If you hate my country so much, why don't you leave?

an appendage and had to be carried out of the building.

that America is "his" country, and not "our" country?...

as I supposed it would.

And Venezuela is an ally to our own democracy, not an enemy.

PS - Thank you for the excellent illustration, my banned troll of a friend.

I hope she's lurking.

and as an aside, I blame 673 ungrateful a-holes for not appreciating a good thing.

use Chavez as a surrogate for attacking progressivism. I agree with the OP.

but I haven't seen on DU any criticism of Chavez from left; e.g. "he should nationalize more and faster"; "Venezuela should move even more towards horizontal democracy", "Chavez should do more to protect indigenous rights", "All Power to Councils!" - stuff like that, you know...

My main criticism of Chavez is that he says he's nationalizing while making his state even more dependent on foreign corporations. There's a reason that the other communist and socialist parties were against him in the election. Chavez has a lot of criticism from the left in Venezuela.

So if you haven't seen my criticisms I suggest you go back and read them, they are decidedly left wing, across the board.

I'm pretty liberal, and I am not a fan.

The frantic, flailing, failing crusade to somehow discredit the movement that has saved Venezuela, and been a model for Democratic Reform that has spread across Latin America.
What has happened in Latin America gives me hope for The World.

The ONLY people that are viciously opposed to the reforms in Venezuela are the Predatory Global 1%, their employees, and the weak minded who follow shiny objects.

hated him. He was one of the few world leaders to say out loud what many were thinking about Bush. But the Right hates him mainly because his policies are Democratic and they are working. He cares about the poor, that is a total and major sin to Right Wingers.

He believes in Healthcare and Education for all citizens with help from the Government where needed. This at a time when the Austerity Gang are working hard to END all Social Programs in Europe and in the US. Taking advantage of the Economic Crisis, as described in Shock Doctrine. Chavez has the guts to tell them to go to hell the FDR would have.

But I have never seen a true Democrat disagree with Chavez's policies. I do remember a time when most Democratic forums were fully in support of him and very excited about what he was doing, not just for Venezuela but as an inspiration for the rest of Latin America, the only area of the Globe which has moved to the Left over the past decade while Europe and the US moved further and further to the right.

But around 2004 you began to see right wing talking points about Chavez infiltrate Democratic Forums. They are so easy to recognize if you were online from the 2000 election.

Obviously all their efforts have failed, and they cannot accept the fact that they failed because the people of Venezuela have rejected Right Wing policies. Hopefully Europeans, now they have experienced them, will follow their example and the US will wake up and reject them also.

At a time when the Right is attempting to destroy the Social Safety net all over the world, Chavez continues to implement his policies which is a slap in the face to their claims that Social Programs are 'bad'. They ARE, for the greedy Global Corps. Chavez has the guts to tell them to go to hell the FDR would have.

But I have never seen a true Democrat disagree with Chavez's policies. I do remember a time when most Democratic forums were fully in support of him and very excited about what he was doing, not just for Venezuela but as an inspiration for the rest of Latin America, the only area of the Globe which has moved to the Left over the past decade while Europe and the US moved further and further to the right.

But around 2004 you began to see right wing talking points about Chavez infiltrate Democratic Forums. They are so easy to recognize if you were online from the 2000 election.

Obviously all their efforts have failed, and they cannot accept the fact that they failed because the people of Venezuela have rejected Right Wing policies. Hopefully Europeans, now that they have experienced them, will follow their example and the US will wake up and reject them also.

The Western media is almost funny when it comes to Chavez. They throw in all the right wing 'buzz words' eg, 'SOCIALISM' as often as they can say it. As if it was a bad word. Lol! I love reading Reuters and Yahoo when it comes to Chavez, they are so predictable. They tried so hard to convince people he was going to lose this election and you can see that all they were doing was publishing the memos they were getting. There was just no real analysis or understanding of the issues in Venezuela in the Western Media. But it was fun to see how hard they were working and how biased they were while trying to fool people.

such as this:

I have never seen a real Democrat oppose what he has already accomplished and is trying to do in Venezuela and Latin America. I still do not know any democrats who do not support the move to the Left of Latin America and/or who do not understand and appreciate the role Chavez has played in this.

I have followed Venezuela since the first election of Chavez and am aware that there are those who want to see more changes more quickly. It is incredible how much he has managed to accomplish in such a short time. Especially since they had to overcome a lot of prejudices, which they have, re women eg. It takes time to overcome ingrained prejudices, but education, which Chavez has focused on has helped to move things forward faster than it was anticipated. There's much more to be done obviously and it's not a bad thing for people to keep pushing. It keeps the Government on its toes.

All the power to councils!, ie "to make community councils and worker councils the norm" does not mean "keeping Government on its toes". It means becoming the government. All hierarchic centralist systems become corrupt, sometimes you get lucky with the top guy for a while, but even then the biggest problem is always the middle-management types of the bureaucracy. We'll see how it goes.

One can also use the State Department talking points - the kind you seem to prefer.

Concern over things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_Maria_Lourdes_Afiuni

Or this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15358834

is hardly a "right wing talking point", and those things should raise some pretty fucking serious red flags for anyone who actually cares about things like democracy and the rule of law. Let me know when it becomes a GOP talking point to accuse Obama of locking up members of the judiciary on trumped up charges and holding them without trial. Or when the FCC shuts down Fox News. Or are we only supposed to care about the rule of law, judicial independence, and a free and independent press when they're threatened by right-wingers?

THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

Edit:

You have a point? They reported the news. Which happened at the time to be a coup. And then later got fined by the government for daring to report a prison riot. Whatever happened in 2002 has nothing to do with what happened later; I can't really believe that anyone is going to defend the actions of a repressive government stifling freedom of the press just because they don't happen to like what's being reported.

yeah whatever, watch the video above.

You are repeating Western propaganda. The truth is that most of Venezuela's media is still owned by enemies of Chavez and daily cross lines that they would not be allowed to cross here eg. What would happen to any media here that promoted the overthrow of the Government?

Here, people like Ashley Banfield had her career destroyed simply for telling the truth about what she saw when covering the War in Afghanistan, and she didn't even say it on the air, it was at a relatively private function.

And look what happened to Donahue, the most popular show at the time on MSMBC. Because he was too 'left'. No calls for the overthrow of the Government he was just too 'left'.

And Bill Maher, lost his show for making a politically incorrect comment, when that was the whole point of his.

And Christiane Amanpour, lost her job on CNN during the Bush years because she dared to question some of the stories we were being told.

"They better watch what they say" Said Ari Fleischer and they meant it!

Not to mention what happened to journalists around the country during the OWS protests. Venezuela by comparison, actually has a free press. They are free to rouse up hatred and anger against the Government on a daily basis. But not here.

None of these people even came close to the vile and violent rhetoric that dominates Venezuela's right wing Corporate owned media. But here in the land of the free, they and others, were silenced.

I personally think that Venezuela has been way too tolerant of those who backed that coup. Here they would have been put to death. Which I would oppose btw, since I oppose the DP. As does Chavez.

Too many in this country can't handle the truth, let alone recognize it when it accidentally get out.

You know, the one next door with actual death squads that killed thousands of people? The one your government has been supporting - that you are therefore in a sense responsible for? You believe in affecting those things our own polity can affect first, right? Before intervening in a country where we can (thank god) affect little by comparison.

And Honduras, and Mexico -- another country with death squads, and under the sway of a United States policy. You're going to condemn the actions of that government and especially the military in recent years, which are incomparably worse than anything one can point to in Venezuela? Right?

and get rid of all capitalist media. And give all frequencies to free citizen media. That would set an example to follow.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/the-americas-blog/media-bias-in-venezuela

in countries which are or were a lot more free than we are.

1) there are still lots of problems with the judicial system of Venezuela. Some of them inherited, some deeply structural. Actually I think that horizontal and organic common law system could serve revolutionary purposes much better than top-down civil law tradition.

2) Corporate media is neither "free" nor "independent" but depends from and speaks on behalf of Big Money. So please, by all means shut down also Fox News.

"problems with the judicial system"? Address the specific case at hand please. (Note that the UN and Amnesty International among other organisations have voiced concerns relating to this.) Explain how imprisoning a judge on, basically, trumped-up charges because of displeasure with a ruling is enforcing the rule of law. Also explain why you think that an English style common law system would or could work in a country with no history of same or background of precedent to draw on.

And corporate media is independent in the sense of "independent of the government"; in a modern society where effective media requires broadcast facilities and/or printing and distribution on a large scale most media are "corporate" but nonetheless remain independent of government while in most cases expressing the political biases of their owners or shareholders. It's probably not the healthiest thing, but there tends to be a diversity of opinion and I'm not comfortable with any government, even one I broadly approve of, shutting down politically dissenting voices in the media.

but I must deny your request to address the specific case, as I don't know enough about to say anything worth listening.

As for your second question, it's a matter of principle. Civil law systems go back to Roman law and they are always inherently hierarchic top-down systems, which I consider rigid and anti-democratic. Common law works horizontally on peer to peer basis and is more flexible. Common law system could be started from scratch and Venezuela has also indigenous common law systems to draw on precedents.

Third, I have nothing new to add to what I said about corporate media, if a social body wants to get money out of politics, it has right to do so. You are free to disagree and believe that money is speech and has right to talk.

and overall great Democrat, is back in jail despite the mountains of evidence that his conviction was a travesty of justice, orchestrated by Karl Rove and his minions?

Is the US Government, and/or President Obama responsible for throwing an innocent former Governor in jail here in the land of the free?

and I've never said that the US is the beacon of freedom and liberty and general star-spangled awesomeness that ignorant people assume it is anyway.

is responsible for court cases such as the Siegelman case or the Venezuela judge's case. If a president interferes in such cases without a legal process, such as a plea for a pardon eg, THEN you could say he was overstepping his authority.

Chavez and Obama are both aware of these respective cases but neither has the right to intervene in the process nor should they. And if we are to point to one case in Venezuela in order to make some point about its President, then we can do the same here.

I don't know what your point was about that case. Seems to me it is part of the smear campaign always brought up by the Western media. When you see the same stuff recycled time after time, you have to conclude is part of the paid for propaganda against Venezuela's democracy.

They have their legal system there and imho Chavez has been way, way too tolerant of the Far Right Criminals who were behind the coup to overthrow that elected Government. Here they would all have been put to death.

But Chavez opposes the Death Penalty, another reason I support him

Chavez was not only aware but responsible: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/world/americas/04venez.html

http://www.noticias24.com/actualidad/noticia/127712/pide-30-anos-de-carcel-para-la-jueza-afiuni-y-dice-que-bolivar-la-hubiese-fusilado/

This isn't "the legal system", this is interference with the legal system. And definite overstepping of authority. You don't even know what you're talking about.

the past several days as people looked into its history of 'reporting' on that region of the world. Absolutley appalling 'journalism' and sometimes outright lies. Nor are any of Venezuela's Right Wing Corporate controlled news media, which the country is still steeped in.

Obama's Justice dept could have done for Siegelman what they did for Republican Sen. Stevens when they were presented with evidence of corruption in both trials. For some reason they chose to throw out Steven's conviction, but not the Democrat's.

It's BS to say there is any difference, the differences are merely semantic.

Why are 3 UN experts and Chomsky so riled about a single judge suspected of corruption, why are they not talking about murder of 300 peasant activists and Venezuelan system not doing anything to deliver justice to the murderers?

the usual tactics of Chavistas on this board when confronted with some unpleasant realities about their man Hugo. At this point I'm not too surprised; people see what they want to see, I suppose.

I support the bolivarian revolution and taking down the bourgeois judicial system and the capitalist media. Which Chavez has not done.

The first thing is a right wing talking point. Left wing talking point would be, for example, the murder of 300 chavista peasants with impunity, impunity showing that Venezuela's judicial system remains corrupt bourgeois system which bolivarian revolution has not been so far able to renew into system in service of people.

Tell Noam Chomsky and the UN Human Rights Commission that.

left wing talking points, I've given couple. Taking down the bourgeois judicial system and capitalist media.

and stifling the press. Sorry, but I don't happen to think that judges being arbitrarily arrested on the president's orders is a good thing. I don't happen to think that sending reporters to jail for "insulting the president" is a good thing. I don't like authoritarians. You seem to like them just fine. Or at least to excuse the means they use to get to an end you approve of.

And I support sense of proportion and talking about the real systemic problems in Venezuela. Why do you, Chomsky and 3 UN officials insist on talking about a single judge instead of the whole corrupt system and 300 murders of peasant activists with impunity which means the murdering goes on? Why?

with autocratic tendencies.

Does Venezuela have a law such as the NDAA, which allows for the indefinite incarceration of Venezuelans without charges, trials or convictions?

Does the President of Venezuela have the legal power to kill people without charges, trials or convictions?

Does Venezuela have laws that give Chavez the right to spy on all of its citizens?

Does Venezuela have the equivalent of Guantanamo Bay where people are kept for years without charges or trials, tortured and refused access to any judicial system to make their case before a court of law?

His mom was a whore. His father was Dr. Josef Mengele! His wife wants to fuck Capriles Radonski!!

Yeah, I guess it works if you're into that sort of thing.

Oh.....wait.....I'm doing it wrong

. . . the two.

President Obama Designates Home Of UFW Founder, Cesar Chavez, National Monument (Photos)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021498311

No doubt there's a big group of our fellow citizens who have no clue the coverage of Obama honoring the departed Chavez and of Romney condemning Obama for supposedly supporting the living Chavez have to do with two completely different people. Not Latinos, though, and for all the straight-from-the-State Department yanging about Hugo Chavez on select boards like this one, and for all the insanity against him on the right, I'm betting the Republican desire to wage covert war on VZ is going to sway no voters in the US, but the honoring of Cesar Chavez will only solidify Obama's support among Latinos.

I would not want to be in a Fo pun intended) hole with any Debbie Downer/Sad Sam/Cutten Runner.

Shameful.

And I am keeping notes.

We have to repeat all the spin all the time. There is a shortage of rightwing spin on tv so we are compensating for that here.

than a few posters on DU. Some cannot accept the reality that this is the duly elected, democratic government of Venezuela. The VZ government is popular because it has served and improved the lives of the vast majority of the people. The Chavista coalition has now won many fair and free elections in the last 14 years.

And, as some here have pointed out, it's not very socialist. The nationalizations that have prompted such hysteria among capitalists have been limited, and always come with "market price" compensation for the owners.

Let's face it, US militarism and empire need bogeymen, and they've made one out of Chavez even while the same US empire has helped create charnel houses in Mexico, and next door in Colombia, with its insane drug policy (a vital tool of empire).

And you know Chavez is coming up again at these so-called debates. As if Chavez is any kind of big issue to US voters. (He's not!) As if Romney wins any votes by adding to the right-wing hysteria. Sadly it's too much to hope that Obama will call nonsense on the demonization of the Venezuelan majority. Even though there's nothing to lose by it. Because all these politicians want to look strong against "our enemies."

Chavez is not an enemy to the people of the United States. He is a friend, if we accept him. Those among Americans who call him an enemy are the real enemies to our own country, to democracy and peace.