Diuretic
Permanently confused
Nice spray, pity about the lack of evidence
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So then, will our new leader have the political will to deal with the now ruler of Venezuela? I highly doubt it. In fact I will bet that Chavez will be lauded in some circles of the left wing.
Nice spray, pity about the lack of evidence
So then, will our new leader have the political will to deal with the now ruler of Venezuela? I highly doubt it. In fact I will bet that Chavez will be lauded in some circles of the left wing.
"deal with" him, how? by starting another war to depose a leader we don't like?
yeah, cause that thinking has worked so well already, hasn't it?
So then, will our new leader have the political will to deal with the now ruler of Venezuela? I highly doubt it. In fact I will bet that Chavez will be lauded in some circles of the left wing.
"deal with" him, how? by starting another war to depose a leader we don't like?
yeah, cause that thinking has worked so well already, hasn't it?
Nice strawman.
I am not really up to speed on the goings on in Venezuela, and based on what I've read here, neither is anyone else.
But I will say that removing limits to the number of times a President can be elected is NOT A GOOD THING.
Now, one might ask: Why, if it's a such a bad thing, have the people voted for it?
To that I repond: Because most people are more comfortable with tyrant that they perceive is working on their behalf than a shamocracy that they sense isn't working to their benefit.
We've seen this sort of thing happen in other places...German Italy, and Spain for three examples from the last century.
People tend to love benevolent dictators.
And they tend to support them long after the dicatator is no longer benevolent because by the time they realize their mistake, the dictator has enough quislings in place that standing up against the system can be very unhealthy, indeed.
How is he a dictator when he was elected?
And how has he corrupted this referendum?
The referendum was about lifting the limits on other offices as well. No doubt that was a ploy to make the president's ability to keep getting elected sweeter but if the referendum was carried out properly then there shouldn't be a problem with it.
I am not really up to speed on the goings on in Venezuela, and based on what I've read here, neither is anyone else.
But I will say that removing limits to the number of times a President can be elected is NOT A GOOD THING.
Now, one might ask: Why, if it's a such a bad thing, have the people voted for it?
To that I repond: Because most people are more comfortable with tyrant that they perceive is working on their behalf than a shamocracy that they sense isn't working to their benefit.
We've seen this sort of thing happen in other places...German Italy, and Spain for three examples from the last century.
People tend to love benevolent dictators.
And they tend to support them long after the dicatator is no longer benevolent because by the time they realize their mistake, the dictator has enough quislings in place that standing up against the system can be very unhealthy, indeed.
Do you consider FDR a dictator?
So when are we going to hear about the Chavez death squads? I see mass graves for the dissenters in Venezuela's future.
The usual twisted crap from you. Chavez is a thug. Period. He has manipulated a system that has more loopholes than ours does to keep himself in office as long as he desires.
Anyone that cannot or will not see that for what it is isn't fooling anyone but themselves. I really don't see why you even bother trying to blow this twisted smoke up anyone else's asses.
In 2000, Gore tried to backdoor the system and got beat by Bush using proper legal recourse within the system. In 2004, Kerry conceded defeat. Nothing "dubious" about either outcome.
There IS an option to remove the President of the US from office.
Referendum voting is a double-edged sword. Careful what you wish for. Yes, it is more true democracy than our current, republican system. It can also be used just as Chavez is using it ... continue holding referendum votes until "I win."
Then there is the fact you would be screwing the minority out of any voice whatsoever in goverment. Your idealism blinds you to the fact that your unpopular viewpoints would be squashed every time.
Saddam "won elections" too
1st.. .gotta LOVE how we see the positive attributes are thrown around when the attention seeking anarchist posts about the leftist dictator... and Bush's election is then to be declared less than reputable.. LMAO
2nd.. There are PLENTY of questions behind the tactics used by Chavez all along and again now in this latest 'effort'... even the NYTimes is reporting on this.. and when a lefty paper like the times can even see it, it truly goes to show you how warped you are in your views and fascination with extremism
CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez won the right to stay in power for as long as he keeps winning elections in a referendum vote on Sunday that bolsters support for his socialist and anti-U.S. policies.
Electoral authorities said 54 percent of voters approved a constitutional amendment to remove limits on re-election and allow Chavez to stay in office until he is defeated at the ballot box in the OPEC nation. Forty-six percent voted "No."
The margin of victory was larger than expected after opinion polls before the vote had given Chavez only a slim lead.
Chavez, whose current term ends in 2013, has already been in power for 10 years and his win in this referendum win helps clear the way for him to fulfill stated his declared goal of ruling for decades.
The victory on Sunday allows Chavez, 54, to put behind him a damaging vote loss in 2007, when his first attempt to remove constitutional restraints on his extended rule was defeated.
Venezuela's Chavez wins vote to allow re-election | International | Reuters
I've bolded the biased terms used in the article to imply that Chavez is a dictator. Of course, what's most ironic is that Chavez was elected to his office (while Bush's "elections" were dubious, to say the least), and survived a recall election, while most political analysts agree that Bush would not have survived a recall late in his term. But the U.S., the allegedly shining beacon of democracy, has no option to recall a president. Chavez won a vote of the citizenry in a national referendum (there are no national referendums in the U.S., of course), to permit the people to elect him in the future, thereby removing a restriction on democracy.
You can't be dumb enough to believe what you just wrote.
How is he a dictator when he was elected?
And how has he corrupted this referendum?
The referendum was about lifting the limits on other offices as well. No doubt that was a ploy to make the president's ability to keep getting elected sweeter but if the referendum was carried out properly then there shouldn't be a problem with it.
You can't be dumb enough to believe what you just wrote.
A lesser critic would have responded with points or arguments in rebuttal...it's so...majestic to see the grand sage transcending the stage of valid counterargument.