GreatBunzinni: chooktah: yep, I told you you weren't actually interested in supporting evidence.

So, you don't have a single shred of evidence backing any of your beliefs.

That's what you get when you mindlessly swallow propaganda.

My suggestion: don't do it. It only ends up making you look like a fool.

okay, I was trying to avoid it but I guess I'll have to retard this down for you: GOOGLE: venezuala human rights violations

let's make believe of the ~3,740,000 hits, 95% are bogus.. that'd still leave you ~187,000 to explain away. so get crackin'

Moopy Mac: But Chavez is an enemy of free speech and free press, that seems pretty clear. Isn't that enough to condemn him for?

It really depends on your definition of "enemy of free speech", because the tv station which has been closed in Venezuela just so happened to be directly and deeply involved in the coup attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government, not to mention inciting assassinations.

Check out Globovision article on wikipedia

I don't think I have ever rooted FOR cancer before.

/Go go gadget cancer.

tomcatadam: way south: Our Chucklefarks wouldn't have a hope at doing something this slick.

The "Castro" effect.

If a foreign "radical" leader dies under mysterious circumstances, then under the assumption that it was an assassination, by the nature of it being successful alone it was not perpetrated by the United States.

'the greatest trick the devil pulled was making people believe he doesn't exist'

/not sure what movie that's from & it's probably not verbatim ... o wait... was it 'usual suspects'...think so
//kaiser sosa is a bad bad man
///just sayin

dogfood: If we could do this wouldn't Nickelback have cancer by now?

Apparently you missed and hit Jack Layton instead.

We can cure his cancer, but we have to inject him with the blood of a creature that doesn't get cancer...

FETCH ME THE NAKED MOLE RAT!

brokenrecord: I hate to say it, but the technology probably exists somewhere.

Why would you hate to say it? The "technology" to give someone cancer on purpose has existed for a damn long time.

But I could think of a lot more practical, less cumbersome and inefficient ways to off a world leader you don't like.

No, really. I could.

Nick Spiceyweiner: I'd rather have Chavez as a leader than anything we get in this shiathole country. Don't believe everything you read.

You are the worst kind of human being, and the reason why people in the world hate the US.

You're essentially Tom Brady sitting on a pile of money complaining about having to go fark Giselle again.

Fark you.

Enigmamf: Acetaminophen and opioids have a synergistic effect - acetaminophen makes opioids much better pain killers.

It's not entirely a conspiracy to ensure that people don't use drugs recreationally.


I was just meaning acetaminophen needs to be banned because of how little it takes to cause liver failure. shiat like that shouldn't be sold over the counter.

The Sun is there?

"Would it be strange if (the United States) had developed a technology to induce cancer, and for no one to know it?" he asked

Yes we have, and it is called "Tobacco".

Snarfangel: We can cure his cancer, but we have to inject him with the blood of a creature that doesn't get cancer...

FETCH ME THE NAKED MOLE RAT!
[upload.wikimedia.org image 640x477]

Could drink the blood of some Down's Syndrome people. Only a few years back they discovered that Down's Syndrome patients are resistant, perhaps even immune, to most types of cancer, and it's got nothing to do with being institutionalized. Look it up.

Considering how massively obese he is, I'm guessing the sugar and animal fat got him.

brokenrecord: I hate to say it, but the technology probably exists somewhere.

It does, and it is in the hands of the TSA.

pffft we wouldnt have just given him cancer we would have given him super polar bear aids too.

skantea: All you have to do is plant an irradiated button in his favorite suit, or an irradiated bar in the beneath the seat of his office chair. It's not that crazy or even a new concept. I didn't think of it first.

No, it's certainly not an original idea. Tony Hillerman had that plot in one of his books, the persons in question carrying radioactive ore in medicine bags and getting leukimia from it. I can't remember the book title at the moment... maybe some of you farkers could help me out?

Lars The Canadian Viking: IIRC, early x-rays were all coil, later on (30s?) they started using tubes to generate the x-rays. I think there was an old sciam article about making your own x-ray.

Nope. Coils don't make x-rays, it's always tubes. At least at the medical level, if you get into military or weird industrial stuff it's sometimes different.

The whole x-ray thing is done by slamming fast-moving electrons into a target, usually metal, although the very first ones used glass. The energy lost in stopping the electron is partially dissipated as x-ray radiation. Which is also why trapped electrons in low Earth orbit fry satellites - when they whack into the metal bits of the spacecraft they produce x-rays.

Headso: Didn't the Soviets irradiate the U.S. Embassy back in the day to try to give people cancer?

A: The Moscow Signal

Although to be fair, Venezuela and the surrounding areas are currently infested with first tier A teams and CIA field guys. I'm sure they'd LIKE to give him a tumor.

E-ScapeApe: Headso: Didn't the Soviets irradiate the U.S. Embassy back in the day to try to give people cancer?

A: The Moscow Signal

Which, despite Tom Bearden's blatherings on the subject, were there to pump a set of Theremin bugs.

tomcatadam: Kibbler: He's probably as dumb as someone who would instantly change their opinions on Venezuela's human rights status the second Chavez was replaced by someone who said nice things about the US, regardless of what was going on within Venezuela. As dumb as someone who didn't have anything to say about human rights abuses, and enormous drug trafficking, in Panama until Bush I decided that Noriega had been installed and propped up by the US government long enough, and had gone almost overnight from "valued American ally in the fight against global communism" to "terrible drug dealer who violates the human rights of his citizens."

The US (like other superpowers) has meddled with other countries and farked things up while ignoring (alongside most UN members, really) countless abuses in certain countries out of either apathy, unwillingness or due to actual uses for that country (as it is with the Saudis). Not really new news and not something that people are going to jump to disagree with entirely.

So what is your bloody point?

My point is that when someone scoffs at the idea that Latin American ruler X violates human rights, or scoffs at the idea that Latin American ruler X does anything but violate human rights, it makes me think that people mostly just want to talk about Latin American rulers in the context of their own political views. The story of Latin America is to too large a degree a story of violence and abuse and murder, and far too much of it has been happily sponsored, or at least connived at, by the US.

Chavez is a classic example. He's done things that I know about that are bad, although compared to, say, Pinochet, I think he's in the lower ranks of monsters (so far anyway). But all you hear about him is either, "What kind of an idiot thinks Chavez is bad" or "What kind of an idiot can't recognize that Chavez is truly history's greatest monster."

The ugly sordid truth about Bush/CIA/Noriega/cocaine was swept under the rug and forgotten. It all gets swept under the rug and forgotten.

starsrift: here to help: So remind me again why America hates this guy so much? What threat is he? What has he done to draw your ire? Is it just simply SOLISHILIZMZ and HE SAYS MEAN THINGS ABOUT US!!!

Because if so... STFU and ignore him... you know... like adults?

It's a historical thing. US & Venezuela used to be actually BFF but then Venezuela started to sell their oil to China and things went into the shiatter since. Mostly, it's America that's done the pulling back from the formerly good relationship.

It got bad when Chavez started nationalizing things left and right and going after his political enemies ruthlessly. He also has used the US as a boogie man ever since his attempted coup in '92.

As to human rights violations, the following were pulled from the first two pages of a Google search ("Chavez human rights violations"), culling conservative and/or pro-American sources to favor leftist and international sources-
Human Rights Watch - http://www.hrw.org/americas/venezuela
Human Rights Foundation - http://www.thehrf.org/reports.php (about a third down the page)
The Organization of American States - http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/pdf/OAS_Venezuela_022410. pdf
The Caracas Nine blog - http://www.caracasnine.com/cgi-local/blog.cgi?l=eng
New York Review of Books - http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/nov/06/hugo-chavez-versu s-human-rights/?pagination=false

and, of course, as policy, he rules by fiat, controls broadcast media, and has engaged in large-scale theft of property and livelihood. He also funds FARC rebels with hundreds of millions of dollars while his own people live in slums on substandard food and, in Caracas, one of the highest murder rates in the world.

Also, some proof on the "millions" of South Americans killed by the US would be nice. Or is this like the "hundreds of thousands" of Iraqis that the US killed, proven by a statistical analysis designed for disease? Not saying the US didn't do some really nasty stuff in Latin America (or sat on the sidelines while United Fruit and Pinochet committed atrocities), but millions?

stlbluez: Kibbler: stlbluez: GreatBunzinni: chooktah: if you're actually looking for supporting evidence (you're not) you could always google "venezuela human rights violations" yourself. but like I said..

If there was actually any serious accusation of human rights violations in Venezuela (there aren't) then people like you would already have pasted countless links to it. Which you didn't. Because you can't.

But hey, you gots to spread that sweet propaganda. If useful idiots weren't useful they would only be idiots.

I'm kinda curious.
not to feed the trolls or anything...
But are you really this dumb?

He's probably as dumb as someone who will talk about human rights abuse in Venezuela, Iran and North Korea, but fall strangely silent about them in places like Nigeria or Angola or Liberia or Saudi Arabia or other countries where we make nice fat profits or get the stuff we need. Or maybe not fall silent but change the tune to, "Oh please stop with your tree-hugging do-gooderism and grow up, we need to focus on America's strategic interests" or maybe to, "Hey it's better than letting the Islamists get in with Sharia, then those people would really have it bad."

He's probably as dumb as someone who would instantly change their opinions on Venezuela's human rights status the second Chavez was replaced by someone who said nice things about the US, regardless of what was going on within Venezuela. As dumb as someone who didn't have anything to say about human rights abuses, and enormous drug trafficking, in Panama until Bush I decided that Noriega had been installed and propped up by the US government long enough, and had gone almost overnight from "valued American ally in the fight against global communism" to "terrible drug dealer who violates the human rights of his citizens."

yes... because these ALL apply directly to me and my views and are clearly illustrated by my post.
just as "you're probably as dumb as somoene who eats poopie" is so clearly demonstrated by yours.

I think it was pretty clear that my point was that people cherry-pick when it comes to Central and South America (or anywhere else for that matter). We can see the horrible abuses in countries whose leaders don't fit our image of the Right Kind of Person, but we're blind as bats in countries whose leaders do fit that image.

(What your views in particular are, I do not know.)

Outrage over Chavez, pro or con, is too freaking much, after the past 50 years of murder, gun-running, drug-running, and other mayhem sponsored or assisted by the US. It's like outrage over the horrible murdering Stalinist super-monster Castro--let's winky-wink nudgey-nudge when Pinochet or Noriega or Saddam (before his conversion from valued American ally to Worst Threat Ever) comes up. Or running guns to Honduran death squads while praising the "freedom fighters". Mum's the word!

But Castro! Ooooooh I hate that monster Castro! Never before has humanity etc.! Why, if you can believe this, he arrests people without charge and turns them over to the military to be held indefinitely without due process in a perpetual legal black hole! On his presidential word alone! And there is no appeal or redress whatsoever! Totally in violation of our sacred principles of freedom and liberty and justice! It makes me so mad I could just spit!

And he funded terrorism! IN HONDURAS!!! THEY SHOT AT OUR DEATH SQUADS FREEDOM FIGHTERS!!!

Plus he's a Communist! A COMMUNIST!!!11

Ooooooooooooh that Castro!!!11
Ooooooooooooh that Chavez!!!11

So yeah, when it comes to Chavez, I find that both sides...seem concerned.