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.

(Some Guy)   Hugo Chavez, the champion of the poor, somehow amassed a $1 billion fortune while in office   (celebritynetworth.com) divider line 67
    More: Obvious, Hugo Chavez, double major, military sciences  
•       •       •

8661 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Mar 2013 at 9:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-06 09:58:52 AM  
5 votes:
Lot of right wing glee in this thread.  I cannot wait until Margaret Thatcher dies.
2013-03-06 10:19:25 AM  
3 votes:
What fascinates me is that we are talking about his personal failings and not the fact that he survived a coup attempt by business elites bankrolled and armed by America.  He survived the coup because the entire nation rose up to support him.
2013-03-06 10:12:23 AM  
3 votes:

FarkedOver: FLMountainMan: FarkedOver: FLMountainMan: FarkedOver: Lot of right wing glee in this thread.  I cannot wait until Margaret Thatcher dies.

I see you ignored the false equivalencies, red herrings, and....well, you created your own strawman, so I'll give you that.....

I see you believe all Venezuelans hated Chavez.  That's awesome for you.  I'm really happy that you believe that.

Another strawman!  Nice!  No, I said I enjoyed the threads where Venezuelan Farkers.....

I like Venezuela and all, but I'm going to go ahead and assume not all Venezuelans are on Fark.

So then you had no real point you were just typing for the sake of typing.  Cool.


As opposed to this statement, which will live forever in the halls of infamy.

Get over yourself.  Your Robin Hood schtick is straight out of some community college sociology professor's curriculum.  You sound really sad and miserable.
2013-03-06 10:04:06 AM  
3 votes:
So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.
2013-03-06 09:51:38 AM  
3 votes:
At least in Venezuela they still have to pretend to be acting in the interests of the people.  In the USA the politicians can't even muster the energy to do that.
2013-03-06 09:51:33 AM  
3 votes:
Never understood Hollywood's hero worshipping of Chavez
2013-03-06 09:40:32 AM  
3 votes:
Let's hope Venezuelans choose for their next leader an individual who has the same respect for human rights and free markets that Americans have. You know, somebody like Augusto Pinochet, or Hosni Mubarak.
2013-03-06 09:20:43 AM  
3 votes:
I'm sure he was going to will it to the people but died before he could update his will.

One thing, you look at him and Kim from Best Korea... they fat.  You look at Putin and he's in shape and skinny.  The skinny guy is the one you need to be afraid of in my opinion in regards to dictators for life...
2013-03-06 04:45:42 PM  
2 votes:

Robert1966: Why can't a billionaire champion the poor? Championing the poor isn't the same as championing poverty.


Honest answer - it depends entirely on the order of events.

Bill gates step 1) amass personal billions (from starting succesful companies)
Bill gates step 2) become champion of the poor.

Chavez Step 1) become "champion of the poor"
Chavez step 2) amass personal billions (from ????)

Even ardent Chavez supporters should be able to admit that the difference is obvious.
2013-03-06 11:49:48 AM  
2 votes:
We cannot point fingers anymore

We have the biggest bag of douche of them all, squatting in the White House. A pretentious usurper dedicating his years of Communist/Socialist programming to destroying the Constitution while enriching himself at our public trough.

You call Chavez a filthy a-hole? Well you should.
Now, turn your indignation upon the correct target.

www.floppingaces.net
2013-03-06 10:35:23 AM  
2 votes:
I'm always a little skeptical about these kinds of reports, considering it's in the US's best interest to vilify any successful attempt at social reform that benefits the poor for fear it might spread here as well.

BTW, did anyone bother to look up the source of this guy's information?

http://sites.google.com/a/cjiausa.us/www/

Seems legit.
2013-03-06 10:25:04 AM  
2 votes:

JackieRabbit: EyeballKid: Let's hope Venezuelans choose for their next leader an individual who has the same respect for human rights and free markets that Americans have. You know, somebody like Augusto Pinochet, or Hosni Mubarak.

Chavez had already hand-picked his successor.


How Democratic of him to not bother his people with such a decision.
2013-03-06 10:24:53 AM  
2 votes:
Typical leftist.

On the surface, it's all civil rights and wealth redistribution.

Underneath, pure business.

That's why they talk such a good game. Their goal is to make themselves beyond criticism so they can loot the treasury and make off with the tax money.

And most people fall for it -- that's the amazing part.
2013-03-06 10:24:02 AM  
2 votes:
Communism: The Long Con.
2013-03-06 10:19:24 AM  
2 votes:
Not sure how "Links lullen, rechts vullen" translates into English, but you sure see these "lefties" amass cash through nefarious means a lot.
2013-03-06 10:19:21 AM  
2 votes:

FLMountainMan: Get over yourself. Your Robin Hood schtick is straight out of some community college sociology professor's curriculum. You sound really sad and miserable.


I judge Chavez from a Marxist point of view.  Was he a great Marxist? No, he wasn't.  Was he the best hope for the disenfranchised and the poor of Venezuela? Yes he was.  I believe the nationalization of the oil companies helped the poor in more ways than a market driven company could have.  Even the people of the US could say this is true, well at least the 250,000 low income people of New England that got free home heating oil from the Venezuelan government.

He was not the "dictator" or the "boogeyman" that everyone makes him out to be.  Hell after there was a US supported "coup" of Chavez the people went on strike and DEMANDED he be put back in power.  This doesn't sound like something an oppressed people would do.
2013-03-06 10:08:35 AM  
2 votes:
"Moon Over Parador" was a more realistic version of a banana-republic dictatorship.
Chavez just couldn't pull off the character as well as Richard Dreyfuss.

Plus it had Sammy Davis, Jr. and Charro. It was practically an episode of "The Love Boat."


/R.I.P Raul Julia
2013-03-06 10:07:43 AM  
2 votes:
My wife is Venezuelan and we just had family visit. The news broke just after they arrived, so much for the scotch in the house. Chavez has been terrible to his middle class of which my family was a part. They were very happy to hear the news. It's an amazing country with a wonderful diverse population. I sure hope things get better.
2013-03-06 10:06:39 AM  
2 votes:
Venezuela is a shiathole, I worked in Caracas in
1990  = Mad Max
2000  = Road Warrior
2010  = Thunderdome

He won the popular vote by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, or so it seems.  He nationalized foreign business under the guise of getting the evil gringo infidels out of the country.  From telecom to grocery stores.  Most recently the Colombian chain Exito was grabbed and "given" to the people.

The majority of his gifts did not come from his coffers, but from those of others.
2013-03-06 10:06:32 AM  
2 votes:

Pants full of macaroni!!: FarkedOver: Lot of right wing glee in this thread.  I cannot wait until Margaret Thatcher dies.

When Pelosi kicks off there will be dancing in the streets!


American politicians die, meh.  They are all capitalist swine.
2013-03-06 10:04:55 AM  
2 votes:
i.imgur.com

I still need to see more proof for Chavez, but I don't quite doubt it.

Reminds me of Arafat of the Palensitnian LIberation Organization.  Amassed over a billion dollars, bribes and scraping from aid packages, while Palenstinians lived in shiat.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995651,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-582487.html
2013-03-06 09:43:58 AM  
2 votes:
FTFA:

cdn.cnwimg.com

/Two dbags, one photo
2013-03-06 09:40:48 AM  
2 votes:

Lt. Cheese Weasel: I'm sure he was keeping all that evil capitalistic wealth to protect his people and country. HERO!


Well, duh.

He was Champion of the Poor.

What happens when poor people get a pile of money?  They're not poor any more.

He was just preserving his constituency.
2013-03-06 09:35:13 AM  
2 votes:
A billionaire president of an oil-rich country still has to fly to a different country for medical care.  To be fair, he certainly put a lot of money into importing Cuban doctors and medical practices to Venezuela, and Cuba has pretty good healthcare in the first place, but still.  Money not well-spent, clearly.

He seemed to be a man in which his ego and his "heart" competed on the playing field that was his country as a whole.  He wanted to do a lot for the little guy, but also did much for himself.  In the end, he died relatively young and his big plans are half-fulfilled.
2013-03-06 06:28:51 PM  
1 votes:
You gotta love the socialist/marxist wingnuts on this thread trying to justify this pillaging of the Venezuelan coffers - hahahahahaha! Hey he was gonna give the $2 billion back - right?  The Bush's, Romney et al will never amass that much money. Who's the "devil" now Chavez?
2013-03-06 02:38:04 PM  
1 votes:
Well, at least he's a good Commie now.
2013-03-06 01:40:57 PM  
1 votes:

FarkedOver: You're old, so let me explain this to you. Your old ways are dying. Hopefully sooner rather than later. Free markets are only free in the sense that they are free to exploit.


You're naive, so let me explain this to you. Your ways have been tried, and they failed.
2013-03-06 01:22:14 PM  
1 votes:
Anytime someone says they are doing something "for" someone else "I do it for the people", "I do it for the children", "I do it  for country" they really mean I do it for my damn self and I'm probably breaking the law in doing so.
2013-03-06 12:54:17 PM  
1 votes:

JeffDenver: Far be it from me to defend an authoritarian leftist...but...

Is there any other source making this claim besides that celebrity blog thingie? Like CNN or MSNBC or whatever?


I agree. I'd like to see a little more proof. I have a feeling it will eventually come, but this is not a good source.

BTW, don't call MSNBC credible. It's no more so than Fox.
2013-03-06 12:38:46 PM  
1 votes:

RanDomino: If someone takes advantage of another's misfortune in order to profit, that's exploitation.


That sounds like awfully bad stuff, but unfortunately it has no concrete meaning.

What exactly is "taking advantage"?  All parties in all voluntary transactions seek an advantage, compared to what situation they will be in without the transaction.  That's just another word for profit or benefit.  I expect that you (and everyone I meet) are constantly seeking to benefit from decisions you make  about what to do, at any given moment.  I want you to succeed, actually -- to get whatever benefit that you want, as you define it -- as long as you don't attack (or threaten) or defraud me or anyone else.

What exactly is "misfortune"?  A disparity of wealth?  That's a constant feature of all life.  Not only does it constantly change, but wealth is largely subjective.  You might find sitting in a small college-town apartment with some buddies, strumming a guitar and eating pork rinds, to be the pinnacle of human bliss and happiness.  Others might liken that situation to being in prison.  If you enjoy what you have, then you are a wealthy man.

If one person offers another person a trade, to which either party can respond by agreeing or declining, without fear of being attacked by that other party for declining, then the trade is voluntary.  When that trade occurs, it's BECAUSE both parties expect to profit by the trade.

What exactly is wrong with profit?  As I said, in any voluntary transaction, by definition, both parties are profiting.  You seem to have an emotional attachment to one type of party (employees), and hate the other (employers), and so you reflexively conclude that one person's profit is good and just, while the other person's is wrong.  But you have completely failed to articulate a principle that show exactly why it is wrong, or to distinguish between good profits and bad profits.

I submit that acting for profit is never wrong.  It's aggressive violence that's wrong.  Of course, as Chavez shows, aggressive violence can also be extremely profitable.  But it's the aggression that's the wrongful part.

RanDomino: See above- taxes/mortgage/rent, mainly. Psychologically manipulative marketing. If you want to go back to the dawn of capitalism in the 16-1700s, people were driven from their land by force (for example the Enclosure movement in England; later, imperialism). Today, you have things like banks telling people to take ARMs, then jacking the rates, then telling them to stop paying in order to get an adjustment, then foreclosing because they stopped paying- keeping all the money paid AND the full value of the house. For example.


The act of "driving people off their land" is a problem flowing from a LACK of property rights, not from the presence of property rights.  And, yes, I would certainly agree with you that the feudal system of property that preceded an emerging free market in land was, comparably, worse.  The poor (and unfree) definition of feudal property, derived as it was by more or less constant war (i.e., theft) and de facto slavery, was economically inferior, precisely because it was unfree.

Banks today are agents of a state-sponsored cartel.  What they peddle nowadays (paper and electronic state-sponsored "money") is the diametric opposite of a free market for currency.

I'm all in favor of prohibiting deceptive trade practices, as a subset of fraud.  That has nothing to do with communism and the economic and ethical benefits of clearly-defined property rights.
2013-03-06 12:15:49 PM  
1 votes:

FarkedOver: liam76: I am sure you are the type of guy who thinks that anybody that has more than you are the affluent, and should be willing to give it up.

Do i begrudge the small mom and pop store no.  They are just as much a part of the proletariat as any factory worker.  Do I loathe the CEO and the owners of major companies? Yes, they have made a living exploiting labor.


The mom and pop store would be the kulak you so gleefully labeled retards for not having over evertyhing they own.

If your fantasy was ever realized (communist revolution in the US) you would be in the forefront calling the blood of th emom and pop.  Luckily that will never happen.
2013-03-06 11:56:31 AM  
1 votes:

TheDumbBlonde: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

Then why do want to pay people who refuse to work?

They don't refuse.  They are unable.  You are aware that in a capitalist society unemployment is a necessity? Right?

Well that works out well for you then doesnt? It makes  plenty of  charity cases you bleeding hearts can pander too and blame mean ol rich people

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.  I am a socialist.  I want to empower the working class.  I want to agitate the working class.

Liberals are pussies.

Wow. I always wanted to see a socialist. Post a picture, please.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
2013-03-06 11:37:52 AM  
1 votes:

FarkedOver: I understand capitalism is needed to ramp up businesses and production.


Entrepreneurship is always "needed."  The economy constantly changes.  New technologies are constantly being developed and implemented.  Different producers are constantly being organized and disbanded.  Consumer preferences are constantly changing, and and those preferences being fulfilled by a constantly-changing set of new producers.  New people are born and the old ones die.

As a result, entrepreneurship is not just the creation of a business as a one-time event at the beginning of a new enterprise.  It's the constant adaptation to economic circumstances (i.e., everything that everyone else is doing or not doing).

FarkedOver: But in a post-capitalist society (yes one day capitalism will end, as has every other economic model throughout history), labor should own and operate workplaces democratically.


Only if the people who are participating agree to work together on those terms. They have the right to agree to cooperate according to whatever terms each of them decides.  Adult relationships are voluntary.

But the entrepreneurial functions still have to be done.  Someone still needs to decide what goods to produce, and how to produce them.  This involves organization-wide decision-making on the order of about 200-300 times per day.

FarkedOver: A CEO doesn't not create wealth.  He owns capital and uses that to exploit labor in effort to increase his/her profit.


A CEO creates wealth by organizing a profitable business, in all the ways I mentioned.

In modern business, the CEO is not usually the one who supplies the capital.  He arranges it, from specialized capital-providers (who are grotesquely over-compensation, on account of the modern form of state-sponsored cartelized banking, but that's another issue).  He might be, but the larger the enterprise, the less likely he is to be both CEO and the main source of capital.

In a free enterprise, the people who agree to perform labor (as their part of contributing to an enterprise) do so because that agreement is preferable to all of their existing alternatives.  That's not exploitation.  That's giving people the option of taking the best deal they're being given at the time.

Everyone works to increase his/her profit, all the time.  Everyone chooses to do things because they believe that doing so is a benefit, compared to not-doing that thing, or doing something else.  That's what economic choice is.  (Of course, everyone values slightly different things, and constantly changes those values, which is how it should be.)

As long as they refrain from aggressive violence, then I want everyone to succeed in obtaining his/her own maximum profit, benefit and wealth increase, in whatever terms each person defines those things.  That includes you.  Just keep your hands off me and my stuff, and we'll get along perfectly well.
2013-03-06 11:11:58 AM  
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Phinn: Communism: The Long Con.

Capitalism: Straight Up Rape


No, rape is straight up rape.

FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)


No, labor is entitled to get what it's promised to get in exchange for its labor.  But labor is only one part of producing valuable things, so labor's share of the proceeds is only going to be part of the total revenue derived from selling valuable things.

Labor, for example, doesn't create the business itself.  Those are entrepreneurial functions (which may or may not be performed by the same person who does the actual labor, as is the case in many small businesses, but they are not always the same person).  The entrepreneurial functions include identifying the goods and services that are being under-provided and can be produced economically, marshaling and organizing all of the resources and factors of production (including but not limited to labor), obtaining the capital and financing to advance all of the costs before the revenues arrive, organizing the business itself, at every level of decision-making, etc.  In other words, deciding what to make and how to make it.

I realize you are young, so I'll put it in terms you might understand -- when people make a movie, there are hundreds or thousands of people involved.  There are the actors that you (as a consumer) actually see, and they are the ones who (from your perspective) are doing the "labor" of entertaining you.  But there are many more people working behind the scenes to make it all happen.  The entrepreneurial functions in a movie-production project are generally performed by the producer.  He is the one who identifies the particular project to be done in the first place, arranges the financing, hires the key personnel, and delegates (to some extent) the tasks of hiring the right actors, writers, production crew, etc.  It's a huge, complex operation, and the producer (who may or may not also perform in other capacities) is at the center of it, organizing it, and coordinating all of the other factors of production. As with everyone else's contribution to the project, the producer's skill is a crucial factor of movie-production.

Likewise, whenever any business makes a profit, the profit (what's left over after everyone else gets paid) is how the business organizer (the entrepreneur) gets paid for doing a good job of organizing the business.

In your silly world view, only the people doing the manual labor deserve to get paid.  But the manual labor is only one part of many that contribute to the success of a business.  Organizing and other decision-making tasks are also crucially important, in any economic enterprise, and the people who do those tasks better than others deserve to get paid more than others.

If you had ever started a business or two, from scratch, you'd know that.
2013-03-06 11:11:30 AM  
1 votes:

FarkedOver: liam76: The US never tried to overthrow him

O rly!?


I am not going to be mad if my neighbor's wife tries to divorce him, does that mean I am trying to get them seperated?
2013-03-06 10:57:21 AM  
1 votes:

FarkedOver: I like young, bank robber Stalin better


You weren't as big a fan when he was killing everybody then?
2013-03-06 10:49:44 AM  
1 votes:
www.pbs.org

A Kulak would cut their own animals throats and burn their own grain before collectivization. It's not my fault they were retards.

-Joseph Stalin
2013-03-06 10:45:23 AM  
1 votes:

Electrify: A homeless guy asked me if he could have my fries, and I told him to screw off. I would look like a hypocrite if a wealthy guy like me helped out someone less fortunate, unless I gave away everything I own.


A better analogy would be if 1 million homeless guys asked you for fries, so you used an army of homeless guys to kill the owner of the french fry plant, took over $1 billion of his assets for yourself, and then gave all the homeless people french fries, while destroying the economy.
2013-03-06 10:44:56 AM  
1 votes:

TheDumbBlonde: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

Then why do want to pay people who refuse to work?

They don't refuse.  They are unable.  You are aware that in a capitalist society unemployment is a necessity? Right?

Well that works out well for you then doesnt? It makes  plenty of  charity cases you bleeding hearts can pander too and blame mean ol rich people

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.  I am a socialist.  I want to empower the working class.  I want to agitate the working class.

Liberals are pussies.

Wow. I always wanted to see a socialist. Post a picture, please.


Link

/couldn't help myself. I have a sudden Tea Party Moment -- not wait, it was just gas pain
2013-03-06 10:36:22 AM  
1 votes:

Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing

Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)

Then why do want to pay people who refuse to work?

They don't refuse.  They are unable.  You are aware that in a capitalist society unemployment is a necessity? Right?

Well that works out well for you then doesnt? It makes  plenty of  charity cases you bleeding hearts can pander too and blame mean ol rich people


I'm not a bleeding heart liberal.  I am a socialist.  I want to empower the working class.  I want to agitate the working class.

Liberals are pussies.
2013-03-06 10:33:24 AM  
1 votes:

epoc_tnac: JohnAnnArbor: epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.

Well, for one, he had his legislature repeatedly pass "enabling laws" that allowed him to rule by decree.  Chavez signed a paper--new law.  No vote.

Imagine if the Congress did that for a US president.  (Thankfully, I have a little faith left in the system and believe that most Congresscritters, even of the same party, would vote against such a measure.)

Okay, well that's a start.  Let's go all out and say he changed the law to make himself a dictator.  And then, what evil deeds did he get up to with his new powers?  If you want to be part of the modern-day axis of evil, it's not enough to just change the law to give you the *ability* to be evil.  You have to actually do something evil.

So - let's hear it.


Silly me, I thought deomcracy was a good thing and unilaterally grabbing power was in of itself bad.
2013-03-06 10:28:45 AM  
1 votes:

Onkel Buck: so you're pretty much jealous and worthless. no wonder you want something for nothing


Labor is entitled to all that it creates my friend. (Hint: Labor creates pretty much everything)
2013-03-06 10:25:10 AM  
1 votes:

Phinn: Communism: The Long Con.


Capitalism: Straight Up Rape
2013-03-06 10:24:08 AM  
1 votes:

Bored Horde: What fascinates me is that we are talking about his personal failings and not the fact that he survived a coup attempt

lead a successful coup.

FTFY
2013-03-06 10:23:46 AM  
1 votes:
Neither in mourning nor celebration

When an illness becomes serious, when medical attention becomes a vehicle for myopic, politically motivated decisions and when a patient becomes drunk with power, it can only end this way. The strongman has died, and in so doing, he has initiated a substantial shift in the Venezuelan political landscape.

What used to be the regime's greatest strength has suddenly turned into its defining weakness: it was all Chávez, and, without him, the only solution is to fabricate an absolute commitment to his memory and his plans for succession. The government's true fragility can now be seen, a government which tried to demonstrate its "popular, socialist" character via a grotesque personality cult, a practice that has now been reduced to the empty invocation of spirits. The deceased himself is to blame for this outcome as the secrecy around his illness was propelled by the same motivations as the extreme centralisation of power around him, while the lack of ideological coherence amongst his followers has left them scrapping for crumbs. The high-level "rojo-rojito" [chavista red] bureaucrats and the upper echelons of the military are best placed to benefit, as they negotiate impunity for their various misdemeanours and corruptions.

For the right-wing and social democratic opposition, the new situation finds them unable to overcome their losses of the presidential elections of October 7 and the regionals of December 16, offering a "yuppy populism" which promises voters that they will maintain and fine-tune the clientelist tools of governmental power which were so useful to Chavez. This accommodation assumes the belief that a fortuitous metastasis has brought them within reach of the power that their greed, mistakes, laziness and incompetence had kept them away from, power they will wield with similar stupidity and greed as the Chavista bolibourgeoisie.
The backdrop to this load of petty opportunism - from both the Gran Polo Patriótico [the Chavista coalition] and the Mesa de Unidad Democrática [the opposition coalition] - is Venezuela, a country that faces its own problems: out of control inflation, rising unemployment and precarious jobs, the devaluation of the currency, shocking personal insecurity, crises in electricity and water provision, education and health systems in decline, a housing shortage, obsolete - or incomplete - public works, a demagogic approach which pays attention to only the most extreme scarcities experienced by the most desperate people... a whole host of other problems which are equally disastrous.

These issues are not the central concern of the two gangs in competition for Miraflores [the President palace/seat] and the oil booty. Our collective response must be to not relent to their blackmail: support at the ballot box in exchange for 'solutions' that either never materialise or are ludicrously inadequate. Now is the time to overpower the rotten powers that be and build - from below - a real democracy of equality, social justice and freedom. We must unleash the generalised anger caused by our suffering, and convert it into autonomous social struggles, self-managed and extensive. We must spell out for the politicians in power that we don't need them, neither as intermediaries nor as gracious givers of what we ourselves can construct - united and from the base - without any need for "clean hands" or "red berets".

EL LIBERTARIO Editorial Collective
2013-03-06 10:22:20 AM  
1 votes:
Where's MNGuy?  Apparently he took a few trips to Venezuela, so he probably is familiar with Chavez's personal finances, and us stupid Americans just don't get it.  Just ask him.
2013-03-06 10:22:02 AM  
1 votes:

Onkel Buck: FarkedOver: theflatline: He won the popular vote by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor

I'm ok with this.

Im sure you have something I want but cant afford mind if I swing by later and pick it up? You worked for it and Im entitled to it


No. Socialism is for the people, not the socialist.
2013-03-06 10:21:28 AM  
1 votes:

Clash City Farker: So the CIA decided they wanted Hugo dead.


Actually, it appears that a colony of microscopic organisms wanted him dead.
2013-03-06 10:20:19 AM  
1 votes:

epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.


American politicians say he's a bad man for not cooperating with "American" corporations. That's pretty much it.
2013-03-06 10:19:00 AM  
1 votes:

FullMetalPanda: I'm sure he was going to will it to the people but died before he could update his will.

One thing, you look at him and Kim from Best Korea... they fat.  You look at Putin and he's in shape and skinny.  The skinny guy is the one you need to be afraid of in my opinion in regards to dictators for life...


Yon Cassius  has a lean and hungry look - he thinks too much, and such men are dangerous.
2013-03-06 10:13:03 AM  
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Lot of right wing glee in this thread.  I cannot wait until Margaret Thatcher dies.


the difference is, conservatives can die filthy wealthy and not be hypocrites.
2013-03-06 10:10:57 AM  
1 votes:

WordsnCollision: /Two dbags, one photo


It's like Penn goes out of his way to be a douche.  His group is probably doing some good in Hati, a problem that the world can't seem to get excited about, but there are just days where he needs a pimp slapping.
2013-03-06 10:10:38 AM  
1 votes:

epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.


He was a dickhead and a corrupt as hell dictator, but certainly not the only one.  He's probably a little better than Hussein, but certainly not as bad as Bin Laden.  He's hyped-up because he so frequently criticized the US and tried to stymie our elite's interests.  And usually tried to do it in a particularly AW sort of way.  So he got a lot of press.
2013-03-06 10:08:12 AM  
1 votes:

theflatline: He won the popular vote by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor


I'm ok with this.
2013-03-06 10:07:24 AM  
1 votes:

epoc_tnac: So, does anyone in here know *why* they hate Hugo Chavez?    I'd be genuinely curious to see a list of reasons that in the other thread he was being listed alongside Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.    Seems like a bunch of hyped-up bullshiat to me, but I'm just some ignorant guy waiting to be informed.


Well, for one, he had his legislature repeatedly pass "enabling laws" that allowed him to rule by decree.  Chavez signed a paper--new law.  No vote.

Imagine if the Congress did that for a US president.  (Thankfully, I have a little faith left in the system and believe that most Congresscritters, even of the same party, would vote against such a measure.)
2013-03-06 10:03:56 AM  
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Lot of right wing glee in this thread.  I cannot wait until Margaret Thatcher dies.


I see you ignored the false equivalencies, red herrings, and....well, you created your own strawman, so I'll give you that.....
2013-03-06 09:59:53 AM  
1 votes:
Corrupt hypocritical evil dictator is dead! Too bad I missed my dead pool pick by about two days. Now that the jackass of South America is dead perhaps peace will stand a chance down their again. We'll see if his successor is as good at kicking the hornets nest on queue as he is.
2013-03-06 09:59:53 AM  
1 votes:

I_C_Weener: Say what you will about Chavez, but he never banned 2 liter pop coke with your pizza order.


FTFY

;)
2013-03-06 09:57:06 AM  
1 votes:
I always find it amusing that these guys who spend all their lives living on a government salary seem to wind up rich.
2013-03-06 09:55:21 AM  
1 votes:
Chavez's rule looked like something out of Woody Allen's Bananas. There must be something in the water down there that turns a champion of the people into a ruthless dictator as soon as they get power.
2013-03-06 09:51:34 AM  
1 votes:
i0.kym-cdn.com

You don't.... yeah.
2013-03-06 09:42:19 AM  
1 votes:

I_C_Weener: Say what you will about Chavez, but he never banned 2 liter pop with your pizza order.


By how fat he was I'm pretty sure he had a 2 liter soda hooked up via IV on him at all times.
2013-03-06 09:40:41 AM  
1 votes:
Say what you will about Chavez, but he never banned 2 liter pop with your pizza order.
2013-03-06 09:36:10 AM  
1 votes:
Man of the people, no doubt about it.

.smh
2013-03-06 09:34:59 AM  
1 votes:
Judyth Baker did it.
2013-03-06 09:34:09 AM  
1 votes:

FullMetalPanda: I'm sure he was going to will it to the people but died before he could update his will.

One thing, you look at him and Kim from Best Korea... they fat.  You look at Putin and he's in shape and skinny.  The skinny guy is the one you need to be afraid of in my opinion in regards to dictators for life...


Never trust or fear a man whose ass is wider than his shoulders.
2013-03-06 09:29:12 AM  
1 votes:
Sucker died due to iatrogenic illness, a bug picked up in a hospital.

If you want someone to die give them an interventionist personal doctor.
 
Displayed 67 of 67 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report