That Hugo, Tisk Tisk

[Marshal Murat]

I say we make this as popular as any other thread.
We here at the Org. enjoy Hugo Chavez.
His interesting word choice and socialistic policies have us laughing and cringing at what may be the new Fidel Castro.
So, in homage to our glorious leader (if any Venezuelans are reading this)...
So why shouldn't he be able to
Rule by Decree passed for Hugo Chavez
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6277379.stm
or
Nationalize key Venezuelan Companies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6243299.stm


We're heading toward socialism, and nothing and no-one can prevent it
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez


Then again his Country is Fully Democratic
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6281417.stm


I'm smelling brimstone!

[Cronos Impera]

Firstly there is nothing wrong with nationalizing energy companies. It's not like the energy market worldwide is a free competitive one. If energy companies fall in private hands the "democratic energy market" becomes a monopoly and those energy dudes get to increase the price whenever they want to. It's not like the Venezuelans have any option.

"All of that which was privatised, let it be nationalised," he said during the speech.

"The nation should recover its ownership of strategic sectors."

That is exactly my opinion. Strategic resources must be kept under gouverment control. If key areas of the economy (particulary those where there is hardly any competition at all such as energy) are privatized than prices start surging and THAT is worse than gouverment control in those areas. As long as Chavez doesn't overdue himself and nationalises all Venezuelan companies where there is a competitive market than I have a thumb up for his initiave :thumbsup:

[King Henry V]

Any friend of Carlos the Jackal is a friend of mine.

[InsaneApache]

I, for one, welcome Venezuelas socialist overlord. :whip:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Another perfect example of why term limits are probably the most important tool in any democracy.

His first two terms had many good things being done - some poorly judged, but mainly good. Come a third term, he is seeing himself as indispensible and the only man to know how to "save" the country - and this, rather unimaginatively, includes measures to reduce democracy and rights.

Sad.

[Ice]

In related news, Chavez has told the United States to "Go to hell, gringos! Go home!"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/01/21/chavez.ap/index.html

Hey, atleast hes professional and classy.

[Marshal Murat]

He spices up politics that keeps us from falling into the doublespeak of politicians.

If he and Iran's prime minister weren't in control of oil deposits, I would find the situation comedic.

Can we have this stickied for all the crazy things Chavez does?
Don't try to tell me he doesn't do crazy stuff.

[yesdachi]

If the world were a total war game he is playing it like I would, consolidate all the rebels at home (nationalize all those rogue companies) then start building up my military (all the militia training and aircraft purchases) then the next move would be expansion! The only thing I would do differently is not pissing on the one country that could completely destroy me. :freak:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

While Hugo is possibly the most entertaining world leader going, I think I have to agree with Banquo here.

I'd be a bit more critical of his track record than BG, but I heartily agree with BG that this signals pretty clearly that Hugo's greatest contributions are already in the past.

[Kommodus]

Ah, the lovable Chavez up to his nutty escapades again... :laugh4:

I just wish we Americans could get away with telling various world leaders to go to h*ll. :whip:



Actually, I'm encouraged by these new developments. If Venezuela is going to insist on being America's enemy for the next 50 years, well... nothing will weaken the country more effectively than a totalitarian socialist regime.

[Scurvy]

Firstly there is nothing wrong with nationalizing energy companies. It's not like the energy market worldwide is a free competitive one. If energy companies fall in private hands the "democratic energy market" becomes a monopoly and those energy dudes get to increase the price whenever they want to. It's not like the Venezuelans have any option.
resources must be kept under gouverment control. If key areas of the economy (particulary those where there is hardly any competition at all such as energy) are privatized than prices start surging and THAT is worse than gouverment control in those areas. As long as Chavez doesn't overdue himself and nationalises all Venezuelan companies where there is a competitive market than I have a thumb up for his initiave :thumbsup:

exactly, although i agree he's losing it a bit, theres nothing wrong with this... :2thumbsup:

[Ice]

exactly, although i agree he's losing it a bit, theres nothing wrong with this... :2thumbsup:

A bit? He's attempting, and will probably suceed, in getting the the national assembly to grant him powers to decree laws on his own. That is a very scary for the future of democracy in Venezuela, but if the Venezuelan people want that, who am I to judge. After all, he was elected democratically. :gah2:

[Pannonian]

A bit? He's attempting, and will probably suceed, in getting the the national assembly to grant him powers to decree laws on his own. That is a very scary for the future of democracy in Venezuela, but if the Venezuelan people want that, who am I to judge. After all, he was elected democratically. :gah2:
You're talking about something completely different to what Scurvy was commenting on. Scurvy was saying there's nothing wrong in nationalising energy industries. Most of the British population would probably prefer our national infrastructure to be nationalised, as it would run (and has run) more efficiently than the privatised mish-mash we have now.

[Ice]

You're talking about something completely different to what Scurvy was commenting on. Scurvy was saying there's nothing wrong in nationalising energy industries. Most of the British population would probably prefer our national infrastructure to be nationalised, as it would run (and has run) more efficiently than the privatised mish-mash we have now.

I must have misunderstood him then. I took when he said "he's losing it a bit" to mean hes becoming a bit overauthorative.

[TevashSzat]

Well, he called Bush the devil so he cant be that bad

[Crazed Rabbit]

Firstly there is nothing wrong with nationalizing energy companies.

1 It's theft
2 It will decrease efficiency
3 It will drive out all foreign investment
4 It will hurt the economy
5 It decreases freedom, economic and otherwise
6 It increases the power of a soon to be dictator

Etc.

Oh, and yes, we conservatives have basically been calling this for years (I wonder what JAG has to say). I can't wait till the price of oil drops.

Crazed Rabbit

[Pannonian]

1 It's theft
2 It will decrease efficiency
3 It will drive out all foreign investment
4 It will hurt the economy
5 It decreases freedom, economic and otherwise
6 It increases the power of a soon to be dictator

Etc.

Oh, and yes, we conservatives have basically been calling this for years (I wonder what JAG has to say). I can't wait till the price of oil drops.

Crazed Rabbit
Our experience of privatising national infrastructure is that we have to pay more for a worse service. Where there can be several competitors in a single area, the market will drive prices down and efficiency up. Where companies bid for what are effectively temporary monopolies, there is little incentive to raise efficiency and lower prices. Instead, they try to extract as much money from the customers as they can until their contract runs out. And if the government breaks up the system in order to limit the size of the monopoly, the companies can't raise efficiency even if they wanted to, as they'll have to negotiate with other companies dealing with a different part of the chain who have different requirements from them, in a system that was designed to work as a single entity.

The result? We pay almost as much in subsidies as we used to do in taxes, and the companies impose an extra surcharge on top to ensure profits. The overall tax burden is not noticeably reduced, and the customers have to pay a lot more than they used to. And because the system has been broken up, it doesn't run as efficiently as it used to either, meaning much higher prices for a worse service. Some industries are naturally monopolies, and as such nationalisation is less bad than privatisation.

[Pannonian]

I must have misunderstood him then. I took when he said "he's losing it a bit" to mean hes becoming a bit overauthorative.
Then I've misunderstood you even more than you've misunderstood him.

"A bit" is British understatement, emphasising the magnitude of the deed by de-emphasising it. Other useful terms: "A touch", "A tad", "A smidgin".

[Tribesman]

1 It's theft

What is ?
It could be said that the privatisation of the nationalised industries for a pittance leaving the tax payers(owners) with all the debts and the new investors with all the assets (with the help of a few nice bribes) was the theft Rabbit .

2 It will decrease efficiency

Not neccesarily

3 It will drive out all foreign investment

Wasn't his recent world tour done with the purpose of securing investment from other countries to push through the programs .

4 It will hurt the economy

Not neccesarily , keeping a larger share of the revenue in the country can aid the economy.

5 It decreases freedom, economic and otherwise

Possibly

6 It increases the power of a soon to be dictator

Luckily they have a constitution (you know the one the failed coup abolished as its first move) which prevents that .
To amend the constitution first he has to get the 2/3 votes in parliament (unfortunately no problem since the opposition boycotted the election ) but then it has to go to a nationwide vote by the citizens for approval .
So yes , he could become a dictator , if the citizens democratically vote for a dictatorship .

[Crazed Rabbit]

What is ?
It could be said that the privatisation of the nationalised industries for a pittance leaving the tax payers(owners) with all the debts and the new investors with all the assets (with the help of a few nice bribes) was the theft Rabbit .

Were Venezuela's soon-to-be-nationalized companies privatised recently? Seeing as some of them are owned by foreign companies, I think not.


Not neccesarily

But very, very likely. He wants socialism, which is not renowned for efficiency.


Wasn't his recent world tour done with the purpose of securing investment from other countries to push through the programs .
Companies don't get large and able to invest in foreign countries by being stupid, and they know actions speak louder than words.


Not neccesarily , keeping a larger share of the revenue in the country can aid the economy.
Foreign investment will fall, revenue from nationalized companies will fall, and Chavez is going to be the one getting the money.


Possibly
Rather likely, I'd say.


Luckily they have a constitution (you know the one the failed coup abolished as its first move) which prevents that .
To amend the constitution first he has to get the 2/3 votes in parliament (unfortunately no problem since the opposition boycotted the election ) but then it has to go to a nationwide vote by the citizens for approval .
So yes , he could become a dictator , if the citizens democratically vote for a dictatorship .
Really? Chavez doesn't seem to put a lot of weight into that document, and stuff like term limits, which used to be mandated by the consitution.

Crazed Rabbit

[Del Arroyo]

For those who had any doubts as to Hugo's democratic credentials, now all of our questions have been answered.

Remember, Hitler was democratically elected, and it was the majority will of the German people that he be sworn in as Fuhrer-for-life.

What really gets me, is how he can get away with calling someone as neutral and well-intentioned as Cesar Gaviria, prez of the OAS, a "verdadero pendejo".

You, Hugo Chavez Frias, are a verdadero pendejo. Go to hell.

[Pannonian]

For those who had any doubts as to Hugo's democratic credentials, now all of our questions have been answered.

Remember, Hitler was democratically elected, and it was the majority will of the German people that he be sworn in as Fuhrer-for-life.

What really gets me, is how he can get away with calling someone as neutral and well-intentioned as Cesar Gaviria, prez of the OAS, a "verdadero pendejo".

You, Hugo Chavez Frias, are a verdadero pendejo. Go to hell.
Proof that Godwin applies to all forums.

[Tribesman]

Were Venezuela's soon-to-be-nationalized companies privatised recently? Seeing as some of them are owned by foreign companies, I think not.

Would you like to reconsider your response there Rabbit ?
Or do I feel a real burst of laughing smilies coming on .

[Cronos Impera]

1 It's theft
2 It will decrease efficiency
3 It will drive out all foreign investment
4 It will hurt the economy
5 It decreases freedom, economic and otherwise
6 It increases the power of a soon to be dictator

Etc.

Oh, and yes, we conservatives have basically been calling this for years (I wonder what JAG has to say). I can't wait till the price of oil drops.

Crazed Rabbit

1. It isn't theft. Some areas of the economy just can't be left into the hands of private investors. If someone bought the Golden Gate bridge and decided to impose on you a fee for crossing it every time just because it's "private propriety" would a private transport network have anything to do with freedom?
2. Not exactly. Remember, it's the time of market we're talking about. If you privatize a company that has monopoly you create a trust and that is as anti-efficient as state control in that particular sector.
3. Foreign investment sometimes needs to be channeled. You don't want to become dependant on foreign enterprises. A national economy controlled by off-shore companies is politically vulnerable.
4. Re-nationalizing some key areas of the economy where there wasn't any competition isn't bad at all. At least prices now can be influienced in a way by the avarage consumer.
5. It doesn't decrease economic freedom. If you don't have to pay as much for energy you have more money to spend and thus you can become an investor yourself. If there's anything that can limit your freedom, that would be the price you have to pay for your bills.
6. Not exactly, if those companies are given to the local councils to manage.

[Crazed Rabbit]

1. It isn't theft. Some areas of the economy just can't be left into the hands of private investors. If someone bought the Golden Gate bridge and decided to impose on you a fee for crossing it every time just because it's "private propriety" would a private transport network have anything to do with freedom?

Taking things from people against their will is theft.


2. Not exactly. Remember, it's the time of market we're talking about. If you privatize a company that has monopoly you create a trust and that is as anti-efficient as state control in that particular sector.

The nationalized companies weren't monopolies, remember, we're talking about Venezuela, not the UK.



3. Foreign investment sometimes needs to be channeled. You don't want to become dependant on foreign enterprises. A national economy controlled by off-shore companies is politically vulnerable.

Channeled? Says who? Not good economics, that's for sure.


4. Re-nationalizing some key areas of the economy where there wasn't any competition isn't bad at all. At least prices now can be influienced in a way by the avarage consumer.
Yes, it is - government is almost always less efficient than private companies, and the prices certainly aren't going to be influenced by consumers - they are going to be controlled by Chavez.


5. It doesn't decrease economic freedom. If you don't have to pay as much for energy you have more money to spend and thus you can become an investor yourself. If there's anything that can limit your freedom, that would be the price you have to pay for your bills.

Yes, it does - the property of people is taken from them for supposedly economical reasons, and people have less overall freedom to run a business as they see fit.


6. Not exactly, if those companies are given to the local councils to manage.

Haha! You think they will be? Either way, who do you think controls the local councils?

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

Oh well I gave a fair chance to reconsider.
time to say Rabbit is talking some rubbish .

Were Venezuela's soon-to-be-nationalized companies privatised recently? Seeing as some of them are owned by foreign companies, I think not.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
You think wrong .
Take the first from the article , state owned until privatisation 15 years ago , shortly after privatisation (for a knock down price) it became the target for a take over by a foriegn company .


Companies don't get large and able to invest in foreign countries by being stupid, and they know actions speak louder than words.

Ah yes , that was a response to the statement about the recent push for foriegn investment , could tie it in with this one as well .....
Foreign investment will fall, revenue from nationalized companies will fall, and Chavez is going to be the one getting the money.
....
So then Rabbit how much investment did he attract ? how much is for short term and how much for long term ? Do you know how large a range of projects the new investment covers ?
Oh and if you thought that big multi nationals wouldn't be stupid enough to invest in nationalised industries can you explain the $17 bn put in by a very big American company to a State run energy provider in Venezuela .:inquisitive:
Hmmmm...revenue will fall , well that depends do you mean export revenue , like the new deals for exports that tie in with the new foreign investments or do you mean revenue from the domestic market?
Interesting one about domestic revenue , reducing the existing government subsidies for petroleum :yes: thats a bit of a swings and rounabouts one isn't it . No longer shall the ordinary citizen be able to get tax subsidised petrol for 14c . State owned public transport will still get the old price though .
Looky there .....state owned public transport ...how revolutionary ..... how radical .....how errrrrrr....normal .
Now I wonder which manufaturer of buses signed a deal with Venezuela to supply lots of buses ? It wouldn't be an American company by any chance would it ?
No never and especially since this crazy Latino is going to be bad for business they wouldn't possibly be setting up their own workshops and licensing arrangement down there would they :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Damn that foriegn investment , its a bugger when it keeps on cropping up when you least expect it . well .....when you least expect it because you didn't bother to look beyond the "Its Chavez:wall: "

You see Rabbit , on this particular issue Hugo (no matter what other sort of idiot he is) has learnt from the past , he saw what happened to Guatamala and Cuba with their nationalisation programs and has taken measures to avoid it .

Now would you like to address a proper problem about his program instead ?
Price fixing of agricultural produce . The method of determining effective use for the land seizures . Allocation of the siezed land before the educational programs and support infrastructure are up and running ...
Oh but I would appreciate it if you actually knew something about it before you just go off on a usual ...."but its Chavez:wall: " ~;)

[Kralizec]

4. Re-nationalizing some key areas of the economy where there wasn't any competition isn't bad at all. At least prices now can be influienced in a way by the avarage consumer.

Yes, it is - government is almost always less efficient than private companies, and the prices certainly aren't going to be influenced by consumers - they are going to be controlled by Chavez.

And Chavez is appointed by who...?

Ownership of certain branches of infrastructure, like railroads and phone lines, should be state property. Exploitation should be left to private companies, IMHO.

[Vladimir]

Hugo has to nationalize as much of the economy as he can. If it were to prosper then he couldn't scapegoat the US any more. If you want to compare nationalized vs. private sector economies compare Canada and Mexico. As in the example of oil: Both say that whatever lies under ground is property of the government but Canada lets private firms extract it while Mexico doesn't. That's why Canada is doing so well and Mexico is falling behind. Government already controls the private sector thru regulations, there is no reason why they should take it over completly.

[Strike For The South]

For those who had any doubts as to Hugo's democratic credentials, now all of our questions have been answered.

Remember, Hitler was democratically elected, and it was the majority will of the German people that he be sworn in as Fuhrer-for-life.

What really gets me, is how he can get away with calling someone as neutral and well-intentioned as Cesar Gaviria, prez of the OAS, a "verdadero pendejo".

You, Hugo Chavez Frias, are a verdadero pendejo. Go to hell.

Where did you learn Mexican?

As for the topic: who didnt see this coming?

[Csargo]

Where did you learn Mexican?

As for the topic: who didnt see this coming?

Me :sweatdrop:

Why are you all attacking the great man that is Hugo Chavez?:no:
















































































































:laugh4:

[IrishArmenian]

In related news, Chavez has told the United States to "Go to hell, gringos! Go home!"
Hey, the rest of the world says that too. Minus the gringos and the socialism of course.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh well I gave a fair chance to reconsider.
time to say Rabbit is talking some rubbish .
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
You think wrong .
Take the first from the article , state owned until privatisation 15 years ago , shortly after privatisation (for a knock down price) it became the target for a take over by a foriegn company .
I don't consider 15 years ago recent.
I think correctly.


Ah yes , that was a response to the statement about the recent push for foriegn investment , could tie it in with this one as well .........
So then Rabbit how much investment did he attract ? how much is for short term and how much for long term ? Do you know how large a range of projects the new investment covers ?
Oh and if you thought that big multi nationals wouldn't be stupid enough to invest in nationalised industries can you explain the $17 bn put in by a very big American company to a State run energy provider in Venezuela .:inquisitive:
Hmmmm...revenue will fall , well that depends do you mean export revenue , like the new deals for exports that tie in with the new foreign investments or do you mean revenue from the domestic market?
Interesting one about domestic revenue , reducing the existing government subsidies for petroleum :yes: thats a bit of a swings and rounabouts one isn't it . No longer shall the ordinary citizen be able to get tax subsidised petrol for 14c . State owned public transport will still get the old price though .
Looky there .....state owned public transport ...how revolutionary ..... how radical .....how errrrrrr....normal .
Now I wonder which manufaturer of buses signed a deal with Venezuela to supply lots of buses ? It wouldn't be an American company by any chance would it ?
No never and especially since this crazy Latino is going to be bad for business they wouldn't possibly be setting up their own workshops and licensing arrangement down there would they :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Damn that foriegn investment , its a bugger when it keeps on cropping up when you least expect it . well .....when you least expect it because you didn't bother to look beyond the "Its Chavez:wall: "

You see Rabbit , on this particular issue Hugo (no matter what other sort of idiot he is) has learnt from the past , he saw what happened to Guatamala and Cuba with their nationalisation programs and has taken measures to avoid it .

Now would you like to address a proper problem about his program instead ?
Price fixing of agricultural produce . The method of determining effective use for the land seizures . Allocation of the siezed land before the educational programs and support infrastructure are up and running ...
Oh but I would appreciate it if you actually knew something about it before you just go off on a usual ...."but its Chavez:wall: " ~;)

It doesn't matter if it's Chavez or not - I am arguing from a simple economics viewpoint. Did that 17bn foreign invstment happen after he announced his nationalization plan?


Ownership of certain branches of infrastructure, like railroads and phone lines, should be state property. Exploitation should be left to private companies, IMHO.
Why? In the US, it was private companies that built the rail network that cross this land, not the idiot gov't.

CR

[nokhor]

chavez seems to be a one trick pony. He seems to be spending a lot of his time making bombastic statements. bush doesn't gripe about osama or even fidel doesn't gripe about bush as much as chavez does about bush. it's fine to have the Great Enemy but if that's the almost exclusive point of your politics, evnetually you will fail.

i read an interesting article a week ago that said that contrary to what he may believe, chavez' power primarily derives from the price of oil. he may put up statues of himself and declare himself emperor of new turkmenistan for all most venezualans could care as long as money is flowing into the system from the high price of oil. if the price drops like it did during the term of his predecessor, chavez will eventually be evicted either through elections or feet first through a coup, no matter how indispensable he may percieve himself to be.


it nevertheless continues to amaze me though that in this day and age, some politicians still try to build up their little personality cults as if the state won't continue without them long after they're dead.

[Tribesman]

I don't consider 15 years ago recent.
I think correctly.

You are young , but you will learn grassshopper .


It doesn't matter if it's Chavez or not - I am arguing from a simple economics viewpoint
No you are arguing from a simple viewpoint .

One really major flaw in your position is illustrated by this ....
Chavez is going to be the one getting the money.
....you fail to realise that one of the main reasons why he is popular over there is that it was previous polititians who had a long history of corruption lining their own pockets by stealing from the taxpayer and getting bribes for contracts .

[The Black Ship]

One really major flaw in your position is illustrated by this ........you fail to realise that one of the main reasons why he is popular over there is that it was previous polititians who had a long history of corruption lining their own pockets by stealing from the taxpayer and getting bribes for contracts .

While that is true, you neglect to acknowledge his contention that Chavez is profiting from his position, or are you contending he isn't or won't?

[Tribesman]

OK a little more time now instead of the rushed effort this morning .
So now Rabbit .
Did that 17bn foreign invstment happen after he announced his nationalization plan?

Good question , a very good question , especially since you have a theory about foriegn investment .
So you want to know if the $17 billion invested in a State owned company that has always been state owned occured before or after plans for state ownership . hmmmmm ...tricky one there since it is a state owned company whose status will not change with the expansion of state ownership .:yes:


Why? In the US, it was private companies that built the rail network that cross this land, not the idiot gov't.

Oooooooops , could you perhaps have come up with a worse example Rabbit ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
But OK we shall fly with that example for a while to see how it crashes down .
Bribery , big bribery of elected officials including a future President of your great nation to secure government funds , government lands and government contracts .
So how much government land (thats tax payers land you know)was it they got given ? How many millions of acres of tax payers land ?
Wasn't it something like 10 square miles each side of every mile of track they laid .
My my isn't that a damn big government handout .

Now it seems Rabbit that it is your idea (part from the "its Chavez") that nationalised industries do not work , they do not attract outside investment , and are not profitable .
Well sorry to burst your bubble , but while there have been many spectacular failures there have also been many roaring sucesses .
Just as with privatisation of nationalised industries there have been many dismal failures as well as great results .

Just as two examples that have been in topics here recently , the British MOD privatising the maintainance of its combat aircraft and property portfolio , your military privatising much of its transport and supply operations (often on a no bid basis :no: ) ........So do you consider those as good or bad examples of free market benefits ?

If you would like some more to consider there are a plethora of Irish ones to consider . The Brits will undoubably manage to tell a good few from both the good and bad side (as each case merits it ) and perhaps the Germans and French can have a giggle about how some of their state owned businesses managed to expand and profit greatly (plus get extra investment ) from other countries de-nationalisation programs .



While that is true, you neglect to acknowledge his contention that Chavez is profiting from his position, or are you contending he isn't or won't?
The scale of it remains to be seen Black Ship .
I don't doubt that he will , he is after all a politician , politicians are by the very nature of their job lying thieving scum .
What I do acknowledge is that Rabbit previously posted some data from a site that showed how much Castro was profiting from his position , it involved adding up the sum worth of all Cuban government holdings and saying "this is all Castros personal wealth which he stole from the citizens":yes:

[Kralizec]

Why? In the US, it was private companies that built the rail network that cross this land, not the idiot gov't.

CR

To avoid the disadvantages of a technological monopoly, silly :burnout:

[Del Arroyo]

Most Venezuelans are just as embarrassed by Chavez's tirades as the rest of us are flabbergasted. He enjoys the fanatical support of a minority, and the tepid acquiescence of a majority. Most simply accept him as inevitable, and many give him points for having good intentions. But the average citizen is not blind to the fact that Chavez makes an idiot of himself.

[IrishArmenian]

I think that if you want a laugh, look at all the odd American politicians. You always seem to elect the weirdest people to congress. I frequently go on american news sites for a good laugh. Lemur has posted a lot of stories (Foley, etc.), but I advise just checking news sites every know and then.

[Tribesman]

Most Venezuelans are just as embarrassed by Chavez's tirades as the rest of us are flabbergasted. He enjoys the fanatical support of a minority, and the tepid acquiescence of a majority. Most simply accept him as inevitable, and many give him points for having good intentions. But the average citizen is not blind to the fact that Chavez makes an idiot of himself.

Replace Venezuelans with Americans and replace Chavez with Bush and that still makes sense .

Hey Rabbit any more thoughts about your really really bad example you used ?
It is just that I was wondering what you would get if you took the words American and railtrack and put them together ?
Oh and whatever you do don't mention the largest State in the Union and railroads .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Vladimir]

Me likey. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_opposition) :yes:

CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez's political mentor — who once persuaded the fiery leader to seek power through elections after he led a failed coup — now says the regime has "all the characteristics of a dictatorial government."

[Tribesman]

Me likey:yes:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Oh the irony . :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Someone who told chavez not to steal power through a coup but to do it through elections is speaking at a ceremony by a newspaper whose owners tried to sieze power through a coup and whose party won't stand for election .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Thanks for that vlad , me likey that too :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Soulforged]

chavez seems to be a one trick pony. He seems to be spending a lot of his time making bombastic statements. bush doesn't gripe about osama or even fidel doesn't gripe about bush as much as chavez does about bush. it's fine to have the Great Enemy but if that's the almost exclusive point of your politics, evnetually you will fail. Well it's not the sole point of "his" politics, it's his trademark only. He's a socialist and socialism implies profound transformation of society through the actions of the State, so as you can imagine "his" politics are much more spread out than those of any other leader of state in a capitalist country. A good politician has to know how to show a public face and a private one, and a lot of the decisions that will have political consequences are taken on a private enviorament. The other great part of "his" politics is the union and congregation of all south american countries, if there's a man that you can say is making an effort to unite the sometimes antagonistic countries, that man is Hugo Chavez. He is also pro UN, and is looking to revive the discussion inside the chambers of the assembly. There's a lot more to Hugo than only his public punch line, wich is a funny addendum nontheless. If it were otherwise, I agree with you, the man wouldn't last any longer on his position.

i read an interesting article a week ago that said that contrary to what he may believe, chavez' power primarily derives from the price of oil. he may put up statues of himself and declare himself emperor of new turkmenistan for all most venezualans could care as long as money is flowing into the system from the high price of oil. if the price drops like it did during the term of his predecessor, chavez will eventually be evicted either through elections or feet first through a coup, no matter how indispensable he may percieve himself to be.I wouldn't understimate the anti-american discourse power on the south american political field. There's a profound and old mistrust against north americans down here, and Venezuela is no exception, sometimes that mistrusts turns into hate. Now I'll like to read that article to see what the author said. Besides Hugo is one of the most charismatics man I've ever seen in politics, you could say that he was born to do that. On the other hand if you want to know about personal cults in south american politics, you could take a look at Peron for example, or even better: Carlos Rovira (http://www.abierta.tv/rosario/notasrosario/43717_-_Argentina_tendra_una_cruz_mas_alta_que_el_Monumento_a_la_Bandera.aspx).This last guy wanted to be the indefinite governor of Misiones in Argentina, now his megalomany doesn's stop there, he wants to build a cross bigger than the Christ Reedeemer and the Statue of Liberty in the same province to his honour (even if the people of the province are almost all against him) [the link is in spanish, but you can translate it]. Now that's megalomany.

it nevertheless continues to amaze me though that in this day and age, some politicians still try to build up their little personality cults as if the state won't continue without them long after they're dead.And it will continue as long as there's a State and a society. Is just human nature. Now I could argue, however, that I've never seen Hugo making a deal about his person or anyone talking about a cult of Chavez. That will be funny... and terrifying in someway...

[shizzernockers3]

i think that he just wants some attention i dont us imposing sactions angainst him or anything so i dont get why he says all these things when we are giving his country money for there oil and he assumes that we are going to invade him even though there is no reason to except to shut him up

[Scurvy]

i think that he just wants some attention i dont us imposing sactions angainst him or anything so i dont get why he says all these things when we are giving his country money for there oil and he assumes that we are going to invade him even though there is no reason to except to shut him up

did you read the above post? :2thumbsup:

--> btw, you pay him for oil, because hes selling it to you....

[Tribesman]

--> btw, you pay him for oil, because hes selling it to you....
And if you buy it from a US based subsidiary that used to be a privately owned US business until it was bought by a Venezuelan state owned company you can get a really really big discount .

Anyhow where dat wabbit go ?:laugh4: :laugh4:
Since the railroads approach became a bit of a trainwreck for ya how about another gem you came up with .......


The nationalized companies weren't monopolies, remember, we're talking about Venezuela, not the UK.

Good point , very good point , we do be talking about Venezuela so we do ....so now my furry friend, which of those privatised companies from the opening articles are monopolies in Venezuela ?~:doh:

[JAG]

Not only do the articles prove nothing at all of him being a 'dictator' - for instance you forget to mention that the SAME law was passed in his first term and he did not abuse it, quite the opposite he used it to great effect to help the needy of his country - but the whole US obsession with demonising Chavez does actually show what a strong position he is in. US hegemony in Southern American politics and society is being broken and about time.

And I love the nationalising of industry being stated as stealing. HA! What a laugh!! No if you want to see daylight robbery look in your history books and turn to 1980's Britain and a certain Mrs Thatcher.

[Tachikaze]

Not only do the articles prove nothing at all of him being a 'dictator' - for instance you forget to mention that the SAME law was passed in his first term and he did not abuse it, quite the opposite he used it to great effect to help the needy of his country - but the whole US obsession with demonising Chavez does actually show what a strong position he is in. US hegemony in Southern American politics and society is being broken and about time.

And I love the nationalising of industry being stated as stealing. HA! What a laugh!! No if you want to see daylight robbery look in your history books and turn to 1980's Britain and a certain Mrs Thatcher.
JAG! How long have you been back? I have been quiet for a while, so I haven't been reading many threads.

[rory_20_uk]

Jag, Nationalising British industry did have one effect: in the main it now turns a profit and isn't merely a group of failing businesses heavily subsidised to help soak up the jobless. Look at the comedy from the time. Much of it was focuse on the stanglehold unions had on the country and how this was throttling the economy.

But you've still got the NHS a good old fashioned Labour white elephant - sorry, business. Full of middle layer managers, masses of pointless beaurocracy and a slew of new constraints every year. Be grateful that Thatcher didn't privatise that... :dizzy2:

The National Railways are a complete disaster - but IMO that is to do with how it was performed. Before nationalisation the companies held all assets in their area, not this insane system where about 4 companies are required to get anything done. But as I say - the railways were private before nationalisation.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

Not only do the articles prove nothing at all of him being a 'dictator' - for instance you forget to mention that the SAME law was passed in his first term and he did not abuse it, quite the opposite he used it to great effect to help the needy of his country - but the whole US obsession with demonising Chavez does actually show what a strong position he is in. US hegemony in Southern American politics and society is being broken and about time.

Who's trying to demonize him? The article I posted was about his mentor. It seems like he's doing everything he can to demonize the U.S. You must have forgotten his devil came down to the UN speech. He's doing a pretty good job of demonizing himself.

[Soulforged]

[...] He's doing a pretty good job of demonizing himself.That depends on the eyes of the beholder...

On the industry nationalization issue: I think it's effectivity depends on the status and on the goals of a certain State on a certain point. It's not simply absolutely inneffective or counter productive, it can be, however, given the right conditions. What the people from the first world contruies and the rest of the industrialized world has to understand is that the industry's (heavy industry, of course, and electronics too) on Latin America in general is very poor, most of the surgent industries are precary at best and cannot compite. Many industries wich provided public services in Latin America were bought by multinationals and other companies from Europe or North America. This companies took advantage of this poor situation and bought the previously national companies from begging governants and other subjects in a sad situation. It's more, as this companies held the high ground during this deep transformation of the economic estructure, they could as easily avoid the nuisance of paying taxes and they could also ignore other laws wich made them subject to other burdens. This occured with all companies in fact, and not just with those that started to provide the public services. As the State had no leverage to force this services to behave as they wanted, the companies suffered a fast process of pauperization, and there was no way out of this unless the State bought the companies back, wich in many cases didn't happened.

Now, let's take the example of the US. AFAIK the State of the USA is not exactly poor. If a company grows to much, becomes a monopoly or gets a little "cocky", the State itself creates the competence and forces the monopoly to disapear or to make a deal. This is why in rich States it's easier to make capitalism work as it should, but in my opinion, nationalizing some industries (public industries) and subsidizing others is not only a good movement in developing countries but necessary also.

[Vladimir]

That depends on the eyes of the beholder...


Not in this case, it's quite literal. When you refer to someone, especially the leader of a country to the devil, or a demon, it's demonizing.

It's also reflexive. :yes:

[nokhor]

Soulforged,
i don't mind if venezuela nationalises industries that it believes are essential for its security. venezuela is a sovereign country and they will gain the domestic benefits and pay the international repurcussions of such a move. that is fine. but when chavez starts slowly changing the constitution so that he can be president for life. when he starts getting rid of all independent media because they are against 'the People.' if he accumulates more and more power into his hands because only he knows the 'Right True Way' and he begins to consider the state and himself one and the same then what happens after he dies or is removed from power?

it's the same crap that czar vladimir I was pulling when he recently declared that after his presidency is over he's still going to be overseeing the russian state in some kind of capacity. its the idea of ' i am indispensable to the state' mentality that i find offensive; since the state existed way before these guys and will exist long after they're gone. but other people usually have to pick up the pieces after the Great Leader has exited or been forced off the stage.

[Soulforged]

Not in this case, it's quite literal. When you refer to someone, especially the leader of a country to the devil, or a demon, it's demonizing.

It's also reflexive. :yes:
I thought you meant that Chavez is demonizing himself...forgive me if I was wrong.

i don't mind if venezuela nationalises industries that it believes are essential for its security. venezuela is a sovereign country and they will gain the domestic benefits and pay the international repurcussions of such a move. that is fine. but when chavez starts slowly changing the constitution so that he can be president for life. when he starts getting rid of all independent media because they are against 'the People.' if he accumulates more and more power into his hands because only he knows the 'Right True Way' and he begins to consider the state and himself one and the same then what happens after he dies or is removed from power?I'm with you. I'm not necessarily defending Chavez as a person, but I believe some of his moves are necessary and some others beneficial. Everyone carries his virtues and his vices with himself, and Chavez is not different. The discussion that surrounds his person is always biased towards one extreme or the other. One sides ignores the good things he has done (or denies it's goodness) and only see the bad things, and viceversa. It's all pure rethoric, and it becomes stronger because Chavez is a public figure and is always active. My post was more to adress your statement of Chavez's politics points.

it's the same crap that czar vladimir I was pulling when he recently declared that after his presidency is over he's still going to be overseeing the russian state in some kind of capacity. its the idea of ' i am indispensable to the state' mentality that i find offensive; since the state existed way before these guys and will exist long after they're gone. but other people usually have to pick up the pieces after the Great Leader has exited or been forced off the stage.I get you, and I don't like it either, but again is human nature, and again, perhaps Chavez is not doing it for those reasons, perhaps he believes that the democratic process has to be stoped and not necessarily attach the State to his person. It's nontheless, very dangerous, and everyone is doing well in watching him and worrying.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

US hegemony in Southern American politics and society is being broken and about time.

We had a hegemony in SA politics? Why didn't anybody tell me?

Even in our best "Banana Republic" days, JAG, we didn't have anything resembling a cohesive policy in Latin America. Hegemony implies, at the least, a controlling hand. We had economic clout and used force from time to time, but we never sought dominion in any sense.

[Vladimir]

We had a hegemony in SA politics? Why didn't anybody tell me?

Even in our best "Banana Republic" days, JAG, we didn't have anything resembling a cohesive policy in Latin America. Hegemony implies, at the least, a controlling hand. We had economic clout and used force from time to time, but we never sought dominion in any sense.

But that's not true. We're to blame for all the ills of Latin America. His hero said so. :yes:

[JAG]

We had a hegemony in SA politics? Why didn't anybody tell me?

Even in our best "Banana Republic" days, JAG, we didn't have anything resembling a cohesive policy in Latin America. Hegemony implies, at the least, a controlling hand. We had economic clout and used force from time to time, but we never sought dominion in any sense.

hahahaha hahahaha, hahaha!!!!!

Stop, stop, you are giving me stomach pains here.

Do you actually believe that tripe you wrote? I will take it that instead of believing it, it is a love for your country and ignorance instead, which is just as bad, actually. Oh well, hahaha!

Oh dear, yeh the US has never had a policy of trying to gain social and political - and specifically economic - hegemony over South America, NEVER! hahaha.

And Tach, I am here and there ~;) Not posting much anymore, too busy getting drunk!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

hahahaha hahahaha, hahaha!!!!!

Stop, stop, you are giving me stomach pains here.

Do you actually believe that tripe you wrote? I will take it that instead of believing it, it is a love for your country and ignorance instead, which is just as bad, actually. Oh well, hahaha!

Oh dear, yeh the US has never had a policy of trying to gain social and political - and specifically economic - hegemony over South America, NEVER! hahaha.

And Tach, I am here and there ~;) Not posting much anymore, too busy getting drunk!

Laddie:

I never said we didn't do some of those things. I'd have to be pretty ignorant of US actions in Central America or the theft of Panama and a few other little "events."

All I was arguing is that we've really NEVER had a COHESIVE policy to do anything South of the Rio Grande. Bits and pieces of jumbled objectives, economic exploitation (and sometimes partnering), trying to throw our weight around to prevent communist takeovers. Aside from being consistently anti-communist/socialist regime from 1950-1990, what are the consistent components of this "hegemonic" effort?

The USA has always had a far more cohesive policy towards Europe than we ever did to our South. Mind you, I'm not saying that our cavalier attitude and behavior haven't contributed to the problems in SA, its very likely/damn near certain they have. That a lot of folks in SA would resent us for our ham-handed political efforts and economic power is pretty understandable.

Example: Our brillian political efforts during the Falklands crisis. Publicly claim no interest and thus sidestepping the Monroe Doctrine, while privately providing information to our long-time allies the British but NOT providing them the air cover that would have minimized casualties or even created a withdrawal with no casuaties on either side. End result: Argentina thinks we suck, several other SA countries agree. British public thinks we suck for not supporting an ally who bled for and with us during WW2. Basically, dumb FoPo effort all around.

So, where is the policy of domination that allowed us to create our New World Co-Prosperity Zone? Having established this fiefdom of satellite states bound to us by economic ties that favored the Hegemonic USA, why aren't we getting our resources smoothly and what's preventing us from keeping are satraps in line?

In other words, JAG, I don't see it. I'm not claiming we're angels, just that you're reading hegemony where I see a nothing but a pattern of haphazard reactionary efforts with little cohesion to it. If we'd really been trying to establish some kind of empire -- of course under another label -- I'd actually suspect we'd have screwed things up LESS.

[rory_20_uk]

I think he was looking for the Drunkards thread. Good to see the time at Uni is bieng put to good use...

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think it is instructive to review the events of Weimar Germany from 1928 through 1934 in assessing the "appropriateness" of Chavez' actions.

Please note, I am referring to the means/process of converting a democracy into a dictatorship. Pres. Chavez does not appear to be interested in eugenics and his political stance is more socialist than national socialist. I ask you to consider some of the parallels in political machination.

[Vladimir]

For the good of the people (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6315819.stm). :bow:

[Soulforged]

For the good of the people (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6315819.stm). :bow:
Not the first latin american country in wich it's State proceeds that way... and certainly not the last. It's however a surprise that he got defense ruled by decree...

On the other hand, international treaties on political rights allow the States to suspend them for a reasonable time if the situation calls for it, not sure if this is happening in Venezuela tough (probably not). And this power was given to him democratically.

This moves are generally used to help the economy to withstand a crisis, with the excuse that rapid desicion is more important than deliberated desicion, considering the critical situation. In my country there were various projects and laws of the kind.

So this is not new, and perhaps it's, in fact, for the good of the people. If Chavez extends this time more than 18 months, either he's failing again to stop the crisis (if any) or he wants more or less than the good of the people.

[Vladimir]

What crisis? I keep hearing from his supporters about all the good he's doing for his people, finally standing up to the US and all. Still, you state your case well.

[Soulforged]

What crisis? I keep hearing from his supporters about all the good he's doing for his people, finally standing up to the US and all. Still, you state your case well.
That's what I ask myself too. But the fact that his supporters talk about his "good deeds" does not speak of any possible crisis. We usually don't hear about economic crisis around the world unless it directly concerns us, so I rarely hear anything about Venezuela's local situation to tell you the truth. What I'm saying here is that in the case there's an actual or inminent crisis on Venezuela I don't think Chavez has done wrong, and the probability is high, considering the general situation on latin america.

[Marshal Murat]

I'm going to revive this because I created this thread for the express purpose of stating what Chavez is doing to his country.


:2thumbsup:

[Tribesman]

I'm going to revive this because I created this thread for the express purpose of stating what Chavez is doing to his country.

OK then Murat since it appears you have a hair itching your back passage over politics in Venezuela and you cannot stop scratching it .
Your first news topic , which is also repeated by Vladamir ......
Rule by presidential decree authorised by the elected government in accordance with the constitution .
So then .....Of the 10 presidents elected since the constitution allowed this , how many have been granted the rule by decree motion ?
So your point is ?

[Marshal Murat]

Chavez coup d'etat from alternate thread (http://www.globovision.com/news.php?nid=48767)

This is to pool the Chavez posts and discuss them, rather than constantly blip out 'Chavez does this' or 'Chavez smells sulphur' and 'Chavez rails against America'. This thread is supposed to be like the Atheist/Agnostic/Christian/whatever thread.

:2thumbsup:

[Pannonian]

I'm going to revive this because I created this thread for the express purpose of stating what Chavez is doing to his country.

Are you Venezuelan? If not, why do you have this strange obsession with this insignificant little country?

[Tribesman]

Are you Venezuelan? If not, why do you have this strange obsession with this insignificant little country?
I think its the latest little US based fetish , well that and the fact that is easier to remember how to spell Hugo Chavez than something worthwhile like Emomali Rahmonov or Islom Kurimov .:shrug:

Plus they are a little upset that Hugo calls their great leader a dangerous idiot , but surely they should have realised by now that most of the world has known for a long time that their great leader is an idiot .

[Marshal Murat]

Whatever Chavez does is so blatantly socialistic and communist, such a flourish and difference from the regular old politico.

While Bush isn't the greatest leader, Chavez is easier to spell than Ahmadinijad. Or is it Ahmadamadinijad? Ahmadanad?

[Pannonian]

Whatever Chavez does is so blatantly socialistic and communist, such a flourish and difference from the regular old politico.

While Bush isn't the greatest leader, Chavez is easier to spell than Ahmadinijad. Or is it Ahmadamadinijad? Ahmadanad?
Aren't there more important concerns than getting yourself worked up over some South American country? It's like some bored housewife working up a bizarre sense of outrage over some marginal local issue that no-one else cares about.

[Del Arroyo]

I don't see any reason why Chavez cannot be discussed in a variety of threads. There is more than one aspect to the country, as well as the man and his policies. If we are to follow your logic, all threads that mention the US must be combined into one thread, and we should start an "All About the UK" blanket-topic as well.

The original purpose of discussion boards was to post an article, and discuss. People can read it if they are interested, and perhaps make a comment. If debate flares up that is secondary. All of the threads I have started posted recent articles, which I had translated into English.

Of all the voices that are being heard on the topic of Chavez, the one least often heard is that of actual Venezuelans. If people are interested in the topic they might also be interested in the occasional article from a local news source.

What blokes like Tribesman often forget is that there is a large sector of the Venezuelan population who believe that Hugo Chavez is dangerous and embarrassing. Both in the '04 recall referendum and the '06 presidential election four million people showed up to vote against him, both times about 40% of the total votes cast.

Tribesman has been seduced by Chavez's cries of victimhood, and believes that anyone opposed to Chavez must be either deluded or a criminal. How little he truly knows. The wrongs of Chavez's predecessors do not make his actions right. A one-party Venezuelan state will not prosper.

[Del Arroyo]

It's like some bored housewife working up a bizarre sense of outrage over some marginal local issue that no-one else cares about.

So is any and all interest in politics or world events. Please feel free to flip the channel back to American Idol.

[Soulforged]

Are you Venezuelan? If not, why do you have this strange obsession with this insignificant little country?
Oops... Let's hope there's no real venezuelans here or you'll be flooded with flames, right Pannonian.

I think that those little three words are more significant than a thousand other insults, if I were you, I would take care on what comes out of my mouth.

On the other hand, I think you fail to see the point, his obsession, as the one of many other people within this boards, is not with Venezuela per se, but with Hugo Chavez wich happens to be the actual president of that State, and the very fact that this happens so often shows how significant Chavez is for international politics, at least between the Americas.

[Pannonian]

Oops... Let's hope there's no real venezuelans here or you'll be flooded with flames, right Pannonian.

I think that those little three words are more significant than a thousand other insults, if I were you, I would take care on what comes out of my mouth.

On the other hand, I think you fail to see the point, his obsession, as the one of many other people within this boards, is not with Venezuela per se, but with Hugo Chavez wich happens to be the actual president of that State, and the very fact that this happens so often shows how significant Chavez is for international politics, at least between the Americas.
America is a super-hyper-power. It can be compared with the Romans in Europe at the height of their power. I wouldn't expect Augustan Rome (the one concerned with peace and stability rather than conquest) to obsess itself with, say, the Iceni, as I wouldn't have expected Americans to obsess themselves with Cuba or Venezuela. America dwarfs the likes of Cuba and Venezuela so much that the latter's affairs should seem insignificant. I wouldn't have thought Britain would concern Americans too much, let alone Venezuela.

[Tribesman]

What blokes like Tribesman often forget is that there is a large sector of the Venezuelan population who believe that Hugo Chavez is dangerous and embarrassing. Both in the '04 recall referendum and the '06 presidential election four million people showed up to vote against him, both times about 40% of the total votes cast.

You presume too much Del , I don't forget much . Plus you miss the other Venezuelan elections where the opposition get around 40% of the votes , which is normal in a democracy .


Tribesman has been seduced by Chavez's cries of victimhood, and believes that anyone opposed to Chavez must be either deluded or a criminal.
Now you are pissing in the wind with your presumptions :thumbsdown:

The problem most of the rabid opponents have is that that they try and make big issues out of nothing , it damn easy to make some bloody good complaints about the President and his policies , yet they consistantly fail by focusing on nothing and getting outraged about it , very few of the complaints put out stand up to even the briefest scrutiny .

For another example of which ........
A one-party Venezuelan state will not prosper.........a rather big leap of no substance .Unless you wish to contend that Venezuela is a one party state and despite the constitution that "one party" (how many parties run under Chavez ticket?)and its leadership are not democratically removable through direct elections or recall votes .
The main problem I have with those parts of the opposition that are normally the original source of the complaints we see here is ...... they stood they lost and moaned , they stood and lost and moaned , they tried to wreck the economy to bring down the government and lost and moaned , they tried to take power by force and lost and moaned , they stood and lost and moaned , now they have thrown their dummy out the pram saying they won't stand since it isn't a democracy because they lose .:dizzy2:
Screw them idiots , if they cannot get the people to vote for them it is their problem for being pricks with a long history of corruption behind them .

[Del Arroyo]

Unless you wish to contend that Venezuela is a one party state and despite the constitution that "one party" and its leadership are not democratically removable through direct elections or recall votes .

:yes: Chavez has the power to remove any legislator, judge, governor, or other public official he doesn't like. He's purged the entire judicial branch of the government, all of the public agencies, and was starting with the legislature when the opposition decided to finish that one for him.

If Chavez himself has repeatedly declared that himself and his revolution can not be democratically removed, don't you think maybe he knows something that the rest of us maybe should?


they stood they lost and moaned ,

So did the opposition to Hitler. Members of the opposition are so strident and persistent because frankly they believe they are right. There was the old guard of "oligarchs" who opposed him from the very beginning in 1998, but by the time of the disturbances of '01 and '02 the opposition was made up of many people who had at first been strong Chavez supporters.

In any case it is Chavez and his confrontational approach which are solely responsible for the chaos which has occurred under his watch. You can't shake a soda and cry foul over the mess you make.

[Tribesman]

Chavez has the power to remove any legislator, judge, governor, or other public official he doesn't like.
Errrr...any president can remove any appointed person from their position if the law allows for it .:dizzy2:
You relly must try harder Del .


If Chavez himself has repeatedly declared that himself and his revolution can not be democratically removed, don't you think maybe he knows something that the rest of us maybe should?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
The constitution that he put through says otherwise . :book:
He cannot be democratically removed as long as he gets the votes Del .


So did the opposition to Hitler.
So tempting to use that old adage about the person bringing Hitler into it has lost the arguement .:2thumbsup:
But I won't , instead I will say that the comparison you are trying to make is absolute bollox , the opposition didn't throw a hissy fit and declare that they wouldn't oppose Hitler in elections as they kept losing , they were banned outright from doing anything .


In any case it is Chavez and his confrontational approach which are solely responsible for the chaos which has occurred under his watch.
An oversimplification of a complex issue , is that because you consistantly fail to come up with anything apart from "its Chavez innit":inquisitive:
It would be the same as saying either Bush or iamadinnerjacket are solely responsible for the mess in Iraq .

[Soulforged]

America is a super-hyper-power. It can be compared with the Romans in Europe at the height of their power. I wouldn't expect Augustan Rome (the one concerned with peace and stability rather than conquest) to obsess itself with, say, the Iceni, as I wouldn't have expected Americans to obsess themselves with Cuba or Venezuela. America dwarfs the likes of Cuba and Venezuela so much that the latter's affairs should seem insignificant. I wouldn't have thought Britain would concern Americans too much, let alone Venezuela.
Good way to put it, but still the obsession here is with the person of Hugo Chavez, not with Venezuela, I haven't seen a single thread concerned with the opinions of the venezuelan people, with their economic situation or even political situation, if you consider that every political matter seems to imply the head of State, and that's no other than Chavez, and Chavez is always talking woe of the northend neighbor, and that's why he's a key in the relationship between the Americas, he has a lot of influence right now. In my opinion this concerns the average american because they either find it funny or tragic, but it always affects them directly.