "voice of the people" or whether the dissenting is an operation of the imperial forces of Big Oil backed up by the CIA ... without even putting any history on the table, let's ask about your statement about whether stifling dissent is ALWAYS wrong. Consider the following "hypothetical":

If the TV station was nothing short of a propaganda operation fully financed and controlled by foreign operatives trying to subjugate the power of the Venezuelan people, would shutting down this "source of dissent" still be wrong?

what's at issue in this situation is the need to determine exactly who is doing the dissenting. Big Oil, the CIA, the BFEE and Bechtel have NO RIGHT TO DISSENT on a Venezuelan TV station.

I've provided some background on these types of operations in this post .... It wouldn't hurt to read about the use of mass media propaganda in "Operation Ajax" either.

It's not possible to fully assess whether what Chavez did was absolutely necessary. Nevertheless, the best place to start any evaluation is with a full understanding of the ugly history of the corrupt international criminals who would think nothing of toppling his government using any means necessary. Given that history, I'm inclined to give Chavez the benefit of the doubt.

[Codeine]

37. My disrespect is

for The Blessed Saint Chavez, not the fine people of Venezuela. Let's not be putting words in people's mouths, shall we?

[EFerrari]

38. So in fact you have no argument but only insults?

Check.

[Codeine]

40. You'll have to try harder than that, kiddo. nt

[EFerrari]

42. Not at all. You have no idea what is going on in Venezuela.

I've done my homework. Let's see, bullshit v. fact.

Now, there's a dilemma.

lol

[Codeine]

46. Yes, I'm sure.

Wiser than us all. We're so stupid. Please teach us, sfexpat2000; teach us your wisdom so that we may grow.

:puke:

[EFerrari]

69. I said no such thing. I said I put in time looking up information

on a subject I didn't know very well.

[Tom Joad]

47. You seemed to be saying they had their heads up their asses

if that is not disrespect, i don't know what is.

[leftofthedial]

196. and nixon twice

[jefferson_dem]

6. The only poll i've seen indicated 2/3 of the public in Venezuela opposed shutting down RCTV.

:shrug:

[LynnTheDem]

102. 1. RCTV was not "shut down", although the bush regime prefers you to

use that phrase.

2. 65% of the people of Venezuela support Hugo Chavez, right now.

3. It's sad when rightwingnuts fail to see the true facts; it's tragic when supposed progressives do likewise.

[Flatulo]

127. Semantics. The outcome is the same.

[LynnTheDem]

138. No actually, it isn't.

Their public license expired.

RCTV is free to broadcast on sattelite & the net.

They're lucky they didn't do in America what they did in Venezuela; they'd be in jail at the very least.

[jhasp]

220. What exactly did they do?

I keep hearing that they incited violence, but have never seen or heard any actual evidence of this. What specifically did they do? Did they tell people to kill Chavez and/or his supporters or did they just support an opposition party?

[Judi Lynn]

225. You'd be doing yourself a favor by taking time out and doing your own homework.

You need to read as much as you can find on the coup. People here do NOT have the time to fill in all the holes you've got in your feeble grasp of what happened in April, 2002.

It took everyone hours and hours and more hours reading then and since then. You need to spend your OWN time doing the same thing.

If you haven't heard things, it does NOT mean it's because they don't exist. That's really short-sighted of you. You get out there and use your own time doing the same thing the rest of us have had to do.

Everything you need to know will NOT be told to you by cable tv news.

[Solo_in_MD]

8. We should trust his vote counting? Pull the other finger

[originalpckelly]

11. As I understand it, they use electronic voting machines.

That's pretty much all that needs to be said. We're dealing with our own crooks who probably damn well did the same thing.

[TahitiNut]

48. An every one of those electronic voting machines produces a voter-verified paper ballot

... that's deposited in a ballot box by the voter. Nearly 55% of those ballots were audited and no discrepancies were found. The machines are stand-alone - not networked until after the balloting is complete. The election was monitored by four international agencies and they found no material irregularities.

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

26. They had a 75% turn out and Mr Chavez didn't count the votes himself.

Why do you guys hate him so much when so many progressives have befriended him?

I guess I just don't get it.

[Azathoth]

238. Saddam got relected with 98% of the vote

Just sayin'.

[Lars39]

2. Must be Friday night.

[Solo_in_MD]

3. I was concerned about this early with him, but am still disheartened that he turned to the dark side

[EFerrari]

13. Then you should be comforted that FAIR agrees with him. n/t

[Solo_in_MD]

15. Why should anyone take FAIR seriously?

[EFerrari]

17. Lol. Okay. Don't be comforted. Your choice.

If CNN did what RCTV did, you and I both know it wouldn't take five years to revoke their license. It would take a day, max.

But, nevermind the facts. Let's just propagate BushCo talking points. Can't hurt.

[LynnTheDem]

103. huh??!

:wow:

[Double T]

5. Power morphs into Absolute Power, then corruption.

What an idiot!

[EFerrari]

118. You know nothing about Chavez or Venezuela, do you?

[Double T]

119. Just because Hugo supports and helps the poor, it does not give him licensce...........

to act like a dictator, which is exactly what he is doing!

[EFerrari]

164. Thank you for illustrating my point. n/t

[Double T]

189. Your comment says nothing.

Why don't you tell me why Chavez isn't acting like a corrupt dictator?

[Judi Lynn]

226. Use your time researching, instead of bumbling around, getting in the road here. n/t

[DianaForRussFeingold]

7. I Agree But,You could say that exact same statement and leave out Hugo

:eyes: please shut up. You're over. You just could NOT leave well enough alone, could you?
Now you've gone from being a ray of hope to being just another tinpot dictator.

What a disappointment.

That would be how most Americans feel about dubya :spray: That would be how most Republican's feel about dubya

[Redstone]

9. Oh, I've said the exact same thing about bushyboy, more than once.

Redstone

[DianaForRussFeingold]

23. I have republican relatives who supported and voted for him

:shrug: and even they want him to just shut up! I hesitate to tell you who they wish would have ran instead of dubya :argh: hint:same poppy

[originalpckelly]

14. Yep, that's exactly it. I think Venezuela and America are going to have strong ties...

we've gone through dictator pains around the same time period, our leaders are a part of the new tyranny.

[DianaForRussFeingold]

44. Senator Feingold warned about tyranny

"even in our great land, wartime has sometimes brought us the greatest tests of our Bill of Rights" Sen. Feingold (D-Wis)http://www.archipelago.org/vol6-2/feingold.htm In an address given October 12, 2001 explained why he, alone among United States Senators, voted against the “U.S.A. Patriot” Act.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Let's Just Hope That Others Here Slowly Start To Wake Up As Well.

I don't just go around saying 'Fuck Chavez' cause I like the way it sounds. :)

[EFerrari]

12. Where is this coming from? He didn't renew a license

to a media conglomerate that committed treason. They're setting up a PBS type station in its place.

How is that a bad thing?

[Tom Joad]

20. For those that remember, a great many Demcrats supported the Contras,

so it is not surprising we get this crap here.

[EFerrari]

24. Although I was involved in the Contra War (trying to get good info out)

I was totally out of touch with US politics. I didn't know that Democrats supported the war on the people of Nicaragua.

[WhiteTara]

72. they didn't n/t

[Flatulo]

25. Did the managers of RCTV actually get charged with and convicted

of treason as defined by Venezuelan law?

Or are you just assuming they're guilty?

[EFerrari]

27. Well, the news manager of the station resigned in protest

lol, and the whole thing was caught on tape.

And you know that because we've have this conversation before.

[Flatulo]

32. LOL! Busted...

I knew about the resignations... I didn't know if he left before charges were filed. Any idea?

I don't see that as an admission of guilt - it could be he was fearing for his own skin.

[EFerrari]

36. You might want to check out his interview on DemocracyNow!

yesterday. I believe they have transcripts and audio files.

www.democracynow.org

[Flatulo]

I read the transcripts on DemocracyNow...

It seems that there were no charges made against any of RCTVs managers or staff. Also, there is no provision in Venezuelan law for a station to appeal the loss of its broadcast license, so it will be permanent unless Chavez relents.

The station manager who resigned did feel that the station was openly supporting the Chavez opposition, but it was not nearly as overt as has been alluded to here. More like the kind of spin you might get on FNC, where they were very selective about the video footage they would show; ie, lots of clips of Chavez supporters shooting into the crowds, but no clips of the coup supporters shooting back, stuff like that.

It gets wierder from there. Chavez is now threatening to shut down Globovision because it broadcast images of the assassination attempt on the Pope, claiming that it was an incitement to kill Chavez.

I still strongly feel that Chavez is going off the deep end and is developing a persecution complex. Things could get ugly there.

[originalpckelly]

52. Yes, before he was just you know, your run of the mill dictator...

now he's making some very wild accusations, and at some point the common sense of Venezuela will say that this guys about as nuts as old Georgie boy thinking he's talked to God.

[bread_and_roses]

139. Just how was or is he a "run of the mill dictator?"

How many times was he elected? Under what monitoring? By what margins?

"Run of the mill dictators" would have had the station staff taken out and shot immediately after reversing the coup.

Instead, these are free to continue to broadcast on cable/satellite. Do some people here not understand the obligations considered standard in use of the public airwaves?

[EFerrari]

67. If you haven't seen the film re the coup, see it when you can.

It's worth the time, imho.

[eridani]

96. Two words

Salvador Allende. Bushco would NEVER do that to Chavez, though. :sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

99. Never! And especially not in Latin America!

:sarcasm:

[originalpckelly]

51. OMG! Don't you have any common sense, at all?

"That clip featured an interview with Andres Izarra, a news manager with RCTV during the 2002 coup. He later quit the station in protest over its coverage. Andres Izarra joins us now from a studio in Caracas. He later served as Venezuela's communications minister under President Chavez and is now president of TeleSUR."

I see Izarra got a better offer, he was a mere "news manager" at RCTV (cough, plant, cough) then he was offered a job as "communications minister" for Chavez. I hardly think that I'm going to trust his opinions on this matter, what was his background before being "news manager"?

Do you really not have any common sense? Can't you see the very large conflict of interest there?

[Judi Lynn]

123. He left immediately after the station refused to cover the news of the coup reversal

It's so unlikely the Chavez government had made arrangements with someone at RCTV while they were trying to get their own administration back up and running.

An offer for a reward for leaving doesn't seem likely. Absurd, actually. Nice try.

[originalpckelly]

34. I'll say it here in this thread, accusation is not proof.

Conviction depends upon due process of law and evidence.

[Codeine]

39. It's not normally proof.

But when the Very Reverend and Blessed Saint Chavez makes the accusation our resident Pavlovian Pups begin their salivations.

Of course, they're wiser than we and can see The Truth; we're just dupes in the thrall of the M$M, dontcha know?

[EFerrari]

41. Sorry, I missed the wit or evidence in this post. Could you reword?

[Codeine]

43. Wit is in the eye of the beholder.

As for "evidence" I see precious little on either side; this is a difference of opinion, a disagreement about motives and outcomes.

[EFerrari]

68. No, wit is in the understanding of the hearer. And there are plenty

of sources that show Chavez was following Venezuelan law in not granting this outlet of the oligarchy that tried to subvert the elected government a renewal.

That's not opinion, that's fact.

You can fantasize all you want and that it your privilege. But you can't change the facts.

[Codeine]

77. I never said it was illegal.

Neither said nor implied. I said it was bullshit and a bad step for him to take. I said it makes him look simultaneously weak and dictatorial. I said it's the mark of a budding strongman.

But, hey -- so long as it's legal, right?

[EFerrari]

79. A mark of a budding strongman?

Miss Cleo, is that you?

[Codeine]

80. I don't follow.

? :shrug:

[hack89]

128. The Patriot Act makes many bad things legal

I don't buy the "Chavez was following Venezuelan law" argument at all. Nearly every dictator can point to a constitution and laws that make his abuses "legal".

[EFerrari]

172. Then, shall we revert to common sense? If a media outlet is

calling for violence -- 'member Rwanda? -- should their license be renewed in the interests of "free speech"?

That's just silly, I'm sorry.

[hack89]

173. Not five years after the fact

and not if they have moderated their stance since. You do realize, don't you that the coup had nothing to with the closure? The official charges against RCTV is obsenity:

"The decision was mine" to close RCTV, Chavez said Saturday, calling its steamy soap operas "a danger for the country, for boys, for girls."

And other stations that supported the coup did not have their licenses suspended:

However, the government renewed the broadcast license for Venevision, RCTV's main competitor, which expired Friday.

Venevision is owned by billionaire Gustavo Cisneros, who dropped his open opposition to Chavez in 2004.

He is clearly doing everything he can to stifle any dissent.

[EFerrari]

174. So, instead of shutting them down immediately when he was back

and having them tossed in jail, you're dissing him for going through legal channels? :crazy:

And you are ignoring the fact that the same (opposition) conglomerate still has several stations still in operation? :crazy:

What color of kool aid do you favor?

[hack89]

176. No - I don't understand what the coup stuff is all about

Do you think that showing racy soap operas is reason to shut down a TV station? It smacks of rationalization of a political decision. If it is such a slam dunk case, why didn't Chavez charge them of involvement with the coup? Why the bull shit obscenity charges?

It seems pretty clear that those TV stations that stopped criticizing St. Hugo were allowed to operate while those that didn't were shut down. What is he scared of?

[Judi Lynn]

180. You owe it to others to enter the conversation with a basic grasp of the subject.

Go ahead and get informed on the circumstances first, the way the more serious DU'ers did.

As you are very well aware, no decision to deny renewal was based on "showing racy soap operas." Don't interject gibberish. Take your time, do the necessary reading to get up to speed.

[Judi Lynn]

228. The official charge? Oh, really? Do you not think any of us can read?

This information, in one form or another has been discussed here repeatedly:

Chavez’s reasons for not renewing the license cite RCTV's participation in the April 2002 coup that briefly ousted Chavez’s democratically elected government, plus the fact that RCTV leads Venezuelan media in infractions of communications laws. RCTV's problems pre-date the Chavez administration, as well. The station has been censured and closed repeatedly by previous presidential administrations. RCTV leads Venezuela in its violation of communications codes, with 652 infractions. This feat would hardly be tolerated in the United States, where the FCC routinely fines and confiscates equipment of stations found to be operating outside the regulatory sphere.That is to say nothing of the participation in the ouster of a sitting president.
(snip)

http://pine-magazine.com/content.php?id=799

[Redstone]

50. What you said.

Redstone

[High Plains]

160. Got anything to add besides insults?

[killbotfactory]

115. No one got convicted of a coup

The reasons why are because of corruption, politics, and the enourmous difficulty of bring people in positions of power to justice. The same reason Bush isn't sitting in a jail cell.

The Supreme Court of Venezuela declared that there was no coup, so no one could be charged. By the time that decision was reveresed, the people charged had fled the country. The lead prosecutor was going to charge 400 more people, but was then assassinated. http://info.interactivist.net/article.pl?sid=04/11/19/1445259

We know RCTV is guilty because their help was instrumental in the coup, and they admitted it on live TV when they believed that had succeeded, as you can see for yourself in the documentary The Revolution will not be Televised. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

[alarimer]

16. I agree with you

I have always been sort of on the fence with Chavez. But I really think this was a huge mistake and an indication of dictatorial tendencies. And I really think it won't be long before he names himself President for life.

[dailykoff]

19. Hey, we bomb papers and networks we don't like, remember?

Give the guy a break. He deserves to run his country without the public airwaves inciting treason, like they already did once.

[EFerrari]

22. Globovision recently suggested that assasinating him

would be a good idea.

[11cents]

60. No, they didn't.

They showed footage of the assassination attempt on John Paul II, as part of a review of historical footage. How, in a Catholic country like Venezuela, could this footage be taken as an incitement to do likewise to Chavez? The Chavez government SAID that Globovision openly called for his assassination. It lied.

Globovision may well be systematically anti-Chavez as well -- probably it is. But the fact that the Chavez regime had to make up this nonsense about the JPII footage speaks for itself. And it's not as if Chavez's character was ever hard to read, for anyone that wasn't willing to put common sense aside for the sake of yet another political infatuation. No matter what good he does along the way, he's going to end up shutting down opposition, rounding up political prisoners, and having people killed. Some day the Venezuelan people will have to drag him out of the presidential palace by his heals. Fucking inevitable.

[EFerrari]

75. Oh for Christ's sake. Why in the world would Globovision bother

to put that piece together if it just referred to a pope? What would be the point? Do you have any idea of how many man hours it takes to produce something like that?



lol

[Dorian Gray]

218. Wasn't it just a clip

of the pope? They'd just have to find some old footage and splice in dialogue over it.

I've seen shows about the assassination attempt on JPII here in the USA, and they didn't have anything to do with inciting violence against any leaders here.

[maddezmom]

98. they did?

I thought they played a clip re: the pope and were playing some song.

[Tom Joad]

30. The people of Venezuela deserve a break. They want him to do this

They will not be dissuaded by upper-class goons.

[Flatulo]

53. Actually a majority there wants the suspension rescinded, as do

the EU, UN and others. Gee, if he ignores world opinion, he'd be acting like... US!

[eridani]

97. The majority of people polled by telephone in 1936--

--supported Landon over FDR. Who did they ask?

[EFerrari]

162. Source? n/t

[burrowowl]

28. Go here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1024022

[Rex]

31. Not so sure.

Not really sure he has made it to dictator status. We shall see.

[EFerrari]

35. This is a BushCo meme. He's messing with their oil.

And sure, things could still go wrong. (They always can, right?)

But, to date he's done nothing that merits the label. I'd like to see him and Venezuela succeed but I won't sit here and try to cover for him if he missteps.

But, please, let's not swallow the propaganda hook, line AND sinker.

[Redstone]

49. Shutting down the opposition's voice is ALWAYS dictatorial.

Always. You've been around the block enough times to know that.

And enough of throwing the word "treason" around, please. Freedom of the Press is NOT "treason." Not even in Saint Hugo's Land.

Redstone

[Codeine]

54. I'm waiting for the word "terrorist" to pop up.

That's when we'll know we're completely through the looking glass.

[barb162]

76. Yes, and now he's working on getting rid of this second station

The guy obviously cannot handle any criticism of his regime.

[EFerrari]

161. That second station also is owned by the corporatists and it

called for violent revolution.

Geezus on a trailer hitch. Our whore media couldn't even handle PHIL DONAHUE in the run up to the war. Can you imagine what would happen if Keith Olbermann called for violent revolt? He'd be off the air and on a CIA flight to Syria.

Really, think about it.

[WhiteTara]

81. let's talk Rwanda

before you say that. The hate monger radio station owners/hosts spewed violence and hatred and civil unrest. The owner also brought in machete's and the radio station stayed on the air and told the Hutus to kill their neighbors.

Just saying

[John Q. Citizen]

83. Yes, not allowing Fox to broadcast debates is dictatorial. Any candidate who suggest that should be

dropped like a rock!

[EFerrari]

95. You still don't get it.

The elite in Venezuela own the teevee stations.

They hate this indian who is in office. He's dark and smart and not in their pocket.

They tried to get him gone and they lost that one. And under their law, that was treason.

This has nothing to do with freedom of the press but everything to do with democracy.

If the people vote you in, the elites don't get to use the public airwaves to take you out. Period.

[Marr]

111. Nonsense. You're talking about a god damned attempted COUP.

I honestly don't see how you're managing to ignore that point. Backing a coup is not being "an opposing voice", it's treason. If CNN started pushing for the violent overthrow of the government tomorrow, the damned station would be shut down and the people in charge would be looking at jail time- and rightly so.

[Codeine]

170. Chavez coup good.

Anti-Chavez coup treason.

:eyes:

[Marr]

188. What are you talking about?

He's been elected twice. Let's try to stay somewhere in the vicinity of reality.

[Codeine]

191. Sure, he absolutely was.

But he also once headed a coup to seize power by force, a fact that many seem to gloss over. Is that enough to condemn the man? Probably not, but it doesn't help me trust him, either.

[Rex]

56. He might just end up becoming the next strong arm leader

in Latin America and it won't be because he did it intentionally. He shutdown a radio station and that will be played on for awhile by the BFEE. The propaganda alone will be played on by everyone who has an agenda to get rid of Hugo.

Remember, these people are in the business of making military monsters.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. IMO, we're awfully concerned about Chavez in the United States for no good reason

From an academic standpoint I think that his economic policies are going to run the country into the ground. But that's Venezuela's problem and that's for them to deal with.

Chavez is not a threat to national security and therefore we need to just let Venezuela solve its own problems.

[originalpckelly]

57. I agree with you, but it's not just about Venezuela. It is the fact that people...

in the United States unquestioningly support this man. I can only tell you how I feel about that. It worries me deeply. It makes me wonder if these people might support someone who masquerades as a democrat just to get into power, then acts like a dictator.

It's kind of frightening to see people be so whacked out on Chavez juice.

[Flatulo]

63. Dude, you just nailed it... that's exactly what I've been thinking.

I'm trying very hard to understand why some folks here seem so intent on overlooking Chavez' flaws.

If Chavez passes their sniff tests, then I'm terrified at what they could justify for our next tyrant-in-waiting.

[John Q. Citizen]

89. I guess you should just stay away from Venezuela. Sounds like it's not for you...

[Hippo_Tron]

65. Some people also blindly attack him without understanding the situation

The issue isn't black and white and there are those on both sides who try to make it black and white.

[John Q. Citizen]

85. It's none of our business, but that never stopped us before.....

[LynnTheDem]

105. The fact that people who are progressives are yet again falling

for the US "media" spinning without even bothering to factcheck.

I would have thought the spinning of Iraq would have taught at least 70% of Americans (the only people on the planet who thought Iraq did 911) a lesson on that.

But nope. People just keep on drinking that good ol' "Chavez = dictator" koolaid!

[Codeine]

171. Yep, that's all we're doing.

Drinking the KoolAid. We're too dumb to look at the facts and make up our own minds, and besides -- everybody knows if we disagree with you we've made a badwrong decision.

Do you not understand that thinking people can have differing opinions about this guy's motives? Is it really too difficult for you to accept that distrusting Chavez does not equal lemming-like acceptance of CIA propaganda?

Do you really believe that the DU Chavez Boosters are that much smarter than those of us who don't trust him?

[nam78_two]

182. No kidding-lots of dictators and assholes in power all over the world

and we froth ourselves into tizzy here over Chavez. I actually have no particular opinion on Chavez because I just don't know enough about Venezuela or Chavez. Also I don't know enough about his stance on environmental issues.

But apparently if you don't consider Chavez as next to Cheney you are some person who is madly in love with Chavez :shrug:. I just don't get why we obsess about him so much and even while I haven't really been following the Chavez situation very closely, it does appear that the poor people in SA like him a lot and that is certainly a helluva lot better than being loved by a pack of sleazy corporations the way Bu*h and Cheney are (at the very least). It is just absurd to argue that he is red version of Bush. It isn't worshipping Chavez to find some of the criticism of him insanely over the top. He is a "red" version of Bush? Give me a break.

[DRoseDARs]

58. It just boggles the mind how many people here want to give Chavez a proper rimming...

He shits chocolate, dontchaknow? He only wants to be a absolute dictator so he can bring ooey-gooey brown goodness to the children of Venezuela.

Just because someone's popular with the people doesn't mean that's a good thing.

[tavalon]

59. Oh, please

That man was never, ever so black and white. The enemy of our enemy is not totally our friend. It's a gray shaded world, friend, get over it.

[Hippo_Tron]

62. Thank you, tavalon

Good to know that at least one other person here doesn't see this issue as black and white.

[Lost-in-FL]

61. Dictatorships, cause they are not just for Latin Americans anymore.

Why do we Americans see the speck that is in other countries eyes, but do not notice the log that is in your own eyes? :dilemma:

I will start calling Chavez a dictator once we Americans start calling Bush one also.

We all know Bush is a dictator why don't we call it like it is? What is it that Americans cannot believe that there's a great possibility that Bush is our first dictator?
:shrug:

Really, there's people more dangerous than Chavez. To me he is just an annoyance.

[Flatulo]

64. No one here will argue with you that Bush is a disaster...

We're talking about Chavez though. He's a saint here to many, but others see him as a predator masquerading as a house pet.

[Lost-in-FL]

66. Chavez vs Bush

One likes to see his picture posted on every international newspapers and the other likes to dress up. One is much more dangerous world peace than the other. I see people feel very strongly about Chavez both positive and negative but I feel strongly indifferent about him. :hi:

[barb162]

70. Bravo, Redstone!

I just call him a two-bit dictator.

:hi:

[John Q. Citizen]

90. Om my god! You didn't vote for him did you? Who did you vote for?

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Flatulo]

121. Where's my fishing pole?

C'mon, you've pulled out the exact same rascist red herring with me.

Do you think it is possible for someone to disagree with you and *not* be a rascist/homophobe/idiot/BushBot?

It's a shame you resort to this, because you seem very bright and well-informed.

[Cleita]

73. I'm sure he's crying uncontrollably about what any American

thinks about him. Get a life and attack those who are a real threat to you, like our present and dangerously crazy resident in the White House and his incompetent sychophants.

[knowledgeispwr]

82. So...

since we have Bush we can't have opinions on other leaders/situations?

I don't know if that's what you're trying to say, but too many people on DU hinder potentially good discussions by throwing in how bad things are here as if they negate what else is going on in the world or takes away our right to have opinions on it.

[Cleita]

86. Yes, but DU seems to be focusing on Venezuela, which is

actually becoming an economically viable country. There are so many countries in the world where people are living in hell and no one is talking about it because none of the astroturfers are throwing things up here for us to get us all upset about. So let's talk about Haiti instead. Haiti? Say what? You want to talk about a country run by tinpot dictators, start there.

On edit: a link about the present president of Haiti
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Pr%C3%A9val

Since he is fairly new on the scene he seems to have the support of the poor and is forging ties with Venezuela and Cuba, but not to worry, Haiti has no oil so you will never hear anything about them.

[knowledgeispwr]

151. I don't understand...

Sure, we can talk about Haiti, but we can talk about Venezuela as well. It is in the news, rightly or wrongly. I do not think people trying to talk about Venezuela should have to be attacked and have their discussions diverted to other subjects because some people feel other places/nations are worse.

[Cleita]

154. I for one am not attacking anyone but I am trying to explain my

view of this and I get attacked in return. Americans are very manipulated in many ways by media, by advertising, by church leaders, by politicians and I'm trying to point out that this is what is going on. An unusual amount of astroturf is being spread about Venezuela and Chavez because he has defied American hegemony there and the disenfranchised rich people of Venezuela, who have lost their power to him, are helping to do this with the backing of America. My point is that equal time is not being given to other countries with worse governments, just this one.

[John Q. Citizen]

91. Unemployment is down, poverty is down, South American Unitiy is up,

the rest of South America invites him to visit often, they are forming regional ties, so what's the big big problem?

Do you not like brown world leaders? Prefer the white guys be on camera?

What's the deal?

[Flatulo]

124. Ah, the race card is finally shown.

Do you think it is possible that any of the folks here who disagree with you on this issue are not rascists?

[Bucky]

136. What a racist thing to say!

And if you dispute that, you're a sexist warmonger, too!

[John Q. Citizen]

149. Ok, so it's not that you don't like brown leaders. Is it you like higher poverty rates?

Higher unemployment rates? South America fragmented and dependant on the US?

You may notice you didn't answer my question. Instead you just side stepped the question.

[knowledgeispwr]

152. Unfair

Unfair to bring race into it. That's a weak argument and diverts the topic. Not that it should matter, but I'm black.

[John Q. Citizen]

158. It's only a weak argument if you don't know much about ethnicity, class,

and power in South America.

Th bulk of my post wasn't about skin pigment, it was an attempt to find out why a few posters here feel the need to lead a jihad against the elected leader of a soveriegn country, to vilify that leader and to attanpt to discredit that leader.

Neither you nor they are willing to discuss that aspect, the main aspect of my post.

[Flatulo]

178. Sorry, I thought it was clear. If not, let me make it so...

Those of us who oppose Chavez do so because we believe that he is a tyrant, and before his story is finished he will, like all tyrants, begin killing those who disagree with him.

We oppose tyrants, even though they may feed and clothe their poor, and transfer wealth from the rich to the poor. We oppose tyrants who provide universal health care, education and participation in the country's wealth.

We oppose tyrants because they are tyrants.

[John Q. Citizen]

214. Yet what is your criteria for a tyrant? Anyone who doesn't renew a license?

Because that's what it sounds like.

If a people of their own free will keep returning a leader to power through the ballot box, is that leader a tyrant because you don't like their leader?

You are predicting the future here, apparently. And mind reading also. Based on what?

[Flatulo]

215. Yes, it is all speculation. But it seems to me to fit a pattern that

we've seen before.

Most tyrants *were* worshipped by their own people before the poop hit the fan.

As you note, as long as the folks there keep returning him to power, it's none of our business, but politics is fun. That's why we're all here.

[John Q. Citizen]

222. Politics are fun. What do you think of the election rigging down in Mexico?

Should the US invade and insure fair and above board elections?

Or should we just exert economic pressure and crank up the public denounciations to help the Mexican people drive their tyrant from power?

[Flatulo]

229. Are those my only two choices?

I think Mexico should be left to solve their own problems.

I do not believe in interfering in the affairs of other sovereign nations.

If you scratch me, there is a Libertarian underneath.

[John Q. Citizen]

230. No, there are many choices, many more than I posted or could possible post.

Do you support ending the US governments economic boycott of Cuba? I do.

I'm a social libertarian and an economic socialist/mixed market person.

It's pretty obvious to me that pure socialism and pure capitalism don't work very well.

I oppose the privatization of clearly societal functions, such as the criminal justice system, the military, and critical utilities/infrastructure (I'm not talking cable here) I believe that in certain cases free enterprise works better and in other cases democratic socialism works better.

For instance, I support single payer fee for service universal health care. It blends the socialistic concept of insurance, with the free enterprise concept of private doctors, hospitals, drug companies, medical supply companies, and patient choice of provider.

i also believe that any government mandated insurance (such as auto liability) should be offered through a single payer government run insurance pool. Pay at the pump would be the easiest, and most efficient way to go. If one has gas in their gas tank, they by definition are covered for basic liability. Problem drivers should be handled though licensing/ticketing/criminal justice instead of through insurance premium penalties.

I'm for combining the best aspects of socialism with the best aspects of capitalism and for minimizing the worst aspects of socialism and the worst aspects of capitalism.

I'm also in favor of a Democratic Republic as opposed to an Empire (what we have now) or a pure democracy, something we've have never had or attempted.

[Flatulo]

234. It's a little scary how much we agree...

> Do you support ending the US governments economic boycott of Cuba? I do.

Absolutely. Makes no sense at all. Besides, I really would like to get my hands on some of those Cuban Partagas cigars. The Dominicans just can't quite get the recipe right.

Seriously, I believe in free but fair trade, as in, the other guy has to do more than take our wealth and send us $29 DVD players and poisened pet food, ala China. We should give trade preferences to nations who pay their citizens a living wage, based on the local market, and honor accepted environmental regulations. It will cost the American consumer more, but in the long run we'll have a healthier economy with a strong middle class. Plus, without regulation, resources get exhausted and the environment gets trashed. I want my kids to be able to enjoy some of the bounty of this land.

> I'm a social libertarian and an economic socialist/mixed market person.

I'd have to agree on the first part. I am very strongly pro-choice, and favor equal rights, and I mean every right, for all citizens regardless of ... anything. Over the years I have moderated my Libertarian hands-off market approach because it simply does not seem to work well in real life. Too much wealth accumulates into little clusters. The best ideas do not get to market because of monopolies. The middle class is being eradicated as jobs flow to the far east in search of ever cheaper shit that we don't need in the first place.

> It's pretty obvious to me that pure socialism and pure capitalism don't work very well.

Agreed again. The European welfare state model has produced unemployment rates and tax burdens that would be unpalatable here. I think France hovers around 20%, and at 50% for young workers. I believe that if you are physically and mentally able to work and work is available, you should not be guaranteed too comfortable an existence courtesy of other taxpayers. I believe in a social safety net, but not free everything for life for the able.

> I oppose the privatization of clearly societal functions, such as the criminal justice system, the
> military, and critical utilities/infrastructure (I'm not talking cable here) I believe that in certain
> cases free enterprise works better and in other cases democratic socialism works better.

> For instance, I support single payer fee for service universal health care. It blends the socialistic
> concept of insurance, with the free enterprise concept of private doctors, hospitals, drug companies,
> medical supply companies, and patient choice of provider.

No argument here. All other considerations aside, it is almost certain to just be less expensive.

> i also believe that any government mandated insurance (such as auto liability) should be offered through a
> single payer government run insurance pool. Pay at the pump would be the easiest, and most efficient way to
> go. If one has gas in their gas tank, they by definition are covered for basic liability. Problem drivers
> should be handled though licensing/ticketing/criminal justice instead of through insurance premium
> penalties.

All good ideas.

> I'm for combining the best aspects of socialism with the best aspects of capitalism and for minimizing the > worst aspects of socialism and the worst aspects of capitalism.

> I'm also in favor of a Democratic Republic as opposed to an Empire (what we have now) or a pure democracy,
> something we've have never had or attempted.

There is a danger of a direct participatory democracy, called Tyranny of the Majority. I am not aware of any direct democracies. There would have to be very strong constitutional protections.


Re: empire - the US has a military presence in 129 countries at last count. That is completely unacceptable. There are geostrategic places where it can be argued that a military presence is needed to prevent crazy people from blowing up resources that the industrial world needs to survive, but really, should we still be in Japan, Germany and Korea?

Thanks for the detailed reply.

[slipslidingaway]

84. Bush Over A Barrel

Inside Latin America Chavez's Venezuela: Bush Over A Barrel

Greg Palast

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1022812

[BlueIris]

87. (tiny voice) I love you, Redstone.

[Redstone]

207. Thanks, BI. Tiny voice or not, you're still a peach.

Redstone

[Bake]

88. I started to comment, but I think I'll sit this one out.

Bake

[Bucky]

92. I never saw him as a ray of hope. He's always been a baby Castro.

He does a few things right--his health service delivery to the poor is pretty commendable. But he's also been driving off the country's middle class. Houston is littered with Venezuelan ex-pats: engineers, computer geeks, doctors. They all have a one word answer about why they left: Chavez.

I remember some DUers defending him when he had his sock puppet Congress vote him extraordinary rule-by-fiat powers this spring. I said "uh-oh" but the chorus here all said "Go, Hugo!" People who don't respect the democratic process should never be trusted. In my opinion, "Hugo" is a Venezuelan word meaning "Dubya".


.

[eridani]

100. The ones that decided to stay are profiting from the fastest growing economy in Latin America

--with the private sector growing much faster than the public sector.

[EFerrari]

107. What crap.

[John Q. Citizen]

150. yep, the reactionary corporitists are in a tizzy. For that alone, I like Hugo!

[EFerrari]

169. Yes! There is a secondary gain when he finds a new way

to out their bloodsucking programs. It's very satisfying. :evilgrin:

[alcibiades_mystery]

93. Another installment of Redstone's View of The World, ladies and gentleman

Remember that the 10 o'clock show is always different from the 8 o'clock show.

He'll be here all week!

[LynnTheDem]

109. LOL!

:D

[Redstone]

184. Thank you so much for your contribution.

Redstone

[alcibiades_mystery]

190. Keep the hits coming

I suggest next week you wax indignant over Ultimate Fighting or some such. The moral outrage! Maybe some trade deal with Madagascar? Be all huffy and puffy, or it's not so comical.

[Redstone]

192. Thank you so much for your contribution.

Redstone

[alcibiades_mystery]

193. Cat gotcha tongue?

Second thoughts?

:rofl:

[Redstone]

194. Thank you so much for your contribution.

Redstone

[alcibiades_mystery]

195. LOL

No edit this time, eh?

Stick to it, chief.

[Redstone]

197. Thank you so much for your contribution.

Redstone

[alcibiades_mystery]

198. You're welcome

[Redstone]

200. Thank you so much for your contribution.

Redstone

[alcibiades_mystery]

201. You're welcome

[Redstone]

202. So you've finally figured that I'm not rising to your bait. That's good.

Redstone

[alcibiades_mystery]

203. Thank you so much for your contribution

:rofl:

[Redstone]

204. Did I mention "not rising to your bait?" You can stalk and harass me as much as you want to, but our

interaction is over as of now.

Not to mention your obsession.

Redstone

[alcibiades_mystery]

205. So I get the last word? Yay

I will spend the next hour trying to determine the level of douchebaggery necessary to sign one's name to each and every Internet posting.

Cheers,
alcibiades_mystery

[K8-EEE]

94. I'm honestly more worried about the Mexican people than the Venezuelans

Worst, most corrupt serfdom is our Good Neighbor to the south -- I don't understand why the US constantly fawns all over that government and obsesses on Hugo Chavez (OK, yes I do, it depends not on the rights, liberty, or quality of life of the people but on how much of a cut BushCo and other US elitists are getting from the government.)

People get so pissed at Mexicans for fleeing here but the fact of the matter is, you and I would do the same thing. People there have no rights, no chance at education, no unions, minimum wage etc etc., in other words, they are fleeing what the Republicans want to do to all of us (including politicized justice!)

[Redstone]

199. Excellent point. The Economist (magazine) had a special report on that

a few months back. It's nto a good situation.

Redstone

[John Q. Citizen]

224. the Mexicans clearly live under tyrany. Elections are fake, the media is

controlled through assasinations, bombings of presses, and confications of print runs.

Opposition activists are routinely murdered or jailed under false pretenses. That's truly and clearly a dictatorial and oppresive system, yet I rarely see anyone, least of all the Chavez detractors, post about it.

[LynnTheDem]

101. How sad you must be, that 65% of the people of Venezuela support Hugo.

Democracy sure sucks, huh.

[Flatulo]

126. That's a selective figure. 70% oppose the closing of RCTV.

[LynnTheDem]

137. Fact; Hugo Chavez' approval rating is at 65%.

[Flatulo]

141. His *overall* approval rating. On this issue, he is opposed by an

even larger majority.

But that's OK. As long as the people are getting their teeth cleaned for free, who cares how Chavez deals with his opposition and cements his power?

[LynnTheDem]

144. Well DAMN that nChavez for following his country's laws!

Overthrow that dictator immediately! The 80% poor of Venezuela don't need clean teeth or healthcare or food or shelter anyways and fuck the majority who give him an overall approval rating of 67%!

But that's oki, we can do a Haiti on him and reinstall that rightwing Perez!

[Flatulo]

210. What does this reply have to do with the fact that a majority of

Venezuelans disapprove of the move to not renew the license of RCTV?

I did not propose that we overthrow Chavez. Do you think I advocate that? I emphatically do not.

Lynn, you're capable of a much better response than an angry rebuttal to a comment that I did not make.

[LynnTheDem]

211. In a poll conducted by Datanalisis, almost 70 percent of Venezuelans polled opposed the shut-down,

but most cited the loss of their favorite soap operas rather than concerns about limits on freedom of expression.
http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSN2723008820070528?pageNumber=1

And a majority of Venezuelans support the president they elected.

Fact is, if any public station had done in America what RCTV did in Venezuela, they'd not just have their license not renewed. RCTV incited violence; people did die; and they took part in an illegal overthrowing of a democratically elected government.

RCTV can broadcast on cable & satellite in Venezuela. They can't broadcast over public airewaves any longer; they lost that privilege for their own illegal actions.

[Flatulo]

212. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

It's kind of sad that the reason for the opposition to the closing was the loss of a soap opera.

On the other hand, I can imaging lynch mobs in the streets if American Idol were taken off the air.

[John Q. Citizen]

227. Hunter S Thompson did a piece on if Football were precluded due to

terrorism along those lines.

[eridani]

183. 70% of which people in Venezuela?

According to a 1936 telephone poll, Landon was going to win over FDR in a landslide. How many of the poorer 80% did they ask?

[Flatulo]

206. I don't know. Do you? Have you run statistical validity tests on the polls you cite?

[eridani]

213. Election results are better than polls, especially in a country where-

--there are PAPER ballots, and 55% of them are counted as an election audit.

[Flatulo]

216. Is it then your contention that a majority of Venezuelans there

support Chavez on *every* issue, just because he was elected?

Will you be sceptical of any poll that shows Chavez to be on the wrong side of an issue, just because he was elected?

With all due respect, that reasoning makes no sense to me. You seem to be making the contention that no poll could ever show Chavez to be on the losing side of any issue. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[eridani]

235. In the case of countries where 20% of the affluent population--

--regards the other 80% as disposable human garbage, it is important to ask pollsters who they talk to.

[Flatulo]

239. Point taken. Still, I do not know the demographics involved.

[nonconformist]

236. Bush used to have an even greater approval rate.... nt

[EFerrari]

110. You know what I really don't get, Redstone?

Chavez represents the indigenous people of Venezuela getting a leg up. The elites hate him for that. He's an indio, not a white guy.

Between that and him denying BushCo their oil, I'd think you'd be on his side or at least, a little more skeptical of how our whore media paints him.

[LynnTheDem]

112. At one time, the majority of DUers thought Iraq did 911.

Some still do.

Most will come round to the real facts, including the fact that the US media is once again carrying bush-bullshit regarding Chavez; some just take much longer. Much much much much much longer.

:D

[EFerrari]

113. DU thought Iraq did 9/11?

Now you're just messing with me.

[LynnTheDem]

114. Yeppers.

Nope, not messing wit'cha.

Sad, huh.

[EFerrari]

116. How the hell could a country we BOMBED and SANCTIONED

and STARVED for all those years -- oh, never mind.
.
Hugo may go wrong. But he hasn't yet and he pisses off Junior every day just by living.

I like that. :evilgrin:

[knowledgeispwr]

153. What I don't get....

is how some DUers automatically assume that Chavez must have a good reason for doing whatever he does because he's leftist, "on our side," representing the poor or whatever. Or, they seem to use the good that Chavez has done as an excuse for whatever else he might do.

Doing good things or being on the same ideological side shouldn't be a free pass.

Like others have expressed before, some of the sentiment expressed regarding Chavez is worrisome, because it causes me to fear that some on DU would accept a dictator in the USA just as long as he had the right socio-political ideology.

[EFerrari]

156. I don't assume anything. I READ. And I don't believe everything

put out by the Authorized Propaganda.

Chavez is not a dictator. His election was 'way more legitimate than Junior's. Should he ever become a dictator, the people of Venezuela will take care of him -- unless the United States intervenes and disrupts their democratic process.

If there is democracy at all in Latin America it is in spite of the the United States, not because of the United States.

[Redstone]

185. That says that I'm honest; I don't judge people by skin color, negatively OR positively.

Redstone

[The Backlash Cometh]

120. Would it be fair to say that the news channel that was not renewed,

was like having Fox News, without the pretense of being fair and balanced?

[camero]

122. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh

One plutocrat loving TV station fails to get thier license renewed and all of a sudden the world's ending. Oh and non-renewal of a public license doesn't mean it's a human rights violation. I guess you would say the same about the gov't pulling the driver's license of a drunk driver since thier "right" to drive could be construed as "freedom" of association?

Airways are public property and if the broadcaster wants to yell fire in a crowded theater, it's failed in its responsibility of free speech.

[Matsubara]

129. Why? Because he shut down a right-wing CIA front "TV Station"?

Big whoop.

And even if he was a dictator, a dictator that serves the many is better than one who serves the few...

[JNelson6563]

130. Good talking points

Maybe they should be added to those listed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1022812

Nice compilation of how Team Bush did there best to help the right wing coup in Venezuela.

I often wonder how many DUers are actually Faux viewers.....

Julie

[Flatulo]

132. I watch Fox News Channel.

I also watch CNN, MSNBC, Bloomberg and the major news newworks. I am not afraid that what they have to say will harm my brain somehow.

Do you realize that many here on DU have made comments that would have gotten this site sut down in Venezuela?

I've seen many, many comments here advocating that Bush be dragged out of the WH by federal marshalls and arrested. If Bushco shut down DU for fomenting an insurrection, would you defend him as vigorously as Chavez is being defended?

[OilemFirchen]

142. Chavez is shutting down the Internets too?

Man o man.

Let's try this:

If a dictatorial strongman - say, oh, I don't know, Hugo Chavez - were to buy G.E. and devote a considerable amount of time advocating the violent overthrow of the, erh, Obama presidency on its broadcast network, resulting in a cadre of wingnuts doing such, including kidnapping the president, then refuse to report that said president was safely back in power, do you think that some years hence, on their license renewal anniversary, the FCC should let 'em slide?

[Flatulo]

143. To answer the question - no.

But implicit in your hypothetical situation is the assumption that things went down exactly as you describe. In reading the accounts of the RCTV station manager who resigned in protest, it seems that the incitement was much more subtle - what we would call 'spin' here.

[OilemFirchen]

146. There's honest(ish) disagreement about that

But the Ministry of Telecommunication and Information Technology, like our FCC, is not a court. They are, as it relates to this action, a licensing agency. They rely on a myriad of information to determine the qualifications of a licensee, from testimonial evidence to simple hearsay. The MTIT, IIRC, issued a 300+ page report along with their determination, so, while some here might write that off as ex-post propaganda, they, at least, felt justified.

That's their (and our) licensing system and, while potentially replete with problems, it's simply not dictatorial, nor speech-quashing.

[EFerrari]

167. Phil Donahue. Dan Rather. Peter Arnet. Greg Palast.

McClatchy. Helen sent to the back of the bus. Al Jazeera bombed. Twice.

Chavez has nothing on BushCo for "stifling dissent".

[Flatulo]

177. I'm pretty sure armed US troops were not present at Dan Rather's

retirement party. Nor were they at Phil Donahue's or Arnett's.

Palast was questioned, but not arrested, by DHS for taking pictures of an oil terminal.

And the rumors of Al-Jazeera's bombing have been greatly exagerated.

Armed Venezuelan troops were present to make sure the 'non-license renewal' went smoothly.

You tell me which goverment used the heavy hand.

[EFerrari]

187. Like the ones present at Junior's inaugural to make sure

the protestors in the cages didn't get out of hand?

Oh, please.

[Flatulo]

208. Did we change the subject again? Sorry, I can't keep up.

Here I thought that you were implying that Donahue, Rather, Thomas and others had had force used against them to shut them up. I must have misunderstood. Last time I checked all these folks you mentioned were happily prattling away about... whatever.

[stillcool]

133. Too many...

lately...it seems there's been an up-tick in Faux devotees. I don't think they number that many..they just post alot of reactionary tripe...getting the attention they so yearn. Ignore is working over-time.

[burythehatchet]

147. Many more than one might imagine

remember there is a keyboard batallion that is paid to disrupt liberal sites.

[FreepFryer]

131. Bush and Chavez are ideological opposites engaged in the same program.

Bush and Chavez are both engaged in a game of 'Constitutional Hardball', in which they make every possible effort to reconstruct the government and social institutions in a way that (they hope) secures a permanent future for their ideology. It's 'constitutional hardball' because it's a 'winner-take-all' game - as arch-conservative Grover Norquist once said, "The Democrats are playing for lunch, we're playing for keeps". Left-wing or Right-wing, the game is the same. Both men are advancing their ideology without reinforcing their party position and are actively seeking to reform national institutions to favor their ideology through extreme and at times, extra-legal means.

After 30 years of relative party equilibrium in Venezuela collapsed into unprecedented anti-party sentiment, Hugo Chavez Frias won the presidential election campaigning on a platform of constitutional and social reform. After a landslide victory, he made good on his promise by calling a constitutional assembly and instituting a series of fundamental reforms that drastically transformed the political and social landscape of Venezuela. Chavez' reforms touched all areas of Venezuelan society, including the existing political party system. The effects of his movement’s reforms upon existing party structures have been deep and lasting, and while his popular support remains strong, it has yet to translate into institutionalization for even his own party. Even Chavez’ MVR party has seen its influence dwindle as the populist President has encouraged an ongoing collectivization of local political bodies in place of prior party dominance. From governors to regional mayors, Venezuelan politicians have had to contend with a new political environment in which the accumulated distrust of the political parties has itself been institutionalized.

Similarly, in the United States since taking office in the year 2000, Republican President George W. Bush has instituted a series of authoritarian reforms intended to consolidate power at every level of government. In this case, the Republican Party has facilitated a shifting of conservative coalition groups within its ranks, in favor of neo-conservative and those on the ‘Religious Right’. From agencies like the Department of Justice to FEMA, IRS to DOJ, the executive has systematically placed great power in the hands of ‘loyal Bushies’ – unquestioning ideological adherents – with little if any apparent concern for the qualifications, competence or non-partisan objectivity those positions have historically required. The damage done by the politicization of these government structures by the use of ‘constitutional hardball’ tactics on a myriad issues has greatly facilitated conservative goals, transforming the society into a decidedly authoritarian model amidst record public disapproval. The result has been a serious dilution of the effectiveness and public perception of government institutions (including the political parties themselves) in favor of an unfettered unitary executive and a rapid institutionalization of the neoconservative ideology.

In short, I believe the reason we care so much in this nation about what Chavez is doing in his nation is because the parallels with the United States are so profound - even despite the diametric opposition between their ideologies. THe reason the conservative American administration so excoriates Chavez is because he illustrates how the methodology of 'constitutional hardball' can be used to recapture political power from upper-class corporate elites and to establish a populist movement in its place. This opposite application of 'Constitutional Hardball' to achieve populist ends is what has the authoritarian Bush administration terrified.

Given the nature of democracy (rule by the people) I'm FAR more concerned about the actions of our own neo-conservative president than the perceived (and so far largely undemonstrated) claims of excesses by Chavez' populist movement.

However, I believe it's true that in both nations, it may not end soon - but it will end badly.

[Flatulo]

140. Excellent post. I agree that on balance, Chavez poses no threat

to anyone, except possibly those who oppose him. What is troubling is that lots of folks here cannot see that he is using the same tactics to consolidate his power that Bushco is using.

Either that, or they *can* see it, but look the other way because they are aligned with his political agenda.

[doggyboy]

175. I don't think they use the same tactics

at least, not as far as I can tell. What I see is Chavez using tactics that are LEGAL, albeit undesireable in a true democracy. bush has no concern for the law.

There's a huge difference there. It doesn't excuse Chavez, but there's no comparison between the tactics the two uses

[FreepFryer]

233. Needless to say, I disagree 100%. But I do respect your opinion.

I've intentionally omitted any possible mention of 'illegal' actions, and have tried to limit my scope to the 'legal' or 'extra-legal' activities of each administration - when I compare those, they do indeed appear parallel and identical to me.

Whether constitutional precedents are challenged via Constitutional Assembly and displacement of local party power bases (as in Venezuela) or via the re-interpretation of prior constitutional precedent and introduction of fundamental legislation like USA PATRIOT and MCA (as in the United States), the game is the same... continually, decisively (and ostensibly permanently) 'moving the goalposts'.

[EFerrari]

157. Well, I think a lot of people are very uncomfortable with the way

Chavez thumbs his nose at BushCo and at American hegemony. For some reason that is cultural, we don't seem to allow much sunlight between ourselves as a people and the administration in power -- unlike the Brits, for example. Maybe we are burdened with a peculiar kind of immature nationalism that disallows criticism by outsiders?

I am more optimistic than you seem to be about Venezuela and about Latin America in general. There is a wave of progressivism flowing all over it right now -- they have vastly benefited from American inattention (read: lack of meddling) and I hope that trend continues.

[FreepFryer]

231. I'm not pessimistic 'per se', I see it as a balance of parliamentarianism and presidentialism.

What fascinates me most is the risk not that the current administration of a unitary presidentialist nation is dangerous (because that differs based on whether you ask someone on the right or left sides of the range), but the risk that one or more unchecked political agendas (and the wrenching transitions within and between them) writ large can permanently destroy the representative nature of a democracy.

Obviously, the trend towards progressivism in Latin America has caused some degree of response from the currently-neoconservative America, and that response is continuingly unlikely to be positive - as in the case of former Reagan administration members and Iran/Contra convicts Elliot Abrams and Otto Reich's involvement in the 2-day coup of 2002. :)

Also, I think your point about being reactionary to external criticism is very astute. Americans do indeed have a peculiar and bipolar reaction to external criticism... and while we tend to respond sharply to even the most subtle of jibes or critique, in this age of domestic dominance of entertainment over news our response is most often to simply ignore it completely.

[rustydad]

179. "Strongman"

I read more than post to DU but this subject has me pissed so here goes. I agree with you FF. But let me ask why most of the posters here seem to think that *democracy American style* is so god damned good? Democracy where 1/4 of the people, maybe less, vote in the winner is good? Democracy where there a many more lobyists in Washington than elected officials is good? Democracy when all MSM outlets are in the hands of a handful of mega corporations is good? Democracy where the un-elected president and his handlers can lie straight out to the people over and over and get away with it is good? Democracy where the courts are being converted by rupugs into courts of the far right is good? I could go on and on. Democracy is far more alive in Venezuela than in the US.

And the truth of the matter is that Venezuela, like the US now, was in desperate times with a very small ubber rich part of society sitting on the backs of the poor. Chavez knows that to overcome that he must rule with a forceful hand. He was elected to perform a difficult makeover of society that will redistribute wealth and make a lot of wealthy people furious. He was elected on a pledge to do things that may not always be popular with even all the people that elected him. Change, even good change, can cause disention. So is he a *strongman*? Perhaps in the good sense of the word. He is certainly no wimpman as in bush. But is he a dictator? If and when he cancels an election or overturns one as bush has done twice will I consider him a dictator.

Now looking to the US, we face a host of super serious problems. We are facing a meltdown of our economy with debt reaching astronomical amounts. We have a completely broken health care system. Our schools are falling behind with no hope for improvement (no child left behind is a complete scam). Medicare and Social Security are doomed. We are at world Peak Oil and Peak Natural Gas in the US. Climate Change is going to require massive measures to keep coastal cities and infrastructure from being flooded as sea level rises. Much of the breadbasket of the country is going into a permanent dustbowl state. I could go on and on. So look at the candidates both Dem and Rep. What are they talking about? Just the normal bullshit. Smiley faces all. My point dear DUers is that sometimes a nation is so screwed it needs a *strongman*. The last effective strongman president we have had was FDR. After him JFK was looking like another and that got him killed. RFK might have become a peoples strongman so he was killed.

It is very likely that Chavez will be killed. I hope that if he is all you DUers that are so concerned about the loss of a license for a propaganda belching TV station will have pause to reconsider. With a strong and determined President Venezuela may prosper. It has the resources to do so. The US without a strong reformist President is doomed. And the only candidate that comes close to understanding the troubles the US faces is Ron Paul and he is no strong-man. That is he is weak and the media is making sure of that. So America, hang on to your *democracy* like an umbrella as we free fall off the cliff. Bob

[burythehatchet]

145. ROCK ON HUGO! ROCK ON! You are an inspiration

to us who are stuck under the pResidency of a tinpot dictator.

[gobblechops]

148. you

Guys seem to watch to much cable news,not renewing a license when it expires for a network that was pro coup(this is well documented)does not =dictator. he was elected based on a constitutional reform platform,what he is doing is what they voted for.

hes not locking people up even when they wish him dead,hes not killing his people in fact he is taking care of the poor,he is giving his peoples resources back from the corporate whores who stole them through the rightwing U.S backed governments of old

he recently got rid of the idea of the enemy's list that had been a part of Venezuelan politics long before chavez,only reason anyone gives a damn about chavez is because he fucked over some american corporations and pat robertson in the best interest of his people,he is a populist after all.

there are 1000s of leaders in this world that are way worse then chavez including Brush.
is chavez perfect?nope would his politics work in america?no freaking way, is he doing good for his people? damn right he is,you guys forget what it was like before chavez.

hes not perfect and has a long way to go,but the man is one of the better leaders in this world.

If faux news was for a coup in the Clinton Whitehouse you can bet Republicans would take to the street and rupert would be all over the tv saying its a violation of free speech when the network got shut down for breaking the law.

[EFerrari]

163. Welcome to DU, gobblechops.

:)

[Poll_Blind]

155. FLASH: Uppity American thinks he knows what's best for another country!

  They elected him, they returned him to power when the CIA-backed coup removed him. They voted him back into power. Their elected officials agreed to allow him to implement the reforms which are part of his Bolivarian Revolution.

  But you know better. You know what's best for them. The implication, and maybe you should just come out and say it, is that them poor Venezuelans have been hoodwinked cause....cause....cause maybe they just ain't as smart as we are.

  The American knows best, eh? How's that working for ya? How's that working for America?

PB

[EFerrari]

168. . . . .

:thumbsup:

[Flatulo]

181. Great, another mind-reader....

I should make a macro so I don't have to keep typing this over and over...

I am not threatened by Chavez. The Venezuelans have certainly spoken loudly and clearly. I do not care what happens to Venezuela or any of her citizens. What they do down there is none of my business, none at all. I don't know or care how smart or dumb or rich or poor they are. If they want to elect Elmer Fudd as their leader, I could not possibly care less. This is not a case of American arrogance, or exceptionalism, or what have you.

What I am afraid of is Americans who will not only look the other way when a politician, *any* politician, moves forcefully (with armed troops, as Hugo did) to silence the opposition, but actually cheer it on.

If you can excuse it over there, I wonder what you'd excuse over here, as long as the ideology is correct?

And to those who keep bringing up BushCo's malfeasances - please, you're preaching to the choir. You don't need to compare one bully's behavior to another's to observe that it is wrong.

Looking at Hugo's move objectively, and without the benefit of a Bush yardstick, the whole world (the EU and the UN), in addition to an overwhelming majority of those Venezuelans whom you seem to think I am trying to control, disapprove of the closing of RCTV.

[Redstone]

209. FLASH: I don't watch television. I read newspapers. FLASH: This is a place where people

post opinions. FLASH: I can have positive opinions about Chavez (about which I've posted in the past), and negative opinions about some of the things he's done as well.

FLASH: That's the way the world works. Nobody's perfect. And when a politician is less that perfect, we can point that out.

Redstone

[Skidmore]

159. Suppose you could manage to work yourself up into a lather over our own

garden variety dictator and his henchmen here? And, do something about it?

Hugo Chavez is not our problem. * and Cheney are.

[EFerrari]

166. But BushCo needs some popular support when he tries to kill

Chavez or at least, tries to oust him. Because Chavez is screwing with our control of resources in Latin America bigtime.

We have to protect BushCo at all costs, er, or something. :shrug:

[Redstone]

186. Haven't read any of my posts about bush, have you? I can't have an opinion about Chavez?

Redstone

[Skidmore]

219. What the heck does Chavez have to do with our nation right now.

I'm not up for a godless-communists-are-going-to-take-over-the-world scare to add to the crazy-islamists-are-trying-to-kill-you campaign. Frankly, we need to quit meddling in the affairs of other nations. If we desire that others honor our sovereignty as a nation, then we should respect the sovereignty of other nation states. Venezuelans are perfectly capable of sorting out their own affairs and do not need us to referee, especially when we can't seem to figure out our own. Sorry. Have your opinion, just don't expect every one to have the same level of concern.

Personally, I think the hue and cry regarding Venezuela has less to do with the state of their civil affairs and more to do with how many barrels of oil we would like to have control over. And that is another topic I have no interest in promoting as well. It is time to find other ways to power our world.

[camero]

223. nah, it's changed again as always

Now it's the crazy-liberation theologists are out to destroy our way of life. The way of life being on the backs of the poor and destitute.

[Selatius]

237. You can have an opinion, but Venezuelans would often tell you to stop butting into their business.

Here, you're simply preaching to the choir.

[Dorian Gray]

217. What was the feather that broke the camel's back for you?

[rustydad]

221. OK Redstone

Read this and then maybe you might think about getting off of your high horse. Bob

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/01/1607/

Published on Friday, June 1, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction

by Robert W. McChesney & Mark Weisbrot

To read and view the U.S. news media over the past week, there is an episode of grand tyranny unfolding, one repugnant to all who cherish democratic freedoms. The Venezuelan government under “strongman” Hugo Chavez refused to renew the 20-year broadcast license for RCTV, because that medium had the temerity to be critical of his regime. It is a familiar story.

And in this case it is wrong.

Regrettably, the US media coverage of Venezuela’s RCTV controversy says more about the deficiencies of our own news media that it does about Venezuela. It demonstrates again, as with the invasion of Iraq, how our news media are far too willing to carry water for Washington than to ascertain and report the truth of the matter.

Here are some of the facts and some of the context that the media have omitted or buried:

1. All nations license radio and TV stations because the airwaves can only accommodate a small number of broadcasters, far fewer than the number who would like to have the privilege to broadcast. In democratic nations the license is given for a specific term, subject to renewal. In the United States it is eight years; in Venezuela it is 20 years.

2. Venezuela is a constitutional republic. Chavez has won landslide victories that would be the envy of almost any elected leader in the world, in internationally monitored elections.

3. The vast majority of Venezuela’s media are not only in private hands, they are constitutionally protected, uncensored, and dominated by the opposition. RCTV’s owners can expand their cable and satellite programming, or take their capital and launch a print empire forthwith. Aggressive unqualified political dissent is alive and well in the Venezuelan mainstream media, in a manner few other democratic nations have ever known, including our own.

Now consider the specific facts of RCTV as it applied to have its broadcast license renewed.

The media here report that President Chavez “accuses RCTV of having supported a coup” against him. This is a common means of distorting the news: a fact is reported as accusation, and then attributed to a source that the press has done everything to discredit. In fact, RCTV - along with other broadcast news outlets - played such a leading role in the April 2002 military coup against Venezuela’s democratically elected government, that it is often described as “the world’s first media coup.”

In the prelude to the coup, RCTV helped mobilize people to the streets against the government, and used false reporting to justify the coup. One of their most infamous and effective falsifications was to mix footage of pro-Chavez people firing pistols from an overpass in Caracas with gory scenes of demonstrators being shot and killed. This created the impression that the pro-Chavez gunmen actually shot these people, when in fact the victims were nowhere near them. These falsified but horrifying images were repeated incessantly, and served as a major justification for the coup.

RCTV then banned any pro-government reporting during the coup. When Chavez returned to office, this too was blacked out of the news. Later the same year, RCTV once again made all-day-long appeals to Venezuelans to help topple the government during a crippling national oil strike.

If RCTV were broadcasting in the United States, its license would have been revoked years ago. In fact its owners would likely have been tried for criminal offenses, including treason.

RCTV’s broadcast frequency has been turned over to a new national public access channel that promises to provide programming from thousands of independent producers. It is an effort to let millions of Venezuelans who have never had a viable chance to participate in the media do so, without government censorship.

The Bush Administration opposes the Chavez government for reasons that have nothing to do with democracy, or else there would be a long list of governments for us to subvert or overthrow before it would get close to targeting Venezuela. Regrettably, our press coverage has done little to shed light on that subject.

Our news media should learn the lesson of Iraq and regard our own government’s claims with the same skepticism they properly apply to foreign leaders. Then Americans might begin to get a more accurate picture of the world, and be able to effectively participate in our foreign policy.

Robert W. McChesney is a professor of communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. (www.cepr.net).

[Forkboy]

232. I wish people could criticize Chavez without their dick doing the talking.

Those who do so are worth listening to on the subject...