Venezuela's Chavez wins vote to allow re-election

[Diuretic]

Nice spray, pity about the lack of evidence

 

[jillian]

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?

 

[Gunny]

Nice spray, pity about the lack of evidence

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ...

Pity that's the best you can do ... pretend the obvious doesn't exist to support your political bias.

 

[Gunny]

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

how is that a strawman? he made a comment. i think he should say what he means by "deal with" particularly when he's saying Obama doesn't have the "political will" to do so.

 

[editec]

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.

 

[elvis]

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?

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Saddam "won elections" too

 

[editec]

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?

During World War II?

Damned right he was.

Had he been anything but a dictator, we might not have been able to structure our society to defeat fascism. Congress went right along with him in that case, too.

Of course, given the threat, the people of ALL CLASSES went along with that totalitarian government. they suffered wage freezes, rationing, and all sorts of things that today even I would scream TOTALITAIANISM about.

Americans of ALL CLASSES actually worked TOGETHER in those days.

They went to war and died, they worked in factories and couldn't buy consumer goods, they took their wages and bought WAR BONDS to pay for the war, too.

WWII might have been America's finest hour, and the irony that it was its finest hour, and yet it was anything but the LIBERTARIAN IDEAL that some of us think we want today should not be something that you overlook.

United we stood, Elvis.

Now divided (by class and income) we are falling.

 

[Chris]

So when are we going to hear about the Chavez death squads? I see mass graves for the dissenters in Venezuela's future.

I see Chavez's head on the end of a stick....in Venezuela's future.

 

[Agnapostate]

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.

Yeah...and as long as the public desires, since Chavez cannot continue to hold office without being re-elected and any attempt to violently seize power or permanent control of his office would be greeted with extreme turbulence and problems for him. It's not so rosy an option as you seem to believe. If he was so "dictatorial," he would have ignored the results of the last referendum on term limits.

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.

I was under the impression that Florida and Ohio were also member states of the Union.

There IS an option to remove the President of the US from office.

There is no recall process that can simply be initiated because of popular displeasure with the inept performance of a President. The majority of the citizenry in this country felt that George Bush had not satisfactorily accomplished the duties of his office. I tended to favor that viewpoint, and unlike many, I did not chalk that up to his stupidity or ignorance, but rather his concessions to interest groups and lobbies.

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."

And if there was as much popular dissatisfaction with his "dictatorial" decision as there is here, he would be quickly voted out of office. But Venezuelans know better. They have seen previous ruling administrations here aid in the removal of democratically elected leaders in the Latin American region. They suspect CIA involvement in the brief removal of Chavez in 2002, though information on that won't be declassified for some time. And they are obviously satisfied with the socialist reforms that the Bolivarian Revolution has brought.

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.

I don't have any "idealism." The majority of my time is spent opposing idealism and utopian viewpoints.

Saddam "won elections" too

Please. Saddam was an ally of the ruling administrations until he stopped obeying orders.

 

[DiamondDave]

And the USSR was an ally of the US in WWII as well.. which has no bearing on the point.... we have had to choose between 2 evil sides many times

Saddam had rigged the elections and secured his power.. much as Chavez does

 

[Agnapostate]

An amusing comment, considering that international observers certified the legitimacy of Chavez's elections, including those that had some degree of negative commentary to make about the process. It's unlikely that reputable analysts would say the same of the Bush regime. Moreover, the point that Chavez survived a recall attempt and Bush would likely not have remains...especially since no recall process for the President exists in the U.S.

 

[DiamondDave]

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

 

[Agnapostate]

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

1st: All legitimate anarchists are socialists, and many have sympathies for democratic socialism even if exercised through a state. There is also no basis for calling a democratically elected official a "dictator," as he noted when responding to Sarah Palin's idiotic charge that he was one.

2nd: The "liberal bias" of the Times is dubious to begin with, even though accusations of liberal bias have a greater level of credence when directed at the print media. Moreover, the New York Times, like essentially all other American based media outlets, is hostile towards Hugo Chavez and opponents of the United States, as they have proven on numerous occasions. I would recommend reading Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent.

Moroever,

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

 

[Agnapostate]

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.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

Hitler was elected too. Confused about how he could be called a dictator?

Let's see was it last week or the week before when Chavez saw mass demonstrators against him he ordered the police to the area to "gas" (with tear gas) them even though the demonstration was peaceful.

Chavez has used his power in government to wire tap the opposition and then played the recordings of private conversations over the radio and TV to ridicule them. He has used police intimidation directly against the opposition and closed down all opposition media sources.

How was this possibly a fair and open vote? It was widely understood by everyone inside and outside Venezuela that this was vote was to determine Chavez' fate.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

Post something close to reality and I'll give you what you seek. I give what I get.

 

[DiamondDave]

"All legitimate anarchists are socialists" and Chavez ain't a dictator... in combination with the other crap like infanticide is not as bad as killing an adult...

You are truly either an attention seeking little twerp, like so many of the others in youth who paint little anarchy A's on their binders with the same black nail polish they use... or you are indeed a confused and warped individual.... and I personally don't know which is worse

Now we'll just sit back and wait for you to scream about someone not proving this or some extremist rant... when you continue to ignore reality as well as fact

10 words of advice

grow the fuck up and live in the real world