If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Hugo Chavez: "If the people elect someone whom I don't agree with, I will send tanks to preserve the REAL will of the people". Wait.... what?   (uk.reuters.com) divider line 359
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

21434 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Nov 2008 at 9:44 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



359 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-11-11 01:26:23 AM
Radioactive Ass: that_other_internet: No allegations, no innuendo, just direct evidence.

So speaketh the Troofer...


...

fanbladesaresharp: that_other_internet:

maq0r is about as representative of Venezuelans as any right/left-wing American farker is representative of Americans.

How long are Americans going to be afraid of the big Red boogeyman? Almost entirely ingorant of the history of violence and destruction of the right-wing in latin america, while ul ...

This coming from a guy that doesn't have two nuts to rub together. Show your face sucka.


Mmmhmm.

All interesting points, if somewhat completely off-topic.
 
2008-11-11 01:31:32 AM
@that_other_internet

you claim you want "No allegations, no innuendo, just direct evidence."

but yet you previously claim (with no supporting evidence) - "Half a century of assassinations and coups followed by dictatorial imposition of right-wing free market ideology" and "When the US has removed democratically elected leaders in the past from Latin American countries, it has been against the will of the public and in favor of corporate interests."

how about you provide some proof to back up your statements?

The basis of this story was that Chavez was gonna send out the tanks if an election he wanted didn't go his way. Gee, sounds an awful lot like like Hitler or any other dictator of your choosing.

So why don't you back up your statements and prove how the people who are extremely scared of Chavez and his abuses of power are wrong here?
 
2008-11-11 01:31:50 AM
Radioactive Ass: that_other_internet: No allegations, no innuendo, just direct evidence.

So speaketh the Troofer...


Oh, you're welcome to post any thread where you might have debated with me if you think it displays any tendency of mine towards unrealistic assumptions. Go ahead and post a link to the entire thread...I'm quite happy to share past debates and if you think that I've displayed unreasonable views, then you can prove it by posting the link so that everyone can see whether I've been nutty or not.

Feel free to make and prove your point.
 
2008-11-11 01:32:11 AM
that_other_internet: Radioactive Ass: that_other_internet: No allegations, no innuendo, just direct evidence.

So speaketh the Troofer...

...

fanbladesaresharp: that_other_internet:

maq0r is about as representative of Venezuelans as any right/left-wing American farker is representative of Americans.

How long are Americans going to be afraid of the big Red boogeyman? Almost entirely ingorant of the history of violence and destruction of the right-wing in latin america, while ul ...

This coming from a guy that doesn't have two nuts to rub together. Show your face sucka.

Mmmhmm.

All interesting points, if somewhat completely off-topic.


Actually not really. You're the one that want's to get off topic. Clean it up or GTFO.
 
2008-11-11 01:36:46 AM
Begoggle: pedobearapproved: keiverarrow: You see why America is great? We overthrew our unjust, unconstitutionally behaved leadership without killing one of them.. Hugo may not be so lucky.

This is a notice, from now on all you Bush conspiracy people are going to be instantly marked as tin foil hatters.

this includes:
Bush rigged the election in 2000 and 2004
blood for oil
haliburton started the war
"Bush planned on suspending the election so he can remain in power"
"Bin Laden's 'bin' caught and will 'laden' out for political purposes in Oct, surprise!"
Bush acted in a way that no other president has and it violates the constitution

you are currently one step above the stupidity that is:
the "what are they putting into the water system that lets rainbows happen" lady
con-trails are government mind control agents being put into the air
Bush caused Katrina
9/11 was an inside job
and calling people "sheeple" because you feel enlightenment brought about by hours of internet research from nut job blogs and opinions from completely biased sources

Nice non sequitur.
keiverarrow said nothing like what you're talking about.
So don't you look foolish?


*Buzz!*
but thanks for playing

www.spscriptorium.com

you should try phonics monkey, it might help
 
2008-11-11 01:41:09 AM
onebadgungan: This was addressed in many other Prop 8 threads, but in case you missed it, the right is to marry who one wishes, as long as they are available, of age, and agree to marry you. Gays want to marry other gays. They (currently) cannot. Therefore they do NOT have the same rights.

And nobody has that right, straight or gay. There are limitations that everyone has such as, as you put it "polygamy, bigamy, pedophilia, etc" and I'll include same sex because you didn't.

I cannot marry a man, a child of any sex, two women at the same time or a donkey. Neither can anyone else. A gay man or woman has the exact same rights as I do.

Until the law requires that a marriage must have love, sex and co-habitation then just drop it and change the law at the federal level that says that a civil union and a marriage are the same as far as rights and benefits are concerned. Easy fix and just about everyone gets what they want. The bigots will fight it but they will lose. Then the fight can go to every state allowing civil unions in all states. This is where it belongs.
 
2008-11-11 01:41:46 AM
Are Sean Penn, Cindy Sheehan, and Danny Glover still in bed with this retard?
 
2008-11-11 01:43:05 AM
Man On Pink Corner: Do you not understand the risks of unbridled democracy, and why we don't have one here in the US?

Civil rights are not a matter subject to popular vote. (Unless you're a slackjawed Bible thumper


Sounds like you're a slackjawed pillowbiter to me.

(See, everyone can insult each other, it's fun!)

Sorry man. America doesn't want to make the gay lifestyle mainstream. Clearly most Americans think it is abhorrent and antithetical to family values. You are free to disagree. But we're not talking about skin color, or height, or weight, or age, or sex. We're talking about actions and behaviors. You are welcome to say that it's genetically pre-programmed, but even if you are correct, so are many other behaviors that society finds abhorrent.

Since the first marriage in recorded history, it has ALWAYS meant between male and female. You want to change that, and having a different opinion is your right in a nation that allows freedom of speech. But if the majority of the rest of the world doesn't want to change that, well, too farking bad.

Everyone can find a law that or tradition in ANY nation they feel is unjust. I can think of dozens that I think are completely unfair. But at least in a democracy, we have the freedom to complain about it, and the freedom to vote when we disagree. Your complaint about "unbridled democracy" is ridiculous. Go find yourself some bridled democracy, and see where that gets you. You think things are unfair in America? Try living somewhere else.
 
2008-11-11 01:48:52 AM
that_other_internet: Feel free to make and prove your point.

Meh. I have you marked as a truther. If I'm wrong please forgive me. Of course if I did then you're a troll in 9/11 threads and you are just as bad but for different reasons.

No I don't mark threads but for the sake of clarity I'll ask you one yes or no question:

Do you honestly think that there was U.S. government involvement in planning or executing the events of 9/11/01? If so why and what's your evidence for it?
 
2008-11-11 01:50:09 AM
Dr. McDrinky: but yet you previously claim (with no supporting evidence) - "Half a century of assassinations and coups followed by dictatorial imposition of right-wing free market ideology" and "When the US has removed democratically elected leaders in the past from Latin American countries, it has been against the will of the public and in favor of corporate interests."

What standard of evidence is acceptable?

FOIA documents from the CIA ok? Let's establish this first. Generally when I post documents, there's a portion of Americans who deny that even FOIA documents are indicative of wrongdoing.

These are the Chilean Coup CIA documents hosted on the National Security Archive.

Latin America CIA documents. There's a tendency towards disbelief because what it shared in these documents (by the CIA) is so incongruent with what the average perception of American foreign policy seems to be. These documents have only been released in their entirety in the past decade or so, so many history books may not have been updated.

Pay attention to the KUBARK manual documents. It's essentially a torture training manual. Used to train local security forces on how to deal with "terrorists".

Here is Nuncas Mas (new window), findings from a commission's investigations into the torture and oppression of union workers and left-wing ideologists in Brazil.

Is that enough, or is it my job to prove that it happened in every country in Latin America? I can't do that. It was widespread. The evidence is not hard to find and it would be faster for you to google the rest for yourself than to ask me to spoon feed it all.

I've presented the strongest pieces that I can find. There is more information, but I think you can find it on your own.
 
2008-11-11 01:51:15 AM
 
2008-11-11 01:52:31 AM
Radioactive Ass: that_other_internet: Feel free to make and prove your point.

Meh. I have you marked as a truther. If I'm wrong please forgive me. Of course if I did then you're a troll in 9/11 threads and you are just as bad but for different reasons.

No I don't mark threads but for the sake of clarity I'll ask you one yes or no question:

Do you honestly think that there was U.S. government involvement in planning or executing the events of 9/11/01? If so why and what's your evidence for it?


You have me marked? Post the thread. Whatever I may have written in detail about the subject would say more about me than any label that you give or I give to myself. Just post the thread.

If you were mistaken, then it may have been because of another reason. Which would totally threadjack. I'm not asking you to post the thread because I want to stall, but if I've gone through this before it was definitely at length and there's no place for it in this thread.
 
2008-11-11 01:56:38 AM
Director_Mr: BigDumbGuy: You know this guy is starting to sound like a lunatic dictator. The next thing you know he will be blaming America for anything bad in the world and ranting about American assassination plots on him.

I am interested in hearing the Fark leftists defend Hugo Chavez and talking about how great he is like they were doing 2 years ago.


They won't, because they only existed inside your head.

Chavez isn't entirely wrong, the US did try to overthrow him, but that was 7 years ago and we've been just watching ever since. He is everything Bush wishes he could be; conniving, selfish, and constantly using threat of a nebulous enemy and ignorance of the people to keep himself in power. But just as Americans finally picked up on Bush's brain-dead policies the Venezuelans are slowly noticing that Chavez is a useless lump.

Of course, in both their cases it's hard to find a justification for offing them. Both Chavez and Dubya may have caused a great many deaths by incompetence and dreadfully bad decisions, but they only did so because everyone else let them.

Ah well, the world keeps on turning...
 
2008-11-11 01:57:52 AM
that_other_internet: it has been against the will of the public and in favor of corporate interests.

LOL

that_other_internet: Right has had many opportunities in Latin America to press corporatist ideology and failed miserably

LOL

We're talking about the next Dear Leader trying to secure his power for life (against the will of the voter fyi), promising to use tanks to overturn elections if he doesn't like the outcome, suppressing pretty much every right that Americans take for granted being born with, and you bring up BS about corporate boogeymen? Great, thanks, can you stay on topic? People are usually against power hungry despots, glad to know where you stand, though.

that_other_internet: Maybe you'd like to say you're more informed than they are?

Uh, yes, we are more informed than they are. It's not THEIR fault though. The people of Venezuela live underneath a government that tries its best to prevent basic freedom of speech and the press. They don't know because they only have the facts that Chavez lets them have. Only through the internet can they find some of these things out. It's not as bad, but almost as bad, as Cuba, where internet access just became legal this year for the first time.

This basic concept about freedom of information and the right to be informed is at the core of why free people (who aren't ignorant or morons) oppose Chavez.
 
2008-11-11 02:02:10 AM
Radioactive Ass: Do you honestly think that there was U.S. government involvement in planning or executing the events of 9/11/01? If so why and what's your evidence for it?

I have no beliefs regarding this. All that is indicated by the evidence I've seen is that a thorough investigation is required. Do you have the expectation that somewhere, someone on the internet, would have the resources and time to stage a full and complete independent investigation of the US government, replete with internet-verifiable evidence? That's a tall order or a loaded question.

I'd say there was enough to demand an independent investigation and nothing more, so "No" is the straight answer to your question.
 
2008-11-11 02:02:43 AM
that_other_internet: You have me marked?

Farkyed actually. I noticed that you didn't answer the question that I posed above and as I said before I don't have the thread number, just an impression based upon what you said before.

A threadjack would be going off on a totally different tangent, I commented about your statement that "No allegations, no innuendo, just direct evidence." based upon some comment you made in the past.

So again I ask, Do you honestly think that there was U.S. government involvement in planning or executing the events of 9/11/01? If so why and what's your evidence for it?
 
2008-11-11 02:04:31 AM
Radioactive Ass: blah blah blah I cannot marry a man, a child of any sex, two women at the same time or a donkey. Neither can anyone else. A gay man or woman has the exact same rights as I do.

With the exception of same sex, the others are not adults of legal standing, so that was ridiculous.

And if a gay man cannot marry their loved "one" (not two, that is a completely different argument), and you can, then no, they do not have the same rights.
 
2008-11-11 02:06:52 AM
that_other_internet: I'd say there was enough to demand an independent investigation and nothing more, so "No" is the straight answer to your question.

Fair enough. I'll "Un-mark" you for now. My next question is who exactly should re-investigate this and who should be in charge of the investigation you desire?
 
2008-11-11 02:07:07 AM
Cromar: Uh, yes, we are more informed than they are.

Heh.
 
2008-11-11 02:07:18 AM
Occam's Nailfile:

Sorry man. America doesn't want to make the gay lifestyle mainstream.


Yeah, they weren't too keen on interracial marriage at one time either.
 
2008-11-11 02:12:48 AM
onebadgungan: Occam's Nailfile:

Sorry man. America doesn't want to make the gay lifestyle mainstream.

Yeah, they weren't too keen on interracial marriage at one time either.


yeah, that's true. but they were same sex. so imo, it's different.
 
2008-11-11 02:14:44 AM
Radioactive Ass: that_other_internet: I'd say there was enough to demand an independent investigation and nothing more, so "No" is the straight answer to your question.

Fair enough. I'll "Un-mark" you for now. My next question is who exactly should re-investigate this and who should be in charge of the investigation you desire?


Well, there is a limited theatre of accountability for the events of 9/11 and so any organizational body that exists outside of that limited theatre of potential involvement would be suitable as an investigator. The potential limits of this theatre may change as the investigation continues so I'd suggest a multilateral investigations committee reporting to, but not appointed by, the US judiciary. I'm not a committee, I'm not an investigator. Why my answer should matter to you seems odd. You should ask someone who is good at forming independent committees.

What is the relevance to the thread now?
 
2008-11-11 02:14:51 AM
onebadgungan: With the exception of same sex, the others are not adults of legal standing, so that was ridiculous.

It was based on his original post, not mine. I just carried it to the logical conclusion he presented. I happen to be in complete favor of gay civil unions with all of the rights and benefits of a straight marriage. I think that the issue is the word 'Marriage'. Our society isn't ready to cross that line just yet, if you primarily want the rights of the straights where marriage applies step one is making any civil union equal to marriage under the law.
 
2008-11-11 02:22:50 AM
that_other_internet: Well, there is a limited theatre of accountability for the events of 9/11 and so any organizational body that exists outside of that limited theatre of potential involvement would be suitable as an investigator. The potential limits of this theatre may change as the investigation continues so I'd suggest a multilateral investigations committee reporting to, but not appointed by, the US judiciary. I'm not a committee, I'm not an investigator. Why my answer should matter to you seems odd. You should ask someone who is good at forming independent committees.

Just about every State and Federal agency was involved in one form or another, therefore all of them cannot be considered impartial by association. Are you calling for an international investigation of 9/11/01?

What is the relevance to the thread now?

You asked for "No allegations, no innuendo, just direct evidence." I called you out as a "Troofer" you claimed otherwise and here we are...
 
2008-11-11 02:30:17 AM
Radioactive Ass: Just about every State and Federal agency was involved in one form or another, therefore all of them cannot be considered impartial by association. Are you calling for an international investigation of 9/11/01?

As I've said, an investigation should be independent. If the theatre of accountability includes the investigations team then the investigation is pointless.

I don't believe that the investigation team must necessarily be foreign, but it would be difficult to form a committee of trained investigators that exist outside of the theatre of accountability but still within the US.

You probably know this article from the Asia Times. I'd simply like an investigations team that is theoretically capable of asking the questions that the article poses. The 9/11 Commission seems to have overlooked or dismissed this information. I would say they did not adequately investigate this issue.

I think I debated this with you last time...was it you?
 
2008-11-11 02:37:27 AM
Wow, there's lots of crazy in this thread. lol!
 
2008-11-11 02:39:09 AM
Get a room you two.
 
2008-11-11 02:47:08 AM

can someone shop this into a summon maq0r card

img90.imageshack.us
 
2008-11-11 02:54:03 AM
rbuzby: Relax everyone. This move by Hugo may seem like a bad idea now, but history may praise him for it. He could be sort of like the Truman of Venezuela.

IIRC Truman had the atomic bomb dropped on his enemy. Are you saying Chavez will do that? I thought the USA was his enemy...
 
2008-11-11 02:58:06 AM
BobtheFascist: shijjiri: And when he sends out the tanks will they become our next oil-tycoon target for police action?

Nah. Obama hates oil.


Plus Obama will implement the same types of social give-away programs that made Chavez popular, but is bankrupting a once prosperous country.
 
2008-11-11 02:59:59 AM
The Grasshopper: onebadgungan: Occam's Nailfile:

Sorry man. America doesn't want to make the gay lifestyle mainstream.

Yeah, they weren't too keen on interracial marriage at one time either.

yeah, that's true. but they were same sex. so imo, it's different.


And yet, its not.
 
2008-11-11 03:03:58 AM
that_other_internet: I don't believe that the investigation team must necessarily be foreign, but it would be difficult to form a committee of trained investigators that exist outside of the theatre of accountability but still within the US.

So your answer is a non-committed yes?

Should it be investigated by several outside agencies and then vetted by US agencies or vice versa?

I'm still not clear on what an "Independent Investigation" comprises of in this case. You seem to be willing to have a rational conversation on this so I'll ask you. Who do you want to lead the "Independent Investigation"?
 
2008-11-11 03:05:32 AM
Radioactive Ass: onebadgungan: With the exception of same sex, the others are not adults of legal standing, so that was ridiculous.

It was based on his original post, not mine. I just carried it to the logical conclusion he presented. I happen to be in complete favor of gay civil unions with all of the rights and benefits of a straight marriage. I think that the issue is the word 'Marriage'. Our society isn't ready to cross that line just yet, if you primarily want the rights of the straights where marriage applies step one is making any civil union equal to marriage under the law.


I appreciate your position and I'm really not being argumentative here. What is the difference between a marriage and a civil union that is exactly the same as a marriage? (Because it has been proven that they are not.) I am thinking that, if they are the same, the same people would come out against it, because they would complain that it is the same just called something different. And the gays don't really like being told they can't eat at the same table everyone else is eating at even though it's supposedly the same food. I believe the term is "Separate but Equal"?
 
2008-11-11 03:11:24 AM
OgreMagi: BobtheFascist: shijjiri: And when he sends out the tanks will they become our next oil-tycoon target for police action?

Nah. Obama hates oil.

Plus Obama will implement the same types of social give-away programs that made Chavez popular, but is bankrupting a once prosperous country.


^ Right-wing insanity in a nutshell.

If Venezuela was so prosperous until Chavez, then why are there so many poor to vote for him? Under the prosperity you mention, where did they find all of those poor people who felt entirely neglected by the government?

How could Venezuela have been so "prosperous" and yet so disproportionately impoverished under right-wing ideologies? Maybe you're mistaking the fortunes of a minority for the well-being of the whole. If Venezuela was so happy with its so-called prosperity, there would never have been an Allende or Chavez. Face it, the right-wingers had their chance(s) and blew it all away with brutality, greed, ignorance, and stupidity.
 
2008-11-11 03:20:37 AM
Radioactive Ass: that_other_internet: I don't believe that the investigation team must necessarily be foreign, but it would be difficult to form a committee of trained investigators that exist outside of the theatre of accountability but still within the US.

So your answer is a non-committed yes?

Should it be investigated by several outside agencies and then vetted by US agencies or vice versa?

I'm still not clear on what an "Independent Investigation" comprises of in this case. You seem to be willing to have a rational conversation on this so I'll ask you. Who do you want to lead the "Independent Investigation"?


The point of this discussion? If you are simply curious, then you should study up on the potential theatre of accountability and return with your proposal or a list of factors that serve as limitations to what you would consider "independent".

Again, all I claim to have seen is that the investigation was incomplete perhaps as a result of compromise due to potential overlapping of accountability and the investigative team.

Why is it that I must form a committee for you? I've laid out the general fundamentals of what would be required of an investigating team. Use this by positing your imaginary committee, compare them back to the general principles I've provided, and use that to determine whether or not your posited team satisfies the requirements of those principles. When you have, then we've found a team that's workable.

My primary objective was to assert the necessity for such a team, not to detail out the form and formation of the committee for your scrutiny. Neither of us are qualified. I've laid out the principles and unless you have an actual reason for your curiousity, then that's going to have to be enough for you. Otherwise, I'm not sure how the form and formation of an investigations committee, as determined by a random internet farker, is in anyway relevant to my interests or yours.
 
2008-11-11 03:20:53 AM
onebadgungan: I believe the term is "Separate but Equal"?

I appreciate the non-argumentative part of your post. That's not where I want to go by any means.

What is the difference between a marriage and a civil union that is exactly the same as a marriage? (Because it has been proven that they are not.

Again, it's the 'M' word and federal laws that separate the "CU" and "M" in this state. Give a CU the same federal protections as a marriage and most of this goes away.

Is it separate but equal? Possibly, but it's not worth fighting right now, give it ten years or so. In the meantime enjoy the same rights as anyone else.
 
2008-11-11 03:21:25 AM
Abstruse: Slight difference in that the "will of the people" stripped rights away from other people. It would be as if Mississippi voted to ban interracial marriages.

1967 Virginia needs to tell you something.
 
2008-11-11 03:23:43 AM
that_other_internet: Face it, the right-wingers had their chance(s) and blew it all away with brutality, greed, ignorance, and stupidity.

You yourself state that Venezuela has been meddled with by outsiders for a long time. That defeats your argument outright. Apparently, by your own admission, a free, democratic, and capitalist society has not had a chance at all.

ALL countries who get a real shot at that succeed. Only when despots take over (see: Zimbabwe) do their successes get pissed down the drain. Chavez is a dictator-in-training, *and* Venezuela never had the chance to try real freedom, so its people are doubly screwed.
 
2008-11-11 03:25:14 AM
pedobearapproved: punistation: It's always "for the people".

Except in America. America has NEVER deposed legitimately elected governments just because they didn't like the winner.

if you're speaking of Iraq you might need to look up what a legitimate election consists of.

On October 16, 2002, after a well-publicized show election, Iraqi officials declared that Saddam had been re-elected to another seven-year term as President by a 100% unanimous vote of all 11,445,638 eligible Iraqis, eclipsing the 99.96% received in 1995. The United States and others outside Iraq said the vote lacked any credibility. Stories later surfaced stating that voting was compulsory and that the "yes" box had already been checked for voters in advance (new window)


I think you missed the point. What he/she is trying to tell everybody is that he/she hates America, and to legitamize that hate they try and morally equate America with most Communist, Fascist, and Imperialist countries that have a track record for deposing legitimately elected heads of state. Facts? Screw facts, the kids in the coffee shop will think I'm cool if I can dump on the US.
 
2008-11-11 03:31:14 AM
Cromar: that_other_internet: Face it, the right-wingers had their chance(s) and blew it all away with brutality, greed, ignorance, and stupidity.

You yourself state that Venezuela has been meddled with by outsiders for a long time. That defeats your argument outright. Apparently, by your own admission, a free, democratic, and capitalist society has not had a chance at all.


lol wut. What is it you're attempting to push here? That under Chavez, Venezuela is under outside influence? Details and sources, please. Is this the Big Red connection?

ALL countries who get a real shot at that succeed. Only when despots take over (see: Zimbabwe) do their successes get pissed down the drain. Chavez is a dictator-in-training, *and* Venezuela never had the chance to try real freedom, so its people are doubly screwed.

All countries that get a real shot at right-wing ideologies succeed? Heh.

You're making no sense.
 
2008-11-11 03:42:36 AM
that_other_internet: lol wut. What is it you're attempting to push here? That under Chavez, Venezuela is under outside influence? Details and sources, please. Is this the Big Red connection?

No, dummy. The times before Chavez. On one hand, you claim that "right wingers" had their time, and on the other hand, you claim that Venezuela had been meddled with by outsiders. You don't get it both ways. If it was meddled with by outsiders, obviously it never had a chance at free and fair democracy and capitalism.

that_other_internet: All countries that get a real shot at right-wing ideologies succeed? Heh.

You're making no sense.


Other than once-prosperous countries that were ruined by single dictators (Mugabe in Zimbabwe) can you name a historical example of democratic capitalism ever failing?
 
2008-11-11 03:52:34 AM
Cromar: that_other_internet: lol wut. What is it you're attempting to push here? That under Chavez, Venezuela is under outside influence? Details and sources, please. Is this the Big Red connection?

No, dummy. The times before Chavez. On one hand, you claim that "right wingers" had their time, and on the other hand, you claim that Venezuela had been meddled with by outsiders. You don't get it both ways. If it was meddled with by outsiders, obviously it never had a chance at free and fair democracy and capitalism.


...Have you considered that the genius element you're missing is that full capitalism cannot be instituted in a democracy because given freedom of choice and the power to vote, people will trend towards developmentalist policies?

In other words, there is no example of full democracy and capitalism failing because there is no example of it existing.

You knew that though, right?

The failures I'm pointing at are unfailingly capitalist, right-wing ideologies instituted all over latin america from the 50's on to 2000's. The resulting left-leaning wave is a result of those failures of the Right. Pure capitalism, zero democracy. Whenever you see democracy instituted, it leans left. The example you're looking for does not exist. True democracies lean left.

Now you should think about why it took US backed dictators to implement right-wing free market capitalism when democracies would not allow it.

Do you understand the Venezuelan constitution? Do you understand that it provides more direct powers than the US constitution? Strictly speaking, it is more democratic. Similar to Switzerland's direct democracy. Direct Democratic powers. Do you know of those?

Do you know that Venezuela's ballot system includes full paper trails and for all their electronic voting systems? That means their votes are more secure than America's. Their national votes are monitored by international teams for fairness and non-interference.

You're hinting at a ghost of undue influence that you can't even prove. The standard of evidence that would back your accusations and innuendo are the same level of evidence that could easily be turned against you.

The facts do not support your worldview.
 
2008-11-11 04:05:24 AM
that_other_internet: In other words, there is no example of full democracy and capitalism failing because there is no example of it existing.

You're straight up crazy. I don't know what else to tell you. I live in a country that is the world leader in capitalism and, not coincidentally, the richest and most successful in history. We just had a free and fair election. I was there, I voted.

that_other_internet: Now you should think about why it took US backed dictators to implement right-wing free market capitalism when democracies would not allow it.

This makes no sense whatsoever. You cannot "force" free market capitalism. Capitalism is the natural state of things when people work, earn and accumulate wealth, engage in private industry, build and develop their own businesses, and trade freely with others. Pure free market capitalism is the exact opposite of a government forcing anything. For it to exist, it requires a government that completely takes its hands off of all control and lets whatever happen, happen.

American Democratic Capitalism is a system where the government has some control but mostly lets things happen as they would naturally, and where people vote leaders into power who will protect them and be good stewards of the economy, not those who will command and control it. This is the best system ever conceived by mankind. Every nation that has tried this has seen enormous success, up until some dictator cheated his way into power.

You can force people to give up wealth to give to others, but you cannot force people to keep wealth or run private enterprise. You must have the world's most warped view of capitalism, or maybe you are accessing fark from a terminal in a padded room.
 
2008-11-11 04:18:46 AM
Dear lord, this thread has the potential to be truly epic. Gay marriage, Chavez, and 9/11 truthers? Someone find some way to tenuously connect creationism, abortion and global warming to this thread, let's see if we can't crash Fark!
 
2008-11-11 04:29:24 AM
LordJiro: Dear lord, this thread has the potential to be truly epic. Gay marriage, Chavez, and 9/11 truthers? Someone find some way to tenuously connect creationism, abortion and global warming to this thread, let's see if we can't crash Fark!

Everyone knows that god created global warming to abort Venezuelan children as revenge for Cheney's gay daughter's 9/11 conspiracy.

Was I close?
 
2008-11-11 04:58:51 AM
Holfax: libbynomore2: civilian security force

Google news search on civilian security force (new window).


...like the national guard?
 
2008-11-11 05:25:27 AM
There is nothing good about that man. He is nothing but a petty dictator. I wish Hugo would just go away. What really pisses me off as a democrat is that somehow we get associated with backing that asshat just because of Cindy Sheehan. Her cause is her cause, not my cause, or all of democrats. Hugo deserves to be tried in court for violating human rights the same as Bush should.
 
2008-11-11 06:23:54 AM
Does anybody else think that Hugo Chavez looks just like Carlos Mencia?

Shouldn't they both be dead by now?
 
2008-11-11 07:20:29 AM
Leftism.

/nuff said
 
2008-11-11 07:25:31 AM
EatYourHeartOut: That reflexive equating of liberals with Chavez supporters is such a farking straw man. The man's a damn despot. He's not a friend of liberals. I hate the cucksocker, and I'm as liberal as they come.

You're an idiot. Liberals on this and other forums defended Chavez for years and tried to portray every criticism against him as part of a right-wing conspiracy.

Go find a Chavez thread from 2 or 3 years ago and it will be filled with liberals defending Chavez and ranting about Bush.
 
Displayed 50 of 359 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report