View Full Version : Votes Defeat Chavez
Voters reject Chavez's referendum
CARACAS, Venezuela (CNN) -- Venezuelan voters narrowly rejected a constitution referendum that would have bolstered President Hugo Chavez's embrace of socialism and grant an indefinite extension of his eligibility to serve as president, the National Electoral Council reported early Monday.
About 51 percent of voters opposed the amendments, while approximately 49 percent were in favor of them.
"Don't feel sad. Don't feel burdened," Chavez told supporters immediately after the results were announced.
More than nine million of Venezuelan's 16 million eligible voters went to the polls Sunday.
President of the National Electoral Council, Tibisay Lucena, said the process "shows the entire world that we are a democratic country."
Chavez, in what he called a talk "from my heart" acknowledging the results, thanked those who opposed his proposal, saying the election had proven that Venezuelan democracy is maturing.
Thousands of people gathered in the streets, many of them university students who worked to defeat the measure, burst into singing their country's national anthem upon hearing the news.
Earlier in Caracas, Chavez -- clad in his trademark red shirt and cradling his grandson -- made the sign of the cross when he voted, then took his paper ballot and placed it in a box. "For me, it's a very happy day," he had said.
He dipped his right pinky in ink, collected his paper receipt from the voting machine and then gave an uncharacteristically short talk with the news media.
"Let's wait for the results tonight," he told reporters. "We'll accept them, whatever they may be."
Chavez called Venezuela's electoral system "one of the most transparent in the world," and said its voting machines are among "the most modern of the world."
At stake were 69 amendments proposed by Chavez, who has said he wants to steer Venezuela toward full socialism -- a state his detractors describe as full totalitarianism.
The most controversial amendment would do away with term limits, thereby allowing the 53-year-old former paratrooper, who has already served almost eight years in power, to hold it indefinitely as long as he is re-elected.
If the amendments were approved, Chavez could have run for president in seven-year terms.
At present, the president's term runs six years, and current law would not allow Chavez to run again after his term ends in 2012.
I applaud the people of Venezuela.
Mouzafphaerre
12-03-2007, 08:08
.
Por que no te callas? :laugh4:
Good move Venezuela. :yes: Getting rid of mandate is one thing, replacing it with native dictatorship, OTOH, is worse than merely negating it. :no:
.
Crazed Rabbit
12-03-2007, 08:32
I guess now 51% of the country are traitors.
:beam:
Good job, Venezuelans!
CR
Now we have to see if the will of the people will be respected and acknowledged, or like my vote against the European Constitution in France completely ignored and turn around. What a dictator this Sarkozy!:beam:
Chavez still has a number of years left in power. Don't worry, he'll still get his way. :yes:
Of course, but I love a good magic show, especially dissapearing-acts.
Rodion Romanovich
12-03-2007, 10:43
Nice! It just goes to show how little the people like surveillance and dictatorship-like measures being employed and developed in democratic countries - even if apparently Chavez has been good to the people in other ways, the hatred for despotism is so great that it overshadows it. Now if we could just depose of all surveillance/wiretapping maniacs in western Europe too... Oh wait, I forgot that all the major parties are already embracing the idea of police states ~:( so voting for someone else won't help. I guess I will always be able to flee to Venezuela when things get too hot here, because there the people is at least sensible.
Xiahou is right, Chavez has penty of time to make up the 2% variance in a future vote.
ICantSpellDawg
12-03-2007, 17:54
It will happen I believe. Just not now. That buys us all a bit more time. Thank you people of Venezuela.
Hurrah!!! :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2: :balloon2:
No need for perpetual presidencies!
Seamus Fermanagh
12-03-2007, 18:50
Interesting.
First sign that Chavez' demagogic style has been out of sync with a majority of Venez' citizens.
They're clearly willing to give him a few more years to pursue his agenda, but reluctant to enhance his chances of being "President for Life."
Will this effort be renewed ad nauseum as with the referenda on Quebec independence?
Would such a renewal favor Chavez or worsen his position?
Interesting.
Tribesman
12-03-2007, 20:18
I am surprised it was so close , I expected a much bigger defeat for the referendum .
Even the original proposals would have been a close call , but then with all the other amendments Chavez added and the 30+ his coilition partners added it was just too big and too diverse for a simple yes/no vote on the entire proposal .
About 51 percent of voters opposed the amendments, while approximately 49 percent were in favor of them.
Congratulations. You have another chance of keeping your liberty.
Boyar Son
12-03-2007, 23:31
Pretty slim victory for the people that want a democracy huh?
And that much support for chavez? (49% want him to to stay indefinitly) that goes to show Chavez must be a loved king in Venezuela.
Adrian II
12-04-2007, 00:44
I am surprised it was so close , I expected a much bigger defeat for the referendum .So did I, and I am rather disappointed that the margin is so small. I had hoped that the student movement that led the 'No' vote would have more influence by now, as would some of the unions who do not equate socialism with Hugo C. alone. But give them some time and hopefully they will make the Supremo manageable yet.
Marshal Murat
12-04-2007, 02:48
I don't know. Venezuela has redistributed the wealth that has often tended to be concentrated, and has provided for the poor Venezuelans in the nation. Unfortunately, his ideas don't mesh with mine, and I wish he wasn't so crazy.
I salute the people of Venezuela in their rejection of Hugo's plan to turn it into another Russian-style pseudo-democracy de-facto dictatorship.
Soulforged
12-05-2007, 01:38
I salute the people of Venezuela in their rejection of Hugo's plan to turn it into another Russian-style pseudo-democracy de-facto dictatorship.
Oh please... Can we stop this free cheesy kind of hyperbole?:rolleyes:
It's really getting old and ridiculous, specially for Chavez...
I cannot believe people really believe that crap...:no:
HoreTore
12-05-2007, 09:10
Pretty slim victory for the people that want a democracy huh?
And that much support for chavez? (49% want him to to stay indefinitly) that goes to show Chavez must be a loved king in Venezuela.
I honestly can't understand why term limits is such a big thing. I see it as complete nonsense, really. How many countries with voting and without term limits are dictatorships?
The thing people should be worried about, is the change that would make it easier to call a state of emergency, but then again, the anti-chavez people here are dying to have that ability in their own country, so...
CountArach
12-05-2007, 09:44
As much as I love Chavez, I am glad the people of Venezuela made the right decision.
How many countries with voting and without term limits are dictatorships?
The region has a history of political instability and anything that can be done to avoid this, such as Term Limits, are for the best.
HoreTore
12-05-2007, 09:52
The region has a history of political instability and anything that can be done to avoid this, such as Term Limits, are for the best.
No democratic south american leader will ever avoid a coup long enough for it to matter anyway :laugh4:
Marshal Murat
12-07-2007, 02:20
Don't let Chavez hear you, or you might be branded a 'Puppet of President Bush'
Evil_Maniac From Mars
12-07-2007, 03:28
Xiahou is right, Chavez has penty of time to make up the 2% variance in a future vote.
Or to bring the seven million who didn't vote to the polls. :dizzy2:
So did I, and I am rather disappointed that the margin is so small. I had hoped that the student movement that led the 'No' vote would have more influence by now, as would some of the unions who do not equate socialism with Hugo C. alone. But give them some time and hopefully they will make the Supremo manageable yet.
When did you become so naive Adrian, blimey.
People state that this vote was one for 'democracy'. Just because a yes win would have made Chavez eligable to stay in power for unlimited terms, it doesn't mean that he wouldn't have democratic, free and fair elections. Chavez is not only one of the most beloved leaders by his people, but is one of the most democratically elected ones to boot.
I wanted a yes vote because it would have institutionalised his reforms and made it that much harder for the US and their puppet opposition in Venezuela to try and unwrap all the good Chavez has done, continues to do and will do in the future.
Hopefully - as there should be with a vote this tight - there will be another chance for the people to vote yes, maybe this time a more basic easier to win vote, with the same principles at it's core though.
Anyway, what really killed this vote for Chavez were the 'disloyal friends' of Chavez who came out with the absurd claims in the media. Chavez was and still remains, one of the greatest leaders of any nation at this present time and long may it continue.
The region has a history of political instability and anything that can be done to avoid this, such as Term Limits, are for the best.
HA! And why do you think that is?!
Deary me, people can't open their eyes. For more years than any of us have been alive - and then some - the US has caused this 'political instability' and have meddled, constantly, in South American affairs. It is good to see South America starting to stand up for itself, when Chavez helps the poor in the US through his intitiatives - and elsewhere for that matter - maybe even some Americans will start to realise that their government fed bullsh.. aint what it cracked up to be, and likewise their system for that matter.
HA! And why do you think that is?!
Deary me, people can't open their eyes. For more years than any of us have been alive - and then some - the US has caused this 'political instability' and have meddled, constantly, in South American affairs. It is good to see South America starting to stand up for itself, when Chavez helps the poor in the US through his intitiatives - and elsewhere for that matter - maybe even some Americans will start to realise that their government fed bullsh.. aint what it cracked up to be, and likewise their system for that matter.
Yes we are aware it isnt what its cracked up to be, thankfully we have lots of people around the world who make claims that the U.S. is the cause of instability, strife and general havoc.
Your a god sent to isolationist like me, please keep up the good work. :thumbsup:
ICantSpellDawg
12-07-2007, 14:15
Summon the devil to protect us from the evil U.S.
JAG, Odin - I think that you'll get your way soon enough. Then, Venezuela will become a mainland Cuba and Chavez can begin his subversion of neighboring governments in order to establish a growing South American counterbalance to the U.S.
Congratulations.
Summon the devil to protect us from the evil U.S.
JAG, Odin - I think that you'll get your way soon enough. Then, Venezuela will become a mainland Cuba and Chavez can begin his subversion of neighboring governments in order to establish a growing South American counterbalance to the U.S.
Congratulations.
What is it with you this week? After all we have been through cant I get a thumbs up smiley or some other sarcastic icon? :laugh4:
"counterbalance" to what exactly? Our international influence? We were never meant to have this much prowess in world affairs Tuff. Since the spanish american war we have made a mockery of the founding fathers principles of international relations.
We need to pull back and invest in the republic, South america, cuba chavez they can take care of themselves now dont you think?
What is it with you this week? After all we have been through cant I get a thumbs up smiley or some other sarcastic icon? :laugh4:
"counterbalance" to what exactly? Our international influence? We were never meant to have this much prowess in world affairs Tuff. Since the spanish american war we have made a mockery of the founding fathers principles of international relations.
We need to pull back and invest in the republic, South america, cuba chavez they can take care of themselves now dont you think?
The New World belongs to us. It is as simple as that. Thus, if some wacko comes to power in Caracaz, that is *our* business because that is *our* backyard. Watching Chavez try to become a king of Venezuela is painful enough, but doing nothing to contain him just because he's to the South of Rio Grande will come back and bite us. This is our shpere of interests and our sphere of influence, from Barrow to Cape Horn.
ICantSpellDawg
12-07-2007, 15:33
I made no judgment claims about our international power and influence. I just realize that it exists. I also realize that Chavez lives to oppose us in every way.
I honestly believe that Chavez with push his weight through the system and transform the nation into a socialist one, similar to Cuba. I also believe that Chavez is interested in moving his power beyond the border of Venezuela.
Chavez is a small man who operates foreign policy with personal vendetta's. A simple slight is blown wildly out of proportion.
Recent Examples: President Uribe of Columbia makes a decision that is his to make after Chavez breaks an agreement. What happens? Chavez removes diplomats and severs ties with Columbia.
Pime Minister Zapaterro and King Juan Carlos of Spain attend a summit and Chavez gets insulted by the King after going on a diatribe against Aznar. In spite of the fact that Spain under Zapaterro has been closely tied to Venezuela's arms accumulation, what happens? Chavez severs ties and withdraws diplomats.
He severs ties and recalls diplomats on a regular basis for personal rather than national reasons. He is an egomaniac.
I love that people defend him and prove that they are ok with authoritarian powers, as long as they agree with them. That's a new concept...
The New World belongs to us. It is as simple as that. Thus, if some wacko comes to power in Caracaz, that is *our* business because that is *our* backyard. Watching Chavez try to become a king of Venezuela is painful enough, but doing nothing to contain him just because he's to the South of Rio Grande will come back and bite us. This is our shpere of interests and our sphere of influence, from Barrow to Cape Horn.
:laugh4:
Someone else please take this one. I prefer Tribes myself but any EU citizen will do.
I honestly believe that Chavez with push his weight through the system and transform the nation into a socialist one, similar to Cuba. I also believe that Chavez is interested in moving his power beyond the border of Venezuela.
Are you that insecure with our current system that this has you worried, or is it the example we set presently for him? Seems to me he's right in line with the neocons/republican party substitute "socialist" with "federal capitalist".
Chav
ez is a small man who operates foreign policy with personal vendetta's. A simple slight is blown wildly out of proportion.
And whats he done? Bent your ear on a 20 second sound bite on the evening news?
Recent Examples: President Uribe of Columbia makes a decision that is his to make after Chavez breaks an agreement. What happens? Chavez removes diplomats and severs ties with Columbia. Pime Minister Zapaterro and King Juan Carlos of Spain attend a summit and Chavez gets insulted by the King after going on a diatribe against Aznar. In spite of the fact that Spain under Zapaterro has been closely tied to Venezuela's arms accumulation, what happens? Chavez severs ties and withdraws diplomats.
Sounds like an issue between Columbia and Venezula both of which have democraticlly elected governments, shouldnt they be allowed to conduct thier diplomacy via the peoples will?
And a monarch spouting off at an international forum carries little weight with me. For that matter it should carry little weight with you if you are a true proponent of the U.S. federal system (designed partly to not have to listen to monarchs)
I love that people defend him and prove that they are ok with authoritarian powers, as long as they agree with them. That's a new concept...
Time to step back here Tuff in regards to me. I dont defend nor condem chavez, I support and will argue at nuseum the principles of the founding fathers desire not to be involved in international political affiars.
There is a political system in Venezula (not to different from our own) there able to sort out thier own issues without our guiding hand.
ICantSpellDawg
12-07-2007, 16:03
I said "people", not "Odin".
I said "people", not "Odin".
It was in reply to my post Tuff, and given the exchanges we have had over the last few days I thank you for the clarification of what you meant.
I enjoy out tit for tats, no anamosity on this end.
:medievalcheers:
Mouzafphaerre
12-07-2007, 18:15
The New World belongs to us. It is as simple as that. Thus, if some wacko comes to power in Caracaz, that is *our* business because that is *our* backyard. Watching Chavez try to become a king of Venezuela is painful enough, but doing nothing to contain him just because he's to the South of Rio Grande will come back and bite us. This is our shpere of interests and our sphere of influence, from Barrow to Cape Horn.
.
Go nuke him! I heard he has WMD. :gossip:
.
Tribesman
12-07-2007, 18:55
Someone else please take this one. I prefer Tribes myself but any EU citizen will do.
Given the content of the rant it isn't worth much effort , quoting one of dem thar south of the Rio Grandeeeee subjects of the USA world dominion club would be sufficient......
I cannot believe people really believe that crap..
PanzerJaeger
12-07-2007, 19:18
"counterbalance" to what exactly? Our international influence? We were never meant to have this much prowess in world affairs Tuff. Since the spanish american war we have made a mockery of the founding fathers principles of international relations.
We need to pull back and invest in the republic, South america, cuba chavez they can take care of themselves now dont you think?
As globalization moves forward at an ever increasing pace that sounds like.... well, it sounds like something. :dizzy2:
Given the content of the rant it isn't worth much effort , quoting one of dem thar south of the Rio Grandeeeee subjects of the USA world dominion club would be sufficient......
For christ sake i just laid a slam dunk at your lap. I was hoping for something far more biting then that, either your slipping or the pub calls.
Ironside
12-07-2007, 19:46
The New World belongs to us. It is as simple as that. Thus, if some wacko comes to power in Caracaz, that is *our* business because that is *our* backyard. Watching Chavez try to become a king of Venezuela is painful enough, but doing nothing to contain him just because he's to the South of Rio Grande will come back and bite us. This is our shpere of interests and our sphere of influence, from Barrow to Cape Horn.
:laugh4:
Someone else please take this one. I prefer Tribes myself but any EU citizen will do.
The man speaks the truth. :yes:
The man being Chavez spouting about imperialist US that is :laugh4: .
Disclaimer: Only if rvg's attitude being prevalent of course
The man speaks the truth. :yes:
The man being Chavez spouting about imperialist US that is :laugh4: .
Disclaimer: Only if rvg's attitude being prevalent of course
What happened to the good old days when any U.S. poster proclaimed affection to Imperialism one of the EU boys would rip him a new A hole.
Surely you dont expect me to do it? :thumbsdown:
What happened to the good old days when any U.S. poster proclaimed affection to Imperialism one of the EU boys would rip him a new A hole.
Surely you dont expect me to do it? :thumbsdown:
You are welcome to try...
You are welcome to try...
The New World belongs to us. It is as simple as that
Considering this was the starting point of your premise I assumed you were joking and was hopeful one of the EU boys would take it and run.
If you were serious then my appologies, I didnt take you seriously. Nor do I now.
ICantSpellDawg
12-07-2007, 20:21
Odin! You are the best debater I've ever seen in my life!
Odin! You are the best debater I've ever seen in my life!
:spammer:
I support and will argue at nuseum the principles of the founding fathers desire not to be involved in international political affiars.
You've been saying this a lot lately. What are you basing it on? The FFs didn't intend us to be isolationists.
Louis VI the Fat
12-07-2007, 23:19
The FFs didn't intend us to be isolationists.It was my understanding that they didn't indeed. But also that both the tradition of interventionalism and of isolationism can be traced back all the way to the Founding Fathers?
Walter Russell Mead made a distinction between four historical impetuses in American foreign policy. Review here (http://brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/928).
It's great. Mead subdivides the crude isolationism/interventionism into four traditions. Two each for both. 'Isolationism into a conservative, or at least muscular, form (Jacksonianism) and a liberal form (Jeffersonianism), one more concerned with domestic social policies. Interventionism into a mostly pro-business form (Hamiltonianism) and a more philanthropic form (Wilsonianism).
I would say Odin's a Jeffersonian. I prefer a Wilsonian policy. The 'rvg corollary to the Monroe Doctrine' strikes me as Hamiltonian.
Mr. Mead makes the case that there are four basic schools of foreign policy thought in the United States, each of long duration, and that the rough and tumble of representative democracy has served us well by elevating the different schools as they are needed and shunting them to the side when the policies they advocate seem inappropriate. He believes, and offers some evidence for the notion, that this flexibility has made America far more successful in its foreign policy than anyone realizes. In this compelling, and perhaps overly flattering, scenario America is not a mere beneficiary of special providence but is guided instead by the wisdom of her people and the genius of her uniquely responsive political system.
Several years ago, Walter McDougall wrote a terrific book, Promised Land, Crusader State, in which he identified two main impulses that influenced American foreign policy. The first was relatively isolationist, emphasizing America's privileged position as a "promised land", which could serve as an example to all mankind, a "shining city on a hill", but would only be contaminated if it were to have too much contact with the rest of the world. Over against this was set an interventionist belief in America as a force for bettering the world, a "crusader state", with a mission to bring democracy, freedom, and human rights to less fortunate nations. Mr. Mead more or less subdivides these two impulses :
Americans through the centuries seem to have had four basic ways of looking at foreign policy, which have reflected contrasting and sometimes complementary ways of looking at domestic policy as well. Hamiltonians regard a strong alliance between the national government and big business as the key both to domestic stability and to effective action abroad, and they have long focused on the nation's need to be integrated into the global economy on favorable terms. Wilsonians believe that the United States has both a moral obligation and an important national interest in spreading American democratic and social values throughout the world, creating a peaceful international community that accepts the rule of law. Jeffersonians hold that American foreign policy should be less concerned about spreading democracy abroad than about safeguarding it at home; they have historically been skeptical about Hamiltonian and Wilsonian policies that involve the United States with unsavory allies abroad or that increase the risks of war. Finally, a large populist school I call Jacksonian believes
that the most important goal of the U.S. government in both foreign and domestic should be the physical security and the economic well-being
of the American people.
These classifications effectively split isolationism into a conservative, or at least muscular, form (Jacksonianism) and a liberal form (Jeffersonianism), one more concerned with domestic social policies. They also separate interventionism or internationalism into a mostly pro-business form (Hamiltonianism) and a more philanthropic form (Wilsonianism). This seems a useful way of viewing our politics, as it provides outlets for internationalists and isolationists within each political party, with Jacksonians and Hamiltonians, broadly speaking, making up the Republicans and the Democrats consisting, again broadly, of Wilsonians and Jeffersonians (though as we'll see later, he stacks the deck in favor of Jeffersonians to such a degree that you'd have to say that many Republicans are Jeffersonian too).
Having established these four worldviews--he calls them a new paradigm for understanding American foreign policy--Mr. Mead contends that each is valuable in its own way and that their greatest value may come from how they play off of one another
Sasaki Kojiro
12-07-2007, 23:51
The thing about the founding fathers is, when george washington was giving his farewell address europe was in a period where they were fighting eachother all the time. Any close alliance with one of them would have brought us into their wars, which bore very little relation to us. These days they don't fight eachother and there are many more things to tie us together.
You've been saying this a lot lately. What are you basing it on? The FFs didn't intend us to be isolationists.
No they didnt, and to be honest my choice of description of myself as an Isolationist is extreme as I do desire trade, but there it ends. Some quotes to chew on that I feel support my claim that the founding fathers did not want us involved in internaitonal politics.
“We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections.”
John Adams, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1797
Iran, Iraq, Russia, a missle shield, NFTA, Chavez… Just to name a few international issues that have infected our election process by consuming time away from domestic issues.
“Finally, there seem to be but three Ways for a Nation to acquire Wealth. The first is by War as the Romans did in plundering their conquered Neighbours. This is Robbery. The second by Commerce which is generally Cheating. The third by Agriculture the only honest Way; wherein Man receives a real Increase of the Seed thrown into the Ground, in a kind of continual Miracle wrought by the Hand of God in his favour, as a Reward for his innocent Life, and virtuous Industry.”
Benjamin Franklin, Positions to be Examined, April 4, 1769
Franklin clearly thinks that commerce and war are negatives each of which are topics that can be applied to foreign relations. While this might be a stretch given his aloof whit and apparent affection for agriculture I don’t think it would be a stretch today if Franklin found our military entanglements (UN, NATO) abroad less then appealing.
“Foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence.”
Alexander Hamilton, Pacificus, No. 6, July 17, 1793
By “Grecian horse” he is inferring a Trojan horse in a metaphoric application. Essentially he didn’t desire foreign influence into our government. By engaging international politics “foreign influence” becomes a bi product. As an example we are currently entangled in foreign entities attempt to influence or CO2 emmissions, rather then taking care of the problem ourselves.
“The rights of neutrality will only be respected when they are defended by an adequate power. A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral.”
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 11, 1787
Its clear to me that Hamilton is making the case for a strong military to defend the U.S. ability to be neutral in international conflict, not be offensive, as is the case since the Spanish American war. (WWII and maybe Korea being notable exceptions to the thinking IMHO)
“He [King George] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred right of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.”
Thomas Jefferson, deleted portion of a draft of the Declaration of Independence, June, 1776
To me this symbolizes Jefferson disdain for foreign rule. Key concept “Foreign” as its implied in the paragraph King George ruled a people that were not his (distant people) This seems to jive with the notion of his desire not to perpetuate an imperial system.
“I have been happy... in believing that... whatever follies we may be led into as to foreign nations, we shall never give up our Union, the last anchor of our hope, and that alone which is to prevent this heavenly country from becoming an arena of gladiators. “
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, May 13, 1797
I think it might be safe to say that Jefferson would have considered Iraq Vietnam and possibly WWI as “follies”
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
No Explination needed….
“'Tis folly in one Nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its Independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favours and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favours from Nation to Nation. 'Tis an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. “
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796
Washington didn’t want us to be in a situation of debt to others or they being in debt to us.
While people can simply slap on the label that these were written at a different time I contend that at a minimum the founding fathers cited above would not approve of our current perceived position of atop the international food chain.
I would say Odin's a Jeffersonian.
:thumbsup:
AntiochusIII
12-08-2007, 00:12
Sasaki's right: it was a speech made in the backdrop of the French Revolution, when France was fighting just about everybody else in Europe. There was a large part of Americans at the time who think that the USA should align itself with France against Great Britain (and others), both to return the aid given by France in the Revolutionary War and in the common cause of "liberty" that both revolutions share.
Even the ideologically isolationist Jefferson was a staunch supporter of this cause.
Washington, I think, foresaw that the USA simply didn't have the resources to go against Great Britain again so soon and God knows how much more by joining a European alliance, so he said what he said and was proven more-or-less correct when the USA got its capital sacked in the War of 1812.
Ideologies usually are born from the specifics of the time interpreted into the general whole anyway, though, so it's not like this viewpoint is "invalid." I just don't particularly enjoy the quasi-deification some give to the "Founding Fathers" and their viewpoints, as well as the Constitution of the United States...
I just don't particularly enjoy the quasi-deification some give to the "Founding Fathers" and their viewpoints, as well as the Constitution of the United States...
This is a wonderful opportunity then for you to put me on your ignore list, unless your trying to be funny (which I dont). while your generous depiction of "some" and thier foundness for the constitution and forefathers is a bit insulting, I'll happily enjoy my new status as an entity you dont enjoy.
By all means, ignore away.
Any thoughts on chavez btw ? :rolleyes:
ICantSpellDawg
12-08-2007, 04:34
This is a wonderful opportunity then for you to put me on your ignore list, unless your trying to be funny (which I dont). while your generous depiction of "some" and thier foundness for the constitution and forefathers is a bit insulting, I'll happily enjoy my new status as an entity you dont enjoy.
By all means, ignore away.
Any thoughts on chavez btw ? :rolleyes:
????
What's with the 6th grader hostility?
PanzerJaeger
12-08-2007, 06:05
????
What's with the 6th grader hostility?
Internalized anger! :nurse:
AntiochusIII
12-08-2007, 09:10
This is a wonderful opportunity then for you to put me on your ignore list, unless your trying to be funny (which I dont). while your generous depiction of "some" and thier foundness for the constitution and forefathers is a bit insulting, I'll happily enjoy my new status as an entity you dont enjoy.Just how did you get the impression that I insulted you is beyond me. :dizzy2:
And no, I don't "do" ignore lists. They feel petty to me.
Tribesman
12-08-2007, 09:42
For christ sake i just laid a slam dunk at your lap. I was hoping for something far more biting then that
The rant spoke for itself , nothing more than repeating Soulforgeds' earlier reply to another of that posters comments was really needed .
Anyhow , Mouza in a rare foray into the backroom already did a classic .
“I think that you'll get your way soon enough. Then, Venezuela will become a mainland Cuba and Chavez can begin his subversion of neighbouring governments in order to establish a growing South American counterbalance to the U.S.” That is great! :2thumbsup:
What you are saying is Chavez WILL do what USA DID and still DOAES. So, can’t it be seen as a Defence Strategy more than aggression towards neighbours?
“Chavez is a small man who operates foreign policy with personal vendetta's”. Thing that a President of the USA will never do of cause (“this guy tried to kill my Dad”)…
“President Uribe of Columbia makes a decision that is his to make after Chavez breaks an agreement”. Err, in this mediation between the FARC and the Colombian Government about hostage resolution (Ingrid Betencour case) it was a pure insult in term of politic. You ask a guy to help you, then when he ask something to one of the key player in your side you just fire him. So, rightly, Chavez would be feeling insulted… Uribe break an agreement, not Chavez…
“He severs ties and recalls diplomats on a regular basis for personal rather than national reasons”. Never happened in the USA under Bush administration, or any administration, I can tell you…:laugh4:
“Someone else please take this one. I prefer Tribes myself but any EU citizen will do.” It is a joke… It has to be…:inquisitive:
“I love that people defend him and prove that they are ok with authoritarian powers, as long as they agree with them. That's a new concept...”:
Well, for what I know, Chavez was democratically elected twice, demonstrations against him are not forbidden. I went in few in France and the CRS did what the Venezuelan Police did in this kind of events.
He lost a referendum, but the so did the French Government few years ago… He will try again, or he will implement the Sarkozy’s solution pretending it is not the same text, so it doesn’t need a new referendum… I saw nobody accusing France and the New French President to be a Dictator in a new Conservative Dictatorship…:laugh4:
To lose a referendum and to accept it is more a proof a democracy than dictatorship…
“Considering this was the starting point of your premise I assumed you were joking and was hopeful one of the EU boys would take it and run.
If you were serious then my apologies, I didn’t take you seriously. Nor do I now.” Idem.
Tribesman
12-08-2007, 13:56
Isn't it funny that since this is in essence about an attempt to change the constitution to allow a politician to stand for re-election by overturning existing limits , that some people are mentioning Uribe without condemning the changes to the constitution that allowed him to stand for re-election in Columbia .
Soulforged
12-08-2007, 17:14
Isn't it funny that since this is in essence about an attempt to change the constitution to allow a politician to stand for re-election by overturning existing limits , that some people are mentioning Uribe without condemning the changes to the constitution that allowed him to stand for re-election in Columbia .
I think that for irony's sake it has to be said: people actually believe that Chavez is "El Diablo"...:laugh4: But yeah it's funny, what is not funny are rvg comments, rvg you better explain yourself to me and the latinamerican people, take it as a diplomatic meeting if you will, I'll not report you to the mods because it's not my style (though I suppose some moderator already read your words), but I want to hear an apology for what you just said, private message me if you want but I'll prefer it to be public...First days on the Backroom and already making so much enemies :no: .
Tribesman
12-08-2007, 17:37
Come on Soul , it doesn't require an explanation , just read the posts .
Between this and the Sharia topic the explanation is obvious .
PanzerJaeger
12-08-2007, 23:32
I think that for irony's sake it has to be said: people actually believe that Chavez is "El Diablo"...:laugh4: But yeah it's funny, what is not funny are rvg comments, rvg you better explain yourself to me and the latinamerican people, take it as a diplomatic meeting if you will, I'll not report you to the mods because it's not my style (though I suppose some moderator already read your words), but I want to hear an apology for what you just said, private message me if you want but I'll prefer it to be public...First days on the Backroom and already making so much enemies :no: .
He doesn't have to apologize for his views and neither do you.
Soulforged
12-09-2007, 00:05
Come on Soul , it doesn't require an explanation , just read the posts .
Between this and the Sharia topic the explanation is obvious .
Yeah, and he didn't answer, probably is just another troll...
He doesn't have to apologize for his views and neither do you.If his views are racist he has a lot to apolagize, but I won't expect him to do so, and I won't bring this thread to a close, lets just forget about it and take it as a joke as everyone else...:balloon2:
ICantSpellDawg
12-09-2007, 03:27
A land claim is not "racist". It may be insensitive, but it had nothing to do with racism.
Louis VI the Fat
12-09-2007, 03:54
rvg you better explain yourself to me Send him to us...~:flirt:
While visiting Paris in May, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger received a summons to appear at the French Palace of Justice to answer questions about murders and disappearances in Chile in the 1970s. :bounce:
The French wanted to ask Kissinger what he knew about Operation Condor, a consortium of Latin American governments that assassinated dissidents in each other’s countries. Evidence that the U.S. government supported Operation Condor has been available for years (The Nation, 8/9-16/99; New York Times, 3/6/01).
The French magistrate who summoned Kissinger was particularly interested in what light he might shed on the disappearances of five French nationals who disappeared in Chile during or shortly after the country’s 1973 coup, which Kissinger was instrumental in instigating. But the French courts would learn nothing from Kissinger, who left town the day after being summoned without answering any questions (Agence France Press, 5/29/01; Daily Telegraph, 5/31/01).
After the episode in France, Kissinger did a lengthy, one-on-one interview with PBS's Charlie Rose (6/20/01). Kissinger also appeared alone with CNN's Wolf Blitzer (6/21/01) and Fox News Channel's Paula Zahn (6/13/01). None of the interviews even mentioned the French attempt to question Kissinger about human rights abuses. Nor did any of the journalists bring up the question of whether Kissinger could himself be indicted on war crimes charges for his role in the Vietnam War and other atrocities, as journalist Christopher Hitchens argued in a two-part Harper's Magazine article (2/01, 3/01).
Linky (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2654)
* quickly leaves thread before Banquo digs up yet another pesky story about France's dirty wars to protect her African sphere of influence... :deal2: *
I think that for irony's sake it has to be said: people actually believe that Chavez is "El Diablo"...:laugh4: But yeah it's funny, what is not funny are rvg comments, rvg you better explain yourself to me and the latinamerican people, take it as a diplomatic meeting if you will, I'll not report you to the mods because it's not my style (though I suppose some moderator already read your words), but I want to hear an apology for what you just said, private message me if you want but I'll prefer it to be public...First days on the Backroom and already making so much enemies :no: .
Apology? Never. I stand by my comments.
Tribesman
12-09-2007, 11:12
I stand by my comments.
Good:2thumbsup:
A land claim is not "racist". It may be insensitive, but it had nothing to do with racism.
Correct Tuff , though the comment did convey a sort of Waspish attitude it doesn't really comedown to racism as such since the US by its nature and heritage doesn't relly have one race , its a collection of many different races .
So a comment like......
The New World belongs to us. It is as simple as that.
...is more of a national supremacist one .
ICantSpellDawg
12-09-2007, 16:41
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7135396.stm
Evo Morales just succeeded in something rather similar. For some reason I don't hate him yet, probably because I don't know as much. His policies are so close to Chavez, but the rhetoric isn't and he seems rather sincere.
He seems to be mostly peaceful, while Chavez is violent and dangerous. I think we should support some of his work and view the rest as shortsighted.
I believe that a more harsh tone is necessary with Chavez.
Soulforged
12-09-2007, 16:55
Apology? Never. I stand by my comments.
I see. Don't expect any leniency from me on the future then, you haven't even explained if what you said was a joke.
Peace. :bow:
A land claim is not "racist". It may be insensitive, but it had nothing to do with racism.When he said that we where their backyard I took it as a little racist, but even if they weren't......"is more of a national supremacist one " as Tribes put it, still deserves at least an explanation. We're here for peaceful and rational discussion, I cannot take those comments, if they're not made as a joke, as any other thing than an offense. Sorry.
On the topic: What happened is as much a victory for the people of Venezuela, because they confirm their democratic spirit (nothing more than that), but also to Chavez because for so much talk about a possible fraud and how he rules everything as a dictator he took it calmly and accepted it like a man.
Tribesman
12-09-2007, 18:13
Evo Morales just succeeded in something rather similar.
Not quite , Chavez got through that step as well , it still has to go to the electorate to pass .
If he does is another matter entirely since he managed to upset lots of his supporters who see him as making too many major concessions to the old order , plus his nationalisation of mining screwed a lot of people over in that when he took on the foriegn owned interests to keep more of the wealth in the country he also screwed the local tribal co-ops .
Papewaio
12-10-2007, 06:11
I wanted a yes vote because it would have institutionalised his reforms and made it that much harder for the US and their puppet opposition in Venezuela to try and unwrap all the good Chavez has done, continues to do and will do in the future.
People should be above institutions. And one of the checks and balances against the power that corrupts is to boot out anyone to popular. It worked for the Athenians and it works for the USA with a limit on terms for the President.
If you have unlimited terms then you should have the power of that office highly limited. A head of state with lots of power should have a more highly limited time line.
Have to look at the long term. Maybe Chavez is great and gods gift to the poor. But what happened if the limit on terms was gone and then he died suddenly? Would you be happy to see the opposition having their President sitting in power for 20 years?
Myrddraal
12-10-2007, 06:35
rvg, perhaps we could abstract this and ask, what 'right' does the US have interferring in other sovereign states' affairs?
Of course, it's benficial to the US. Isn't that short sighted and selfish? National supremacist perhaps?
Don't they say: The rights of one man end where the rights of the next man begin. Your right to national freedom and independence is equivalent to saying you have no right to compromise the national freedom of other countries. Whatever the justification you have for you ideas, what would you think if it was another country doing it to the US?
Crazed Rabbit
12-10-2007, 06:45
It's funny, JAG, how you complain about this vote. Now, if you care about the people of Venezuela and not just Chavez, you'd support what the people want. But I think we can see that you care more for Chavez, than the people socialists claim to support.
CR
cegorach
12-10-2007, 12:29
BTW You have to admitt that Chavez will enter history books soon - after all he is the first world's leader who makes extensive use of time travel...:yes:
Just how did you get the impression that I insulted you is beyond me. :dizzy2:
And no, I don't "do" ignore lists. They feel petty to me.
I'm not insulted. I enjoy bile filled rants personally. You know the kind, the ones that really dont say much but attack a broad point of view?
Give you an example, someone posts in a thread a particular point of view or comparative. someone else comes along and says something like.
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
I just don't particularly enjoy the quasi-deification some give to the "Founding Fathers" and their viewpoints, as well as the Constitution of the United States...
Of course me being the one posting several quotes from founding fathers that would mostly like mean you "dont particularly enjoy" my point of view.
Please, do the ignore mate, your already petty. :rolleyes:
????
What's with the 6th grader hostility?
Why did you read it as hostile? Are you in the 4th grade?
Poster says he dosent like to read about founding fathers or constitution or whatever the hell he was talking about and I gave him an option where he didnt have to read it.
Hows that 6th grade? I'll extend it to you genius. If you find something I post juvenile or not to your liking please take responsibility for your choice to do so and either ignore it move.
Or, and here is a novel concept: You could ask the intent rather then assume its hostility, which is very 4th gradish of you. :drama2:
KukriKhan
12-10-2007, 14:54
Take it to email, gentlemen (or PM). This publicly-viewed thread is about Mr. Chavez - kindly return to topic.
ICantSpellDawg
12-10-2007, 15:25
Don't they say: The rights of one man end where the rights of the next man begin. Your right to national freedom and independence is equivalent to saying you have no right to compromise the national freedom of other countries. Whatever the justification you have for you ideas, what would you think if it was another country doing it to the US?
"They" do say that, but it really isn't the only saying going around. Some people don't subscribe to that idea at all. Do unto others isn't an official law and most people don't abide by the theory, either, particularly outside of a national legal system.
If we had gone by that rule historically, we wouldn't have colonized or expanded the nation.
I'm not advocating this, Im just pointing out that "do unto others" has as less to do with human history (including modern) than "do what needs to be done for personal aggrandizement"; Not in theory, but in practicality. Most of our laws were made with both in mind.
rvg, perhaps we could abstract this and ask, what 'right' does the US have interferring in other sovereign states' affairs?
Of course, it's benficial to the US. Isn't that short sighted and selfish? National supremacist perhaps?
Don't they say: The rights of one man end where the rights of the next man begin. Your right to national freedom and independence is equivalent to saying you have no right to compromise the national freedom of other countries. Whatever the justification you have for you ideas, what would you think if it was another country doing it to the US?
None. In international politics nobody has 'rights' to anything. I was merely describing the de-facto situation on the ground (the U.S. being the leader of the New World) and expressed my desire to maintain the status quo. In general, most countries in the New World have the same friends and enemies as we do and adhere (or try to adhere, or say they try to adhere) to the same democratic model as we do. When occasionally someone does something stupid, like what happened in Grenada, Panama, Haiti, etc. we merely remind them that it is a bad idea. Cuba was the only one who managed to get away, and only because any tough measures would have ended with a nuclear war with the Soviets. Once the Castro brothers die, things in Cuba will return to normal.
Is this our 'right'? Not in any official sense. Still, just like China and Russia exert their spheres of influence, we exert ours.
Tribesman
12-10-2007, 19:36
When occasionally someone does something stupid, like what happened in Grenada, Panama, Haiti, etc. we merely remind them that it is a bad idea.
What a nice reminder , giving people torturing dictators and death squads just to let them know you care .
Soulforged
12-10-2007, 19:46
Is this our 'right'? Not in any official sense. Still, just like China and Russia exert their spheres of influence, we exert ours.I love you rvg, you're my new hero. Lots of kisses!!!:jumping: :hippie: :date: :applause:
Would you go out with me?
Yes we are aware it isnt what its cracked up to be, thankfully we have lots of people around the world who make claims that the U.S. is the cause of instability, strife and general havoc.
Your a god sent to isolationist like me, please keep up the good work. :thumbsup:
I'm with you Odin.
I wish we didn't have such an international influence. Being out of the spot light would be nice once and a while.
What I honestly think we should do, is just stop intervening everywhere. So then when people moan and complain about why the US isn't doing anything, we can just give them the big middle finger.
It would also prevent a number of atrocities this country is so infamous for, even though people seem to forget the good also.
Maybe then everyone would stop complaining about how "this and that" is the fault of the US, not our half ass leadership.
Hugo Chávez tried to overturn the results of Venezuela's recent vote but was rebuffed by the military. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/74230)
Believe it, or not. :wink:
:laugh4: I was waiting for this... Of course...:beam:
Bad bad Chavez...
"Hi Chavez, how boys did you kill today...":laugh4:
Mouzafphaerre
12-11-2007, 11:59
.
Doesn't sound much reliable to me... Not that I wouldn't expect such a thing from the Fidel fanboy. ~;) But everything seems to fit in a bit too perfectly. :inquisitive:
.
HoreTore
12-11-2007, 13:17
It's funny, JAG, how you complain about this vote. Now, if you care about the people of Venezuela and not just Chavez, you'd support what the people want. But I think we can see that you care more for Chavez, than the people socialists claim to support.
So.... Whenever guns are banned by popular control, you fully support that? :inquisitive:
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 14:12
.
Doesn't sound much reliable to me... Not that I wouldn't expect such a thing from the Fidel fanboy. ~;) But everything seems to fit in a bit too perfectly. :inquisitive:
.
Yes it does, doesn't it?
So.... Whenever guns are banned by popular control, you fully support that? :inquisitive:
If that's how the Venezuela constitution is set up, sure.
Here? Absolutely not.
Crazed Rabbit
12-11-2007, 17:47
So.... Whenever guns are banned by popular control, you fully support that? :inquisitive:
No...but my quote really didn't have much to do with that.
Hugo Chávez tried to overturn the results of Venezuela's recent vote but was rebuffed by the military.
That would explain how he conceded quickly on such a 'narrow' defeat - I wonder what the real margin was.
CR
What I honestly think we should do, is just stop intervening everywhere. So then when people moan and complain about why the US isn't doing anything, we can just give them the big middle finger.
Yes. In the case of Chavez and the democracy in Venezula I dont care how they run it as long as they continue to provide oil to the world markets, live and let live.
It would also prevent a number of atrocities this country is so infamous for, even though people seem to forget the good also.
It would also prevent money pits like the war on drugs. How many regimes did we prop up down there with that ideology? :rolleyes:
Maybe then everyone would stop complaining about how "this and that" is the fault of the US, not our half ass leadership.
the complaints dont bother me much anymore, I didnt remember hearing a lot of slaps on the back after the tsunami, or the quakes in Pakistan but hey hypocrisy is a natural human condition. Self recognition of that trait is saintly.
I prefer a complete monetary withdraw from the international system for awhile, at least until we can update our own republic (air traffic control, modernization of transport systems, a new power grid).
Maybe chavez and his oil money can lead the way internationally? Odd no one has chimmed in on that isnt it? Of course here in MA we have oil shippments reduced 40% for the poor from venezula, what a nice guy huh? :wiseguy:
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 18:26
Yes. In the case of Chavez and the democracy in Venezula I dont care how they run it as long as they continue to provide oil to the world markets, live and let live.
It would also prevent money pits like the war on drugs. How many regimes did we prop up down there with that ideology? :rolleyes:
the complaints dont bother me much anymore, I didnt remember hearing a lot of slaps on the back after the tsunami, or the quakes in Pakistan but hey hypocrisy is a natural human condition. Self recognition of that trait is saintly.
I prefer a complete monetary withdraw from the international system for awhile, at least until we can update our own republic (air traffic control, modernization of transport systems, a new power grid).
Maybe chavez and his oil money can lead the way internationally? Odd no one has chimmed in on that isnt it? Of course here in MA we have oil shippments reduced 40% for the poor from venezula, what a nice guy huh? :wiseguy:
Our international forays are the main reason that we are so advanced and safe. I would love to go back to a simpler time, but I feel that the second we withdraw from the world stage, we will be in a downward spiral - defensively and in every other way.
I do love the idea though. You should vote for Ron Paul.
~:rolleyes:
Our international forays are the main reason that we are so advanced and safe.
:thumbsdown:
Perhaps in another thread someday we can tangle on this one Tuff but I literally almost crapped myself when I read this.
Our international forays are the main reason that we are so advanced and safe.
Ha...ha...HA
I would love to go back to a simpler time, but I feel that the second we withdraw from the world stage, we will be in a downward spiral - defensively and in every other way.
That is our problem how again? I'm so sick of this crap. Let someone else sort it out for once.
All I want to do is live a peaceful life, raise a family, make a good income, and die happy.
I do love the idea though. You should vote for Ron Paul.
:balloon2:
ICantSpellDawg
12-11-2007, 22:25
Ha...ha...HA
That is our problem how again? I'm so sick of this crap. Let someone else sort it out for once.
All I want to do is live a peaceful life, raise a family, make a good income, and die happy.
:balloon2:
I don't believe that the opinion is laughable. Many people believe just that and it dominates nearly all of American national politics. Debatable, yes. Laughable? probably not.
Myrddraal
12-12-2007, 03:46
I didn't make the point about the "right" to intervene in the governance of other countries just for everyone to say: "I'm just saying it how it is". I was asking you wether you thought it was the best and right thing, for the world. Not from a selfish "it's good for us" point of view.
PanzerJaeger
12-12-2007, 06:03
All I want to do is live a peaceful life, raise a family, make a good income, and die happy.
Have you looked into the effects of what you support on the economy?
ShaiHulud
12-12-2007, 11:27
"Jorge Castañeda, Mexico's former foreign minister, writes in Newsweek online that Hugo Chavez attrempted to overturn the vote on his dictator-for-life constitutional "reforms" in Venezuela.
... by midweek enough information had emerged to conclude that Chávez did, in fact, try to overturn the results. As reported in El Nacional, and confirmed to me by an intelligence source, the Venezuelan military high command virtually threatened him with a coup d'état if he insisted on doing so. Finally, after a late-night phone call from Raúl Isaías Baduel, a budding opposition leader and former Chávez comrade in arms, the president conceded-but with one condition: he demanded his margin of defeat be reduced to a bare minimum in official tallies, so he could save face and appear as a magnanimous democrat in the eyes of the world. So after this purportedly narrow loss Chávez did not even request a recount, and nearly every Latin American colleague of Chávez's congratulated him for his "democratic" behavior..."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/74230
(I see that Xiahou has already posted this)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.