so the country mostly worked under his leadership.

Maduro got the "dictator" part right but he completely lacks charm.

eom

And really, it was, and is, an "incompetent Boligarchy" at best. What other nation with so many riches can't put food on the market shelves, and toilet paper on the rolls of the nation's bathrooms?

Plus, that crime rate--hovering near the worst in the world.

Yeah, a populist paradise...! If you don't need to eat, shit or worry about losing your life in an unsolved murder!!

eom

Then report back to us how you made out.

eom

paradise with you! Put your money--and your life--and your ability to crap and wipe--where your mouth is. That populist horseshit gets pretty old when you are wiping your butt on last month's HOLA magazine.

eom

You can't refute a sixty percent inflation rate, no toilet paper, no food, and a crime rate that is -- what? -- tied for second or third in the entire frigging world.

So instead, you babble garbage about "character assassination." Any character fucking up that wealthy country is assassinating IT with their shitty, wasteful and stupid economic policies. Maduro has mortgaged the country's future to China, and who is getting screwed? The people.

What's predictable is your willful ignorance of the situation on the ground there. Do some reading, educate yourself. You have no clue.

eom

You do not have a grasp of the realities, and you can't be serious.

My comments are not assumptions and they aren't unsupported. Do the Google and weep. Do your homework--or don't. But if you can't do better than one or two sentence whines, just step off--either bring it or walk.

Seems You Are The One Not Serious.

You might choose to educate yourself about world affairs and the global fight between Capitalists and people led populism.

Here is a Cliff Notes video right here at DU that will help you in that process.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017197122

Forgot to mention, I'm Venezuelan myself. All those numbers like 60% annual inflation, the 2nd biggest homicide rate in the world, food scarcity at 30% are all really real, and were even published by Venezuelan government entities themselves. I suggest you get out of your bubble and actually go to Latin America for once and see the truth with your own eyes.

One needs to learn what the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks are really up to - Stifling populist movements around the world.

It seems to me that you're very convinced about this hypothesis that a small group of people are creating some kind of "destabilization" in a country in which the State controls more means of production and security forces than in any other time in the country's history, and with the highest oil prices ever at that. I'd like to see what kind of proof you can provide that would make any of those very real and bad numbers regarding Venezuela irrelevant.

Oh, and just in case, please do try to provide something that isn't from someone like Mark Weisbrot or Eva Golinger or VenezuelaAnalysis. Those entities are nothing more than paid-for propaganda babblers, and anything you present from them WON'T be taken for as fact.

Plain for all to see.

The struggle worldwide is between populism and capitalism.

Why don't you take the time to learn the history.

Here is a Cliff Notes Version for your edification.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017197122

Obviously you can't proof any of your crazy ideas, because there isn't any proof. How about you just admit your ignorance and be done with it?

Point out the global struggle between the capitalists and the 99%.

That HC is a shill for the 1% Capitalists is plain for all to see from her history.

That the US Government has dogged Latin American leaders is also one for the history books.

That HC would assert and defend the position of the 1% Capitalists is no surprise.

That some here at DU also support the 1% Capitalists in defending HC is also no surprise.

Seems one did not take the time to learn some history.

Here is another opportunity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017197122

so it sounds as you aren't particularly qualified to discuss "American Propaganda TV" if you have indeed been "TV Free" for the past 14 years.

Either that, or you haven't really been "TV Free since 2000".

You're busted either way.

eom

Just pointing out your fundamental dishonesty.

Hence the charge of character assassination.

by declaring yourself "TV Free since 2000" in one forum but now spluttering about "American Propaganda TV" in this thread.

All of those sources take great pains to point out the daily does of American TV Propaganda.

Remind everyone again how you have been "TV Free since 2000" by providing more examples of TV clips you watch.

Clear and succinct.

Your weaselly attempt to justify of your "TV Free since 2000" declaration is so noted.

eom

True, people have taken pity and dumped off their old color TVs on me, and I've given pained smiles of happiness before piling their crap TV in a corner, and there have been a few months here and there when I was in effect stuck in a cage with one that I actually had to watch, but that's about it.

Of course sometimes I get forced into social situations where a TV is the focus. In these cases it becomes difficult because one is forced to refrain from commenting on one's true beliefs, in the interest of comity.

We use the exact same sources you do, my friend. And considering how stubborn and unwilling you are to accept raw numbers, we're just gonna have to assume you mostly rely on propaganda sites from the other side of the spectrum.

eom

Now that's a ballsy thing to say. Do you even speak Spanish?

Once again a chance to learn.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017197122

I'm not talking bullshit Libertarian unbridled capitalism. I'm talking about making money.

Democrats aren't anti-capitalism, and never have been. So, what the fuck are you on about?

I think she is perfectly right.

eom

behind. I am more than willing to give Chavez credit for what he did in Venezuela, its a disaster. You don't think he wanted to be the leader of South America? He thought he was Bolivar reincarnate. Venezuela is a minor player these days. No-one is trying to replicate what Chavez did besides changing the constitutions so they can rule indefinitely.

And no-one takes Maduro seriously cantbeserious.

Hillary had a hand in that as did others.

for the miserable situation Venezuela finds itself.

eom

eom

yet you still support him.

eom

I also liked your links.

eom

1% is also without question.

eom

Chavez had much in common with his nemesis George Bush both were a threat to their own citizens Bush has the edge.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Thanks, Bacchus4.0.
Ya just can't make this shit up, can ya? It's so out to lunch.

apparently seeing us all as stupid as the halfwits who support Republicans.

You do remember, don't you, that she actually worked on the Presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater, when he attempted to run for the Presidency long ago?

Barry ####ing Goldwater! Super-conservative. He stood out like a hot-headed sorehead, even then. A lot of Republicans believed he was far too extreme (to the right, of course).

So if Hillarsy supported that guy, even once, she can't ultimately be trusted.

She will win a lot of votes because she is a woman, and she should, as that barrier needs to be removed, and she will win a lot of votes because she isn't officially a Republican. If she had to win votes based upon her actual politics, if people weren't so afraid of the right taking over and re-####ing everything up all over the world, as always, she'd have to be so much more conscientious, and cleaner. A contest between a good candidate and Hillary would be very hard for her. She wouldn't stand a chance.

I'm of an age with HRC. Yet I just can't imagine it!!

But she's managed to make a resounding success of it. She's the neo-lib neo-con darling of the "left" (cough cough). She and her husband have managed to get away with what? 100 million $ so far? Being the "left wing" darlings of the neo-lib neo-con MIC, they can get away with ANYTHING! "We came. We saw. He died (cackle)". Yessir, with a bayonet! And now to hell with Libya? Absolutely copasetic!! To hell with the fucks who urged caution, who urged reason. HRC "right to protected them" (tm). Now they're on their own, and the mercenary fucks the US supported have the run of the country, and all is well because the oil is secure even tho' the country is shot to hell and gone. What happened to all those Libyan weapons? Who gives a damn! We're on to ... "Friends of Syria (tm HRC)". And PLEASE, don't say that anything consequent on these decisions is *caused* by the perps. Because that would be wrong.

I'll try to make this civil and stick to facts that I haven't seen so far.

Venezuelan elections are actually freer than US elections in many ways. They are more transparent. That according to Jimmy Carter.

Since when do "dictators" have a nation where virtually all the media oppose them?

Since when do "dictators" allow a media that actually took part in a coup attempt vs the govt to not be punished for treason?

Since when do "dictators" have their followers routinely murdered by the opposition? Most of the political murders in the country have been by the anti Chavez militias.

Much of the opposition to Chavez came from elites threatened by their loss of power, mostly racist whites horrified by a Black/Indian pardo like Chavez and his largely Black, Indian, mixed and poor working class followers.

There are genuine problems the Bolivarians never fixed, inflation and crime. But the majority of the nation are better off. That's the reason Chavez kept winning and so did Maduro, even though Maduro is a poor speaker and uncharismatic.

It doesn't surprise me Hillary would demonize Chavez. Keep in mind Hillary has always been a warmonger (voted for the Iraq War many times) and part of the corporate wing of the party.

Keep in mind also the same PR firm that handled her run for pres also lobbied for the overthrow of the Honduran president.

If you vote for Hillary, know exactly what you are getting, Hillary W Bush when it comes to foreign policy.

By their own definition the third-way triangulates to the right.

and also spread bogus poll numbers regarding Hugo Chavez.

Mark Penn, of Penn Schoen Berland, introduced the idea of 'polling as a political weapon.'

The right sometimes pretend to be more moderate when there's an advantage, but they really do all stick together. No one else wants a thing to do with them, for good reason. There's nothing to like!

[center]~ ~ ~[/center]
Posted by Bob Burton on July 03, 2007
Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton and Big Tobacco

Mark Penn, CEO of the global PR firm Burson-Marsteller (B-M) and president of the polling firm Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates (PSB), feels misunderstood.

Penn was recently in the news when several union officials expressed concern that Democratic Presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton had hired him as a "key strategic adviser," even though B-M has a specialist unit that advises clients on defeating union campaigns. Not surprisingly, Clinton's campaign shrugged off the criticism, insisting that he is a "vital member of our team." In an email to Atlantic Online, Penn wrote that that he had "never personally done such (anti-labor) work" and insisted that he has "strong personal sympathies with the labor movement." (Why someone who proclaims their pro-labor sympathies would even head up a PR firm that runs an anti-labor unit went unexplained.) Even if one accepts Penn's explanation at face value, it left me wondering who he had worked for.

More:
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2007/07/6213/mark-penn-hillary-clinton-and-big-tobacco

Isn't this the same kind of twistedness as I saw when HRC contracted James Carville, at the same time as Carville's wife is this psycho "Mary Matalin" contracted with absolute whack jobs.

Probably the only way she can function at all.

What passes for her "ideas" she expresses is straight from the Twilight Zone.

I get annoyed just watching her speak.

Its a pretty apt description if you ask me. The guy thought he was Bolivar reincarnated and that he was the leader of Latin America.

But so is she. I find it hard to see how he was a dictator, but people who don't like his policies of course disagree.

It may be misrule, oppression of minorities, or folly, but it's not dictatorship.

Chavez and now Maduro. Although, tyrants might be an even better term.

Plenty of examples around, fake elections or no elections, coups and destabilization campaigns. Chavez is easy enough to criticize, no need to make things up. He did a really poor job of preparing for his own demise, for example, a revolutionary who is serious has to think beyond his own time.

They seem to have outlived all their enemies, as near as I can tell they suffer from very little internal unrest. You can argue it's an island, no place to hide, but the guys before the Castro's were thrown out by a revolution, so we know it can be done. It is true that not everybody is happy with the current government, but that is true anywhere you go.

rather than a violent revolution n/t

He is actually working on behalf of the Castros and being more repressive against dissidence most likely driven from fear, fear in thinking that nobody would take him seriously as a leader if he didn't show aggression against the opposition. Since he severely lacks in brains and charisma, unlike Chavez, he has to get people's support by other means and keep the poor distracted from the horrible mess he's created with his cabinet. If the economically ignorant poor masses realize the shithole they're in is because of the government's policies, then the Chavista regime is out for good. Even among their leadership there is a great divide that is collapsing the PSUV party, especially as demonstrated by the Jorge Giordani letter against Maduro, which is all over the news right now in Venezuela

Par for the course:

1. inaccurate
2. disingenuous
3. manipulative