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.

(NBC News)   Embalming fluid rejects Chavez   (worldnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 25
    More: Followup, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela, embalming fluid, Maduro, Chinese leaders, world leaders, soviet leader, Communist Party of China  
•       •       •

20563 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Mar 2013 at 11:24 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
2013-03-14 11:36:39 AM
6 votes:
floating around reddit today:

img823.imageshack.us
2013-03-14 11:31:24 AM
4 votes:
So... wait... communist governments have trouble planning ahead?
2013-03-14 02:00:47 PM
3 votes:

tylerdurden217: Lt. Cheese Weasel: tylerdurden217: WhoopAssWayne: floating around reddit today:

[img823.imageshack.us image 295x445]

I promise that I'm not trolling here. What specifically did Chavez do that was so evil? Great leader? No, but he did focus on poverty, the influence of oil money in politics, human rights, etc. Maybe those efforts were just a failure, but I'm missing why this guy is compared to some of the worst tyrants in history (not on Fark necessarily, but elsewhere)

I'm not a fan, but I'm not pissing on his grave either.
[macsmind.com image 450x451]

lulz... you posted a funny pic. That is hilarious. Bravo.

I'm indifferent to the passing of Chavez. He was a nut and obsessed with Simon Bolivar, a conspiracy theorist, opposed supposed "American Imperialism". According to Wikipedia (apologize for the lazy cut and paste) Chavez "increased government funding of health care and education, and significant reductions in poverty, according to government figures. Under Chavez, Venezuelans' quality of life improved according to a UN Index and the poverty rate fell from 48.6 percent in 2002 to 29.5 percent in 2011, according to the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America."

But perhaps at some cost because the crime rates in Venezuela increased. I'm sure his negligence had something to do with that. He was close to Castro and Ahmadinejad. What evil did Chavez engage in that offset the positive impact he had on Venezuela during his 15 years as president? Is his association with Ahmadinejad and Castro part of what makes him evil?


Just off the top of my head...

-He supported, befriended, and funded (well, helped fund) FARC, a minority-party group of "revolutionaries" who use pretenses of politics to cover their massive narcotics business.  They were allowed to hide in his country and given assistance in exchange for quiet (violent) favors and certain political fallout we'll discuss later.

-The crime rate didn't just increase, it shot through the farking roof.  Worse still a lot of the "crime" was his political enemies getting beaten or killed.  Mind you it was never on his direct orders, he just screamed, "Will no onerid me of this turbulent priest?" and the roving gangs of "chavistas" would tend to take care of it.  Often his "enemies" weren't even clearly defined, they were just anyone who was in the skilled labor market (i.e. getting paid more than minimum wage) and wasn't covered in the right gang colorspro-chavez paraphernalia.  More on the skilled labor fallout later.

-His pattern of using "irregulars" to threaten and attack his political enemies was successful in part because he took complete control of the media.  Hours of every day would have him use the nation's version of the Emergency Broadcast System to spew propaganda.  His lies on television, radio, and in school textbooks were pretty dire and re-wrote a lot of history a la Fox news and Reagan's past.  He also used the US as a scapegoat for everything, no matter how nonsensical (your own mention of "conspiracy theorist") which isn't necessarily bad for the country, but doesn't give me any reason to be nice to his hateful, incompetent ass.

-Whenever the thugs weren't enough, he'd drum up a pretend military threat by claiming the guards at the Colombian border (there to stop FARC, remember those politics I mentioned?) were prelude to an American Invasion.  With a new not-war any dissenting voices were silenced "for national security."

-Meanwhile, the economy was collapsing.  Sure the newly-nationalized (and according to every court it's been taken to, unfairly stolen) oil business was boomin', but it was also having severe production problems because anyone with any skill in petro-engineering (those skilled laborers I mentioned?) was getting the F outta dodge.  The economy had shortages of all kinds and whenever there was a shortage (usually due to mismanagement and the skilled people moving to Canada) of what his constituents (the former peasantry) needed his response was to blame another private industry and nationalize it.  For a time there was a factory whose entire job was to take the tons and tons of food he was having to import from America, re-bag it in bags labeled "made in (Guatemala, Paraguay, Belize, or the like)" and ship it to stores so no one would know The Great Satanic America was their primary source of food.

Is he worse than Bush?  Maybe.  Apples to oranges with relative levels of power, restraining factors, and legacy make it difficult to call.  Dubya started with a country whose problems were minor or very well-buried and dove headfirst into all kinds of problems, only some of which he had control over and all of which needed complex solutions.  Chavez started with a shiathole, a VERY exploitable resource, and relatively simple problems he could apply relatively simple (if ham-fisted and inefficient) solutions to in order to make them better than they had been.

Is he more bad than good?  I'd say so, but he did a lot of good that a lot of people try to ignore.  Raising up the peasants was a good thing, his suppressing of everyone else wasn't.  Thanks to the ever-present price of oil and the replacement skilled labor finally developing its skills the Venezuelan economy is looking better than it was, say, 5 or 7 years ago but it was pretty goddamn DIRE then, and 1999 was the middle of a regular recession (pretty much worldwide) already, so his current anemic growth compared to that period is like when Bush said, "hey the economy is fixed because all the money I shoveled at defense contractors drove up the Dow!"  Disingenuous at best.  And while the nation *is* better off now (mostly) than it was in 1999 he used some pretty damn nasty means to get to some rather so-so ends.

There were a LOT of things he could have done better and a lot of things he didn't need to do at all, but he did 'em anyway because that's who he is.  His love of his country was always eclipsed by his love of himself.  Over and over he gripped power, claiming it was to protect the will of the people (no matter how many folk didn't want him to do it) because he liked power.

But this is all smoke and mirrors, it boils down to one very simple thing.  Chavez stole from imperialists when he first nationalized everything owned by foreign interests, he was a big ol' douchebag/hater, Conservative propaganda says he's as evil as everything else they hate, and this is the motherfarking INTERNET where we hate everyone; ergo Chavez was the worst thing evar.
2013-03-14 08:16:42 PM
2 votes:
From the New York Time, worth a read:

Venezuela, More Deadly Than Iraq, Wonders Why

By SIMON ROMERO
Published: August 22, 2010
New York Times

CARACAS, Venezuela - Some here joke that they might be safer if they lived in Baghdad. The numbers bear them out.

In Iraq, a country with about the same population as Venezuela, there were 4,644 civilian deaths from violence in 2009, according to Iraq Body Count; in Venezuela that year, the number of murders climbed above 16,000.

-- New York Times
2013-03-14 04:48:32 PM
2 votes:

tylerdurden217: I promise that I'm not trolling here. What specifically did Chavez do that was so evil? Great leader? No, but he did focus on poverty, the influence of oil money in politics, human rights, etc. Maybe those efforts were just a failure, but I'm missing why this guy is compared to some of the worst tyrants in history (not on Fark necessarily, but elsewhere)

I'm not a fan, but I'm not pissing on his grave either.


And amassed 2 BILLION dollars in his own personal bank accounts. He focused on the poor (and they are still poor) and the evil corporations alright..and cha-chinged for himself.
2013-03-14 04:39:11 PM
2 votes:

FarkedOver: pseudoscientific socialism.

Fixed that for you. There is no "scientific" socialism. There ARE Social Democratic Philosophies, but these in no way resemble the system that Marx or Lenin intended to create.

FarkedOver: Notice how stats are really kept regarding atrocities committed by capitalist/free market nations? The number is astronomically higher


twimg0-a.akamaihd.net

Tell us about the systematic genocides and willful mass murder that pseudo-capitalistic societies across the past two hundred years have engaged in.

Communism, "Leninistic Socialism", and Fascism/Toltarianism by and large have the highest body count, among other horrors.

FarkedOver: As we've established no communist nation has existed.  So we cannot say communism/socialism is the source of the stripping away of rights of the workers.


Communism is unattainable in a modern age. Communes simply cannot produce, independently, the means for self sufficiency in the modern information age.

Ignoring the "No True Scotsman" fallacy here, which in and of itself ignores the fact that every attempt at Communism or Socialism started with the exact philosophies you have espoused and have fallen victim to basic human nature - greed and lust for power - which is made all the more easier by the party being considered both central and infallible.

It's either one, or the other. You cannot have a system which both protects the common worker from being taken advantage of, and also prevents abuse of power from the central bureaucracy.
2013-03-14 03:25:24 PM
2 votes:

FarkedOver: I don't mind oppression, as long as you oppress the owning class.  I mean that's a page right out of the State and Revolution play book.


It's not fascism when our side does it!

fc09.deviantart.net
2013-03-14 12:05:54 PM
2 votes:
ChrisDe

"I was a little surprised that U.S. republicans didn't try this with Reagan."

Why? It's always been a big thing for the left, not the right.
2013-03-15 12:42:59 AM
1 votes:

tylerdurden217: Under Chavez, Venezuelans' quality of life improved according to a UN Index and the poverty rate fell from 48.6 percent in 2002 to 29.5 percent in 2011, according to the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America."


Much of South America in general saw an economic boom during the same period.  Venezuela actually saw the poorest (least) growth among it's regional neighbors.  It is probably more accurate to say that Venezuela experienced some growth despite Chavez's bizarre economic policies and siphoning off personal fortunes.
2013-03-14 11:51:29 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Sadly when Trotsky tried to assert himself over Stalin, he ended up with an ice pick in the back of his skull.

As a trotskyist you can understand why I'm really no fan of Stalin. He was a state capitalist, not a socialist or communist. Hell, Stalin hired the Koch brother's father to do infrastructure work in Russia..... where do you think they made their fortune? That's right they made their billions off of daddy and his sucking Rubles from a tyrants cock.

I'm not lying when I say Trotskyism offers the best hope of socialists and workers controlling society. Instead of socialism in one country Trotsky, rightfully, explains if socialism is going to work, everyone needs to be on board. I have no illusions that this is an impossible task. I also have no illusions that capitalism is not the best system humans can achieve.


I can understand what you're saying here, but I still disagree with it. I'm unwilling, as a human being, to sell my rights and liberties away under the guise of a "better system" just to stick it to the evil corporations, and in doing so create a system which has historically been immune or, at the very least, openly hostile against checks and balances to central power.

We're going to have to agree to disagree, but I would like to point out that Social Democratic principles which maintain the human rights of all, while still providing a safety net for the lower class are attainable without a single, unified global government, and will probibly take more of a prominance in the United States once the old guard, "ZOMG EVIL SOCIALISM" baby boomers die out.

I actually see our country becoming more like Japan in that aspect, especially in terms of healthcare, as the decades pass.
2013-03-14 09:25:49 PM
1 votes:
Just make a wax model of the idiot, stick him in a glass case.  The dopes in that country will most
likely believe it anyway, on until the air conditioner goes off LOL.
2013-03-14 05:50:54 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Fixed for accuracy


fallacyaday.com
2013-03-14 05:36:02 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: That sums up all capitalism right there haha.


gulaghistory.org

Sums up communism pretty well.
2013-03-14 05:29:47 PM
1 votes:
And the list grows by one. Nothing of value lost.

FarkedOver: I would say all the atrocities committed under the fascist banner fall under the capitalism banner as well.  After all, what is fascism but a capitalist reaction.


And I would point out to you that "capitalism", in the way you seem to use it, would preclude state control over the means and manner of production, and the use of quotas and slave labor as part of genocidal ambitions which those Governments were known to use.

I would also point out that "capitalism", in the way you use it, ignores the fact that a "capitalist" society does not exist anywhere on Earth. In reality, what we have are different forms of pseudocapitalism, where the state does not regulate production and output, but rather regulates the conditions by which products can be sold, and workers can be used.
2013-03-14 04:31:15 PM
1 votes:

arethereanybeernamesleft: SHHHHHHHHHHH!  There are Jews in here, and they can't acknowledge that anyone but them endured such atrocities.


Go away. If you want to pretend that the holocaust didn't have several factors which made it unique among the genocides in history, I really don't want your help.
2013-03-14 04:05:22 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Notice how stats are really kept regarding atrocities committed by capitalist/free market nations? The number is astronomically higher.


I wish someone would just ask the Poles and Ukrainians whether they prefer communism, fascism, or free-market liberalism. They're about the only countries to experience all three in rapid succession.
2013-03-14 03:41:07 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Fascism is based on nationalism.  Socialism/communism/anarchism all best on internationalism.

Do some reading.


Really? Communism was based on internationalism? Because I'm pretty sure in the form it was implemented in, it was based on strong central government control of production and worker output, while also strictly controlling localized economic conditions and marked by rapid, aggressive expansionism and proxy wars in the same manner as the "evil capitalists" were vilified for?

FarkedOver: Once workers are in control there becomes no more class distinction, or so the theory goes.


Except for the fact that, historically, no "communist" state has ever achieved this. In reality, what they have achieved is a pseudo-capitalistic system in which the central party obtain riches, power, and prestige  while oppressing and misleading the common worker - which the centralized party has exhalted above all else as the center of the nation. In addition to this, Communist/"socialist" countries have traditionally executed incredible power and control over the media and over traditional freedoms that modern humanity has come to consider basic rights of man.

FarkedOver: You might learn what is you all hate so much.  You might be shocked to find you don't hate it so much.


Social Democratic principles have nothing to do with Marxist Socialism, or Leninistic Communism. They are, in fact, completely in opposition to them due to the requirement of the stripping of human rights from the working class that has been required for every communist nation to rise in power.
2013-03-14 03:11:45 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Do you want to know why Chavez or anyone else is distrustful of US influence in South America? It's because of our abysmal track record down there.

Just take a look at our wonderful Secretary of State Mr. Kissinger from the 70s:

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

Notice how democracy is bad when the capitalists are voted out.  Whenever the capitalists are voted out it's because the people just don't understand what is good for them so we need to go in there and take it over by force.

/Hopes for a continued Bolivarian revolution


All Chavez did (and Castro and Lenin and Mao, etc...) was shuffle the deck of cards a bit and change the labels of oppression.

There, you happy?
2013-03-14 02:44:36 PM
1 votes:
api.ning.com
2013-03-14 12:38:00 PM
1 votes:

tylerdurden217: WhoopAssWayne: floating around reddit today:

[img823.imageshack.us image 295x445]

I promise that I'm not trolling here. What specifically did Chavez do that was so evil? Great leader? No, but he did focus on poverty, the influence of oil money in politics, human rights, etc. Maybe those efforts were just a failure, but I'm missing why this guy is compared to some of the worst tyrants in history (not on Fark necessarily, but elsewhere)

I'm not a fan, but I'm not pissing on his grave either.

macsmind.com
2013-03-14 12:02:00 PM
1 votes:

Ned Stark: WhoopAssWayne: floating around reddit today:

Yeah, remember that time Chavez killed half a million people to show up his dad too. What a bastard.


What's funny is there are people who really believe that is why the US invaded Iraq.
2013-03-14 11:58:31 AM
1 votes:

Ukab the Great: WhoopAssWayne: floating around reddit today:

[img823.imageshack.us image 295x445]

White-girl dreads. Wonder what she would do if the Psychlos were invading Earth...


"Champions the impending doom of the foul, foul man-animals."

[image]

"Doesn't realize the Psychlos use it as a gender-neutral term."
2013-03-14 11:37:45 AM
1 votes:
Big surprise--a backwards near-third-world nation screwed up their delusional plans of grandeur.

Like they couldn't have called that creepy plastination German dude a little earlier?


birdhouse.org
2013-03-14 11:34:49 AM
1 votes:
What about the reports that the stiff that was presented in the funeral was not Chavez' body but only a wax dummy, because Chavez actually died a month ago and their people had to keep that a secret for his VP to take over?  It has been reported that the wax dummy incident was the reason why Brazil's president Dilma Rousseff and Argentina's PM Christina Kirchner suddenly decided to skip the funeral event and unexpectedly bailed out without providing much of an explanation.
2013-03-14 10:40:26 AM
1 votes:
Even in death, the corruption cannot be stopped. We have only one option left!

fc04.deviantart.net

/Burn the heretic. Kill the mutant. Purge the unclean.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report