Venezuela assembly gives Chavez decree powers

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Venezuela's parliament gave President Hugo Chavez decree powers for 18 months on Friday, outraging opposition parties that accused him of turning South America's biggest oil producer into a dictatorship.

The move consolidated the firebrand socialist leader's hold on power after nearly 12 years in office, and raised the prospect of a fresh wave of nationalizations as the former paratrooper seeks to entrench his self-styled "revolution."

Chavez had asked for the fast-track powers for one year, saying he needed them to deal with a national emergency caused by floods that drove nearly 140,000 people from their homes.

But the Assembly, which is dominated by loyalists from his Socialist Party, decided to extend them for a year and a half.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BG69720101217

Hilarious that the Chavez cheerleader brigade will support this simply because the guy is a socialist. For them, the ends simply justify the means - which is no different than the way right wing radicals think.

Nothing falls if you don't hit it.

that IS something to cheer about. When will we find someone like that to fight for ordinary Americans in this country?

Of course the Multi-National Corps are not happy with Chavez, which is a badge of honor to any leader with any integrity. Here we have the opposite system. The Multi-National Corps RUN this country as they used to run Venezuela. And they are turning this country into what Venezuela was, over 80% poverty rate eg, unless we stop them. One in five American children now go to bed hungry every night. If we don't stop them the way Chavez finally did, this country will look like a third world country, which more and more of it is already.

Viva Chavez, fighting for equality for all human beings, not just the wealthy.

The Free Republic people call this going Hitler (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2644559/posts?page=19). I tend to agree with them.

When a leader assumes too much power, it corrupts them. It happened under Stalin, Mao, Fidel, and Lenin. Hugo Chaves has a big ego and it turns me off alot. I like Evo Morales a lot more because he shows humility and true leadership in Boliva. I wish that we had more leaders like him.

Nor is he the first Venezuelan president to have been granted decree powers by their legislature. It was neither permanent nor absolute any of those times, and there's no reason to assume this time is different. Granting emergency decree powers to the president is something provided for in the Venezuelan constitution.

People like Stalin are not a valid example of being corrupted by too much power. Stalin and Mao were corrupt all along, and therefore they sought absolute power.

arrogant leaders in this country, some of them good, some bad.

This is a perfectly normal event in a democracy. Here we have Executive Orders, a power granted to the president by Congress. In its history it has been used to suspend the Constitution among other things. We are in no position to be worrying about how other countries run their democracies.

The people of Venezuela obviously trust their president with these powers, just as Americans trusted theirs. They like his personality, mainly because he fights for THEM. To you he may seem arrogant, to them they see a man fighting to protect their country from falling back into the hands of Multi-National Corps where for so long the country fell into poverty and illiteracy. Now, they have beaten illiteracy and brought the poverty level down from 80% to 60%.

No one is asking the U.S. for their opinion on Venezuela's government, in fact, most people in South America would like very much for the U.S. to go home and take care of their own huge problems including human rights abuses, poverty, corruption, illegal wars still ongoing, medical care for all its citizens etc. etc.

It's way past time for the U.S. to leave everyone alone, to do business with other nations legally, rather than the illegal policies they have been engaged in for so long. We are not very popular anywhere these days and it might be better if we stopped shooting off our mouths about other countries for a while. We have, thanks to our policies of torture and illegal invasions, lost all moral authority around the globe with the people who matter, billions of ordinary citizens.

who have conspired to murder him numerous times, nor did he show enough "humility" to prevent some of them from beating him unconscious and leaving him to die alone, on the ground in Bolivia.

It didn't prevent the recent plot involving assassins from Europe arriving in Bolivia, meeting with the Santa Cruz white separatist scum in their attempt to assassinate both President Morales and Vice President Álvaro García Linera.

It's easy for those people you consult for important views on the democratically elected leaders of other countries to make up their own expressions to cover situations they clearly don't understand in the slightest.

It requires far more of you to take the time to research, and to think things over, and look for more answers. That's what the propagandists controlling corporate news know, and expect. They can count on the shallow ones among us to lack the incentive to invest their time, energy, to choose the easier path, plying them with lies, half-truths, or stunningly mangled versions of the truth.

As Mark Twain said long ago, "The Truth is still putting on its boots by the time a Lie is half way around the world."

The priorities of our leaders are:

1. Themselves
2. Really wealthy supporters
3. Ordinary voters

Priorities of Chavez:

1. Himself
2. Ordinary voters

He does not need to worry about really wealthy supporters, because he can just take their money.

As the poster above you stated, there is a clear similarity between him and Bush, Obama, and whoever tricks us next time.

I'd rather have a firebrand socialist than a DINO any day.

I just can't compete. :eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

of the right or a dictatorship of the left, is a false choice.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

thus, if you move far enough to the left, you will find it.

And you can rest assured that you will not need a sponsor. For they are always looking for new slaves.

careers in the hands of the voters? You know that Venezuela has cleaner elections than we do, don't you? So, are you saying WE have a dictatorship, or they have one, I am confused.

then you believe that McCain and Palin actually won in 2008.

Do you actually have anything to say, sir?

International community who sent election observers, including Jimmy Carter to watch the process there and all concluded that the elections in Venezuela were among the best of any democracy in the world.

Here, however is a different story so I would suggest that we focus on our own problems and stop falling for the bought-and-paid-for (over $300 million worth) as was revealed recently, propaganda against other democracies. Our own is in such poor shape, we really don't have much credibility when it comes to criticizing others.

When we have elected officials calling for the investigation of our free press under the espionage act, I think we are way further down the road to totalitarianism than any democracy we have the gall to criticize.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Chavez is not the first Venezuelan president to be granted that power, and the power is neither unlimited nor permanent.

about Venezuela. Now, educate yourself, because you look very foolish being that few people who know anything about that democracy, would ever fall for anything coming from the Bush administration's propaganda machine.

Venezuela: Democracy or Dictatorship?



Yes, Condi Rice, that is who you are aligned with when you post the kind of garbage you have posted in this thread about a country you clearly know nothing about.

Venezuela is more of a democracy at this point, than the U.S. A fact which everyone other than the far rightwing in this country, already knows.

The Carter Center, world respected for its work monitoring elections, has highly praised Venezuela's democratic electoral system.

And from someone who went to live in Venezuela. I can see you're just spouting Bush era propaganda, don't know anyone who lives there, and have never been there yourself.

I have personal friends who are Venezuelan and who would confirm THIS report enthusiastically:

Live Well in Venezuela For Under $1200 a Month.



As for the money spent by the West's rightwing propaganda machine on anti-Chavez propaganda, you are a perfect example of it. You repeat the lies THEY publish hoping to indoctrinate people, which fortunately only a small % of this population believes.

In cables released by Wikileaks this past week, the U.S. anti-Chavez funding of propaganda was confirmed beyond any doubt. Of course this government has always denied those charges, but most intelligent people knew that a popular, democratic leader like Chavez, was no dictator. Bush was a dictator, or very close to it.

From your comments, it is clear how completely ignorant you are about Venezuela. I would suggest you educate yourself before posting any more rightwing drivel here. There are too many very informed people here to buy it. Because whether you know it or not, that is what you are doing and we should not have to see this kind of rightwing garbage on a Democratic board. If I want to see distortions and lies about oil-rich countries, I would be posting on some rightwing board. Here, people are far too educated to be expected to take posts like yours seriously.

Still, there is always hope for someone who is simply ignorant of the facts to learn how wrong they are. Which is why I bothered to waste this ten minutes of my time providing you with something other than the rightwing garbage you have been reading somewhere. I really hope you don't watch Fox, it's bad for the brain, but your comments on Venezuela could have come right from that faux channel, just so you know.

the false claims about Venezuela being a dictatorship, but move on to the U.S. government still attempting to interfere in the business of a sovereign state. Is that what you are trying to prove, that Chavez is right and that this administration is acting as illegally in Venezuela as Bush was?

Obama, nor any other U.S. president has any right to interfere in the affairs of any other sovereign state, but you appear to be saying that the election of a democrat, once thought to be the way to stop U.S. attempts to bring down a democratically elected president, as the world watches, turns out to have been a false hope.

Exactly what right does this government have to interfere in other countries? You are certainly not helping this administration, if that was your intention, by posting proof of the illegal interference. You are proving Chavez to have been correct. He has claimed all along that the U.S. is attempting to disrupt Venezuela's democracy. Are you aware that the U.S. has consistently denied those charges from Chavez? Thanks for proving Chavez right.

The new 'sheriff' as you call him, will be about as successful as the old ones. But how sad is it that you conflate Obama with Bush. This administration promised to 'change' things regarding U.S. foreign policy. You are insinuating that that is not the case.

So, all those who called Chavez a liar for insisting that the U.S. was illegally interfering in Venezuela's government, have now learned that he was correct after all from the Wikileaks documents released last week.

Explain please, what right the U.S. has to involve itself in the business of a sovereign nation?

And btw, are you aware that the 'left', democrats on boards like this, rightly trashed Bush for interfering in Venezuela and backing a failed coup there against Chavez?

Were you on the side of Bush back then? Or is this merely a party loyalty thing for you with no regard for the rights of millions of people in Venezuela where Chavez remains one of the most popular presidents in the world with his own people?

Your use of the word 'sheriff' indicates that you are under the false impression that the U.S. is the policeman of the world. That, fyi, is a rightwing viewpoint. The world does not want the U.S. operating as a 'sheriff'.

You insult this president by referring to him that way when he would deny any interference in Venezuela. Are you saying Obama is lying?

Authoritarian = Dictator.

You posted links presumably to show that this president is 'the new Sheriff' implying that he will be even more successful at the illegal interference in the business of a democratic, sovereign country. Now you are back-tracking?

This country has no right whatsoever to be involved in attempting to undermine a democratically elected president of a sovereign nation. That is the business of the people of that nation and they do not want, as they so courageously demonstrated when they drove out the Bush backed coup puppets, and reinstated their democratically elected president, Chavez.

So, I take it you now accept these facts and will not in the future post the kind of propaganda we should expect to see only on rightwing boards.

Since it was enacted, the US has sought to ensure that other nations do not interfere with states in the Americas. It stated that any such action would be cause for US intervention.

Regrettably, his policy did not stop the Russians from attempting to gain a foothold in Latin and South America. Some argue that the US did not enforce Monroe forcefully enough during the Cold War, and that resulted in a dictatorship taking hold in Cuba.

Therefore, those who run our foreign policy (the president is in charge of it), are still very watchful, and it is clear to them that Chavez has the potential to create problems. For although many Venezuelans don't have enough to eat, Chavez has had no problem finding the money to stockpile Russian and other weapons.

Like any dictator, he is not to be trusted. Nevertheless, as I previously, stated, as long as does not attempt to destabilize the region, he should be tolerated.

On the other hand, if he starts causing trouble in the region, we are duly bound to engage him.

Killing democracies does not help our interests. And that was the U.S. policy in South America under the guise of 'fighting Communism'. Thankfully many of our former criminal allies in that region of the world are now being prosecuted for war crimes.

What the U.S. wanted was the resources of those nations, putting in place brutal dictators, like Pinochet to make sure no one with democratic ideals would ever get a chance to stop them.

You completely discredit yourself each time you regurgitate the false 'dictator' charge against what the world well knows, is one of the most democratic leaders in the world.

You need to stop repeating the nonsense that the U.S. was ever justified in the horrendous and brutal policies it had towards South America. History already rejects those claims, and certainly now that the region has toppled U.S. supported dictator after dictator, and formed their own alliances to make sure it never happens again, they are looking out for their own interests, as they should and have a right to do.

If this country is concerned about its interests in S.A. it better start respecting the will of the people in those nations, or it definitely will have something to worry about. The old 'we have a right to stomp all over everyone in S.A. mantra you just repeated, is dead.

You might want to ask yourself, why this country, with its now empty claims of supporting democracy everywhere, never actually does. It has a history of supporting brutal dictators.

You might want to start reading those Wikileaks docs. It is simply shameful to see the criminals being supported by this government, such as brutal dictator Karamov of Uzbekistan. And why? No, it is not for any great noble reason. The cables now public for the world to see, demonstrate that not only does the U.S. KNOW what a criminal this man is, but they admit to supporting him anyhow, because he 'allows us to build military bases in his country' for a price of course, OUR tax dollars, going to help a killer commit genocide on his own people. That may be okay with you, but it is not for the majority of decent Americans.

It is all about oil. We are so backward, so determined to make the last dollar from the worlds shrinking oil reserves, we are willing to stop any development of alternative energies, and kill and topple democratic governments to get it. That is all it ever was about.

desperate mess it is in, having lost the respect of the world, whoever was in charge of these murderous policies, should have been fired. Many of them may, like their puppets in S.A. end up on trial one day in the not too distant future. As they should. Kissenger eg, cannot leave this country as he wanted for crimes he committed while contributing to these criminal policies.

War in and of itself is a transgression on humanity; nevertheless, war is a fact of human existence. For there will always be power hungry tyrants who seek to deprive people of their freedom.

So, while you may twist yourself into a pretzel in an effort to justify a dictatorship of the left, I will always oppose tyrants whether they are to my right or to my left. And Hugo Chavez is a tyrant.

Meanwhile, back at the oasis, the noose grows even tighter:

Chavez's congressional allies are considering extending the "Social Responsibility Law" for broadcast media to the Internet, banning messages that "disrespect public authorities," "incite or promote hatred" or crimes, or are aimed at creating "anxiety" in the population.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/19/AR2010121902461.html

:rofl:

Maybe check with the people of Venezuela whether they want you to take out their beloved, democratically president. A few people, I suspect a lot more powerful than you, tried to do that back in 2002 and got their rear ends handed to them by THE PEOPLE OF VENEZUELA.

Your comments exude all that is wrong with America's foreign policy. Neither YOU, nor this government, get to decide the governments people in other countries choose to elect. Not that this country doesn't try. But clearly the people of all those South American nations, throwing out U.S. backed dictators, have thumbed their collective noses at this country's efforts to intervene in their business. Iow, we are not wanted there. They've seen what we are and what we do to innocent people around the world. Speaking of dictatorships.

You may as well accept the fact that Chavez is one of the most fairly elected Democratic presidents in the world today, beloved not only by his own people, but admired around the world (except here of course because he won't give us his oil to control).

As for your WaPo article, more anti-Chavez propaganda from our 'free press'. They do earn their access to DC cocktail parties.

Right now, here in this country, we have people, elected officials, calling for the assassination of an award-winning Editor and Publisher of a respected International News Organization. We have our so-called Democratic DOJ searching for a crime to charge him with. There is no crime, which is why they have to search for it.

And we have a Chief Executive who has been given the powers to declare any American Citizen to be the enemy of the state and to be targeted for assassination.

Get back to me on the Democratic President of Venezuela when he starts ordering the assassinations of Venezuelan citizens without trial.

Got any comment on that dictatorial power given to the U.S. president?

or a authentic democrat.

It is abundantly clear that you are willing to accept a dictatorship, so long as it is from the left. I will give Chavez credit for one thing though. Like most dictators, he has a fetish for military attire and he does not shy away from wearing it. Thus, he dresses for the part.

Chavez has expropriated Venezuelan business, foreign businesses, historic buildings, personal property and more. Simply put, Chavez is not a very good host for businesses or investments.

In a free society, we call it theft; furthermore, these types of expropriations completely defy economic logic and is the main reason that the Venezuelan economy and people are suffering.

Eventually, the people of Venezuela are going rise up and play "dump the dictator."

Who knows, he may wind up this guy:

for your problems with Chavez. He stopped the raping of his country's resources by Global Capitalists. He ended their reign of terror and plunder on his people, plunging his country into poverty and illiteracy and using the indigenous people as virtual slaves, stealing their lands, and murdering them when they dared to object. Chavez is restoring those lands to the people, under the perfectly legal 'land reform' done in countries all over the world, throughout history.

He is a democratically elected president, recognized as such by the world, and nothing you say can change that. That is a fact.

It's been fun, but sorry, you don't get to profit from other people's suffering and the theft of their resources so long as they have a courageous leader to prevent it. As for attracting business, he's doing business with China and other nations who have decided that invading countries to take their resources is what rogue nations do. So while the U.S. agitates for war, they quietly sign agreements to get what they want by doing business with other countries, and Venezuela gets what it wants.

Chavez will be reelected as long as the people of Venezuela want him as their president. Like every other democracy, if they want someone else, he will retire, but will go down in his country's history the same way George Washington (another guy with a military fetish) is viewed in this country.

Oh, as for your 'military fetish nonsense' I'm :rofl: He IS a military man. You know, like Ike. Did he have a military fetish also?





Another guy with a 'military fetish' ~ we had quite a few of them running this country :rofl:

On the other hand, Chavez has not been part of the active military for a long time.

Slam Dunk.

many leaders wear their military uniforms on formal occasions or for photo ops. Chavez is rarely seen in military uniform.

By the way, what do you think of Karamov, in Uzbekistan? Speaking of real brutal dictators. Since you are so concerned about these matters, you must be outraged over the U.S. support of that genocidal killer of his own people and torturer? I know I am and have been for years.

However, Karamov does cooperate with the U.S. as far as our oil wars go and 'business interests'. So I guess we turn a blind eye to real dictators when there is oil involved. All you are doing, is proving what the world knows about the state of this country right now. Chavez won't let them steal Venezuela's oil. That is the reason for hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on anti-Chavez propaganda. Too bad you cannot think for yourself and see through the lies, rather than attempting to spread them around. It's a waste of good money though, as very few people as are naive as you appear to be.



Hugo Chavez, Democratically elected president of Venezueala.

As far Karamov goes, he, like Chavez is a communist/socialist dictator. What do you expect from a former Soviet leader? It's par for the course.

But what you seek to sweep under the rug is the fact that when Chavez's communist/socialist regime first took power, he seized a great deal of private property in order to amass a centralized government authority that had ultimate control over the population. Moreover, on several occasions he has had the ruling communist party grant him fast decree powers. On each occasion, he has further consolidated his power.

This time, he had the outgoing legislature grant him these powers for up to 18 months. To the knowing observer it is clear that this is simply a move to outflank the opposition which had gains in the recent elections, when they won half of the popular vote, despite irregularities.

It's all about the 2012 election; which will surely be a corrupt affair as Chavez now has total control over the nation's purse strings. Nevertheless, Venezuelans have figured it out. They see this guy for what he is and if the 2012 elections were to be fair, Chavez wold be history. But they will not be fair, and as a result, there will be serious repercussions.


Two militaristic dictators in an informal setting.

against his own people and photos of the tortured citizens, boiled in oil and delivered to their loved loves in plastic bags? Otherwise you would never make that statement that there is any comparison to be made with a Democratically elected president who has treated even his enemies with compassion?



Relatives of a victim carry his coffin in Andizhan. (Reuters)



And that is just a sample of the brutality of a U.S. ally.

You show your ignorance once again. Which is partly why I continue to engage you. I like to have proof of the results of the lying, smears propagated by the West's propaganda machine to show to people who often don't believe me when I tell them there are actually people who have been totally indoctrinated by the campaign. So thanks for your cooperation. I know that to thinking people everywhere, it is hard to believe that anyone would make some of the false statements you have made, and not even be embarrassed to do so.

Chavez did not 'seize' property. He introduced much needed land reform in Venezuela, legally. I am beginning to think I am communicating with a child. If so, please say so and I will simply chalk up all of your egregiously false statements to a lack of knowledge of world affairs, forgivable if you are a child.

Very nice photo of Chavez and Castro. Chavez gets along with so many of the world's leaders that the U.S. cannot seem to connect with. He has helped the Cuban people by providing money for educating doctors and nurses etc. He is a true, altruistic, humanitarian and does not allow foolish prejudices interfere with the good he does for ordinary people.

He will never be popular with the greedy, oil barons and bankers who have destroyed so many countries, but that is a compliment to him, which I believe he appreciates. The U.S. on the other hand, apparently never meets a dictator it doesn't love, and they do NOT love Chavez.

If Chavez would only become a dictator, the U.S. Government would love him, and that alone proves your ridiculous claims to be false.

to install right-wing dictators? Because that's what US policy under the Monroe Doctrine was during the Cold War.

Also, Cuba was already a dictatorship when Castro took over. The change wasn't that democracy ended in Cuba (that had already happened), it was that a US-friendly dictator was replaced by a Soviet-friendly dictator.

Apparently right-wing dictators that cater to American corporate interests are the exception to your "no dictator can be trusted" policy.

Unless, of course, he points one of his new Russian toys at us.

They don't use vapor voting machines and they do a significant audit to verify the totals. Their elections are monitored, too, iirc.

We don't meet that standard.

We do not meet the standards of Venezuela's elections.

Fortunately, we have not sunk to that level.

and Jimmy Carter has said they couldn't monitor our because they don't meet international standards. :)

It is necessary to monitor elections in Venezuela; however, it still not prevent irregularities. On the other hand, it is not necessary for outsiders to monitor elections in the US.

Voting Irregularities in Ohio 2004

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/VotingIrreg

Foreign monitors 'barred' from US polls

November 3 2004 at 12:54am

Copenhagen - Some observers from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), a Europe-wide security and rights forum, were barred from entering some polling stations in the United States on Tuesday, one of them said.

"We were not allowed to enter polling stations," said Soeren Soendergaard, a Danish parliamentary deputy.

"Although we were officially invited to follow the (US presidential) election, the message was not passed on to the polling stations," he told the Danish news agency Ritzau.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/foreign-monitors-barred-from-us-polls-1.225877

further demonstrated the ineptness of his presidency.

It surprises me that you would be in agreement with him.

It means just burying your head in the sand and pretending that election fraud can't happen.

lol

Published on Thursday, June 1, 2006 by Rolling Stone magazine
Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.

by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in ''tinfoil hats,'' while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush's victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.(11)

Any election, of course, will have anomalies. America's voting system is a messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city officials. ''We didn't have one election for president in 2004,'' says Robert Pastor, who directs the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University. ''We didn't have fifty elections. We actually had 13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-sovereign counties and municipalities.''

More:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0601-34.htm

Anyone who even DREAMS of claiming our election process is clean should be institutionalized.

http://www.thetrickery.com.nyud.net:8090/ama/med/straitjacket_new1.jpg
I remember reading back then that the Ohio people drove EVERYONE out, so only Ohio officials were involved in the recount, behind closed doors, NO observers.

Sick. Really sick. Beyond sick. DIRTY.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

has admitted that they are comfortable with a dictatorial form of government.

Latinobarometro 2010: Latin American Public Opinion
US foes are among the more democratic regimes in Latin America, according to their people
By Kevin Young
Tuesday, December 07, 2010

On December 3 the Chilean polling firm Latinobarómetro released its annual public opinion poll of eighteen Latin American countries. The poll provides valuable clues about citizens’ views, and should be taken seriously in any assessment of Latin American political and social realities.

~snip~
Political and Social Democracy: Basic Trends

As in past years, one of the central questions measured respondents’ level of satisfaction with the state of democracy in their country. “Democracy” was left ambiguous, with respondents free to interpret the term as they see fit. Uruguay finished first out of eighteen countries with an amazing 78 percent of respondents saying they were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their democracy, nearly double the regional average of 44 percent. Among US antagonists, Venezuela tied for fifth with 49-percent satisfaction, about the same as last year. Bolivia, meanwhile, declined significantly from 50-percent satisfaction in 2009 to 32 percent this year, dropping to sixteenth in the region. Among close US allies, Colombia tied for ninth at 39-percent satisfaction, and Peru and Mexico came in last with just 28- and 27-percent satisfaction, respectively. A similar question, discussed in the final section below, measured “support for democracy” and yielded similar results, except that Venezuela jumped to first place and Bolivia to fourth <4>.

One crucially important question asked respondents about the extent to which “government decisions are designed to serve a small few.” This question, perhaps more than any other, measured respondents’ perceptions of how well the formally-democratic systems in their countries function in practice—that is, where those systems rank in the spectrum from genuinely participatory to more exclusionary styles of political democracy. The dubious “winner” in this question was Argentina, where 75 percent agreed that government decisions benefited a chosen few, followed by Paraguay (73%), Colombia/Brazil/Costa Rica (66%), Mexico (65%), and Peru (63%). The countries with the fewest numbers of cynical people were Uruguay (42%), Nicaragua (49%), and Bolivia and Venezuela at 52 percent. The opposite query yielded similar results: the members of the latter group were all among those where the most people felt their country “is governed for the good of all the people” (Uruguay was first, with an impressive 59 percent); the former group all finished in the bottom half <5>. A “thriving democracy” need not allow its citizens any actual input into government policy, it seems.

A set of questions also measured respondents’ confidence in political and legal institutions. Contrary to caricatures of Venezuela as a creeping dictatorship where a strongman is systematically eroding democratic institutions, Venezuela finished in the upper third when citizens were asked to rate their confidence in the judicial system (tied-4th), in Congress and politicians (2nd), and in “government” in general (6th). Venezuela outranked Colombia, Mexico, and Peru on all these questions, and in most cases the latter three countries were well below the regional average. Bolivia’s position was more ambiguous, higher than Mexico and Peru on most measures but outranked by Colombia on others <6>.

More:
http://www.zcommunications.org/latinobarometro-2010-latin-american-public-opinion-by-kevin-young

And without human rights, freedom cannot exist.

I've been hearing of unhappy people whose property here was appropriated for various purposes since childhood. I currently live in a town where a man has refused to take down the other half of his garage for decades after the city took part of his property for its own purposes, and totally ruined his property value.

His triangular one half garage stands as a monument to that event to this day.

You're making up your own facts. You are simply in the wrong place. The rest of us have been discussing Venezuela for many years here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=180&topic_id=5765&mesg_id=5779





here's your sign:

I am led to conclude that you don't catch on to quickly.

...the people can stop or delay it indefinitely. See the Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and how much they hate Chavez.

The two seem to go together. :)

they are pretty transparent. Most of them also support corporate America having as much influence that it does now. Verrry predictable.

It's been discussed here endlessly for many, many years.

Did a quick search here for one good definition of how they are conducted, found one from Peace Patriot, in the "Elections" forum, based upon information we ALL have read, all of us, and there's no dispute here:

".....Venezuela has publicly owned,
OPEN SOURCE (transparent, reviewable by anyone) programming code, and they hand count a whopping 55% of the ballots. They didn't start with a rotten system like ours. And it is not true to say that it is "only a matter time" before their system is corrupted. They have many failsafes to prevent this, including a highly independent Election Commission, and contentious parties in Venezuela that zealously guard the process. They have 70% turnouts. Everybody is involved. And they invite hundreds of international election monitors into the country to survey and write reports on every aspect of the system.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x512187

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the GOP=fascist

But what do you think about Chavez getting decree power for the next 18 months? Are you happy, sad, angry, or indifferent?

He's a crook.

Congratulations Fuhrer Chavez!

he is something else.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They're GREAT when (a) we can watch from afar, and (b) we like them.

love him, so why are we concerned? He is more popular in his country than our president is here. Is our president a dictator also? And here we have crooked elections, there they have clean elections. Maybe people in glass houses should not throw stones.

Venezuela eg, does not torture detainees, nor invade and slaughter innocents in other countries. Or steal the resources of other countries. Yet, THEY are the dictators, and we are the 'good guys'. :eyes:

You better start reading the Wikileaks cables. You have fallen for U.S. propaganda perpetrated by the U.S. against Venezuela. I'm sure you don't want to be seen as conduit of propaganda. The whole world knows it now. We pay millions to paint a bad picture of Chavez because he will give Venezuela's oil to the Multi National Oil Cartels. But apparently it isn't working, and will work even less now that those Wikileaks cables prove that what we suspected all along, is actually true. WE are the bad guys, sadly. Considered to be the biggest threat to world peace in the world today.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How is this democratic?

Like a said, Hoooooooooowl!

and was given the ability to read thanks to my socialist dictator teachers. Gives one insight to things other then their own life.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

....we have presidents that declare wars in this country. How's that democratic or constitutional?

....shouldn't we let the Venezuelan people decide how their democracy should work?

The opposition won half of the popular vote. And instead of respecting the results of the election Chavez used his cronies in the assembly to get degree powers.

Chavez is not as popular as he once was, as the most recent elections show. What better way to circumvent this than to use a unicameral Congress (Chavez was behind that also) to give you decree powers...

sometimes the ends don't justify the means

the Republic Senate gave Palpatine decree powers to deal with the Seperatist movement. He played up a legitimate arrest attempt by the Jedi Order to declare himself Emperor.
This kind of thing happens all the time and has been happening time and time again throughout history.

Something non-fictional.

being granted more and more powers by the Rheistag <sp?>, but I don't want to get people screaming "Godwin!!!" at me.
But everyone knows this story.

...Chavez were sending armed thugs into the National Assembly to intimidate them into granting him total power. That's what Hitler did: he sent his gun-toting Brownshirts in to "supervise" the Reichstag when they voted on the Enabling Act. Which granted him unlimited, unaccountable dictatorial power for life, in one fell swoop.

So decree powers aren't about preventing them from taking power: you can't take over with 40% of the legislature.

by the POTUS.

Don't waste your time, for it has never occurred.

The power to declare war is vested in the Congress and the United States has only formally declared war against foreign nation on five occasions.

25 April 1846

That we've had multiple presidents who bypassed the constitutional requirements for a declaration of war by starting undeclared wars. Starting a war without a declaration of war by Congress, despite that being a constitutional requirement, has become so commonplace that it's now done even when Congress would have easily passed a declaration.

Do you know the powers our president has been granted over the past ten years? Did you know that he can order the assassination of a U.S. citizen eg, and that he has?

Please, Americans are in no position to point fingers elsewhere. What are you doing to restore the rule of law, and the balance of powers to THIS country?

Is Chavez invading other countries, slaughtering and torturing people who have done nothing to us? Do you realize how this country is viewed around the world, are those dead bodies seen in other countries, little children torn apart by our bombs, invisible to Americans? Do those mothers not grieve for what the U.S. has done to them?

Btw, has Chavez been slaughtering any children lately, for oil? Torturing people in countries he invaded?

No wonder the U.S. has lost the respect of the people of the world. The hypocrisy of pointing at a peaceful leader of a country where he was democratically elected in cleaner elections than we have here, whild not seeing what a dictatorship this country is in the eyes of the world, is simply stunning. Put your energies into doing something about this country and what it is doing to its own people AND to the people of other nations.

The only reason we don't like Chavez is because he dared to think that Venezuela's oil belongs to the people of Venezuela and not to US. You are being manipulated by millions of dollars spent on anti-Chavez propaganda.

The means used by Hitler to get the Reichstag to pass the Enabling Act included armed Brownshirts being present to intimidate them while the vote was carried out. And the Enabling Act gave Hitler unlimited and perpetual power to enact laws by decree.

The Germany situation looks an awful lot more like what was reported at any number of points in the late roman republic. However, getting decree powers for most of a congressional term which the opposition gains control or influence is not likely to be interpreted charitably by people at large, nor should it. If he decrees laws that the assembly wouldn't pass which have nothing to do with flooding, how do you view it? Do you think he won't actually do it?

My major concern with this guy is his armament program (which apparently includes missile deals with iran and logically can end in nuclear issues). South america has avoided the higher-tech arms races so far. the largest countries (brazil arg. chile) aren't going to be fighting wars over more than some mountain passes or sub-antarctic islands. Colombia is in a long protracted civil war which VZ has injected itself into, on the side of FARC.

One suggestion I have read about is that FARC will grow in power in VZ (it has already subverted govt. oversight of some ports and other areas of interest to it) to such a degree that they will become more powerful than chavez. Think it is impossible? Look at the country the come from's recent past, and consider mexico.

make policy. How is that democratic?

Through EOs the Constitution has even been suspended.

We should look at the plank in our own eyes before pointing fingers elsewhere. Chavez probably has less power, in fact we know he has, than the U.S. president does. Yet, we call this a democracy, still.

Say, do you live there? Do you have plans to emigrate?

No?

Why not?

Exactly.

Streeeeeeetch that logic.

But Chavez would.

Say, which party is in the majority down there?

Exactly.

Does that finally cement your decision to emigrate?

But he is a dick.

So he's about halfway there.

"Say, do you live there? Do you have plans to emigrate?"

If you think only "living there" gives you a right to comment, please tell us if you qualify.

I was wondering the same thing myself.

Ergo, I don't want to live there.

But, unlike about 100% of Chavezistas, I HAVE visited a few times. It's pretty much Mexico.

It's not "pretty much Mexico."

Though it might be for tourists who are implanted in the better areas.

Top ten countries with the highest murder rate:

1. El Salvador
2. Honduras
3. Jamaica
4. Guatemala
5. Venezuela
6. Trinidad
7. Colombia
8. South Africa
9. Belize
10. Brazil

Where are the articles from Reuters and the NYT on the other nine?

While Reuters or NYT may not cover every single one, each one up until Venezuela has a hit. I checked.

The US corporate propaganda media ignores the high murder rate countries with the exception of Venezuela.
I think more people get their news from the NYT and MSNBC than from statcasserole.blogspot.com

Top three hits using your formula:

Venezuela:
nytimes.com
msnbc.com
thenewamerican.com

Honduras:
travel.state.gov
mapsoftheworld.com
laprensasa.com

Jamaica:
nationmaster.com
wikipedia.org
go-jamaica.com

El Salvador
wikipedia.org
travel.state.gov
luterano.blogspot.com

Guatemala:
wikipedia.org
statcasserole.blogspot.com
answers.yahoo.com

Trinidad:
ttcrime.com/stats
eturbonews.com
hubpages.com

Colombia:
wikipedia.org
nationmaster.org
colombiareports.com

South Africa:
wikipedia.org
nationmaster.com
truecrimeexpo.co.za

Belize:
belizefirst.com
amandala.com
ambergriscaye.com

Brazil:
wikipedia.org
travel.state.gov
chinapost.com

Four million Colombians have fled the authoritarian US puppet regime to find
a better life in Venezuela.
Four million!
And hundreds of thousands more are coming from other countries like Haiti and Lebanon.

“One can live with a little bit of dignity here" said Etienne Dieu-Seul, 35, a Haitian street vendor in Caracas.

“There’s work in Venezuela for those who want it,” said Arturo Vargas, 39, a Colombian laborer who moved to Caracas last year, . “It’s better than what I left behind.”

"Four million Colombians have fled the authoritarian US puppet regime to find
a better life in Venezuela."

more realistically, this may be a translocation of farc-related persons to much friendlier areas in vz. If you don't get it, farc has gained tremendous presence in VZ over the last several years. It is night and day compared to 10 yrs ago.

if you are a farc supporter, that is probably a different issue for you. Can you get them to leave Darien?

From TIME magazine:

Fredys Villanueva has abandoned his native Colombia for neighboring Venezuela. (He) moved to Venezuela because it offers greater employment opportunities and a more secure social-safety network.
After going to Venezuela from Barranquilla, Colombia, in 2003, Villanueva, 55, found steady work with decent pay at an aluminum factory, a job that came with a free house and other benefits. "There's a health clinic over there," he says, pointing down a dusty road. "The Cuban modules are nearby too," he adds, referring to the free clinics, started by Chávez, that use Cuban doctors in poor neighborhoods. "They give me free pills for my hypertension."

The U.N. estimates that some 200,000 Colombians are indeed in neighboring Venezuela as war refugees. But as many as 75% of the more than 3 million to 4 million Colombians living there moved for economic reasons. Juan Carlos Tanus, president of the Association of Colombians in Venezuela, says Venezuela's advantages include jobs and subsidized food and health, which has been provided for the past 10 years by Chávez's socialist government.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1934326,00.html

For a true democracy to work, there is must be functioning opposition. That means that the Republican mob needs to have significant power, but the corporations and lobbiest need to kept out.

The FreePers are the Republican mob, but at least that is true grassroots like it is over for here. We want both sides to be very healthy and have a floushing, vibrant Republic.

"A freshly united opposition coalition won about half the popular vote at a parliamentary election in September to take 40 percent of the seats in the next Assembly -- where they had hoped to put a check on the president's powers."

Allowing someone to rule by decree is not democratic. Chavez is a lot like Fidel.

and is voted on by the democratically elected National Assembly.

There are safeguards built into the law, which was also passed for 18 months in 2007, which provide that he remains bound to work within the framework of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court can rule on whether his laws are valid. The National Assembly retains the right to modify or repeal any laws they don't agree with.

That is not how a dictator operates.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/36971

There is a term in comparative politics called illiberal regimes or "elected dictator" .Countries that fit this have institutions like parliaments sand election to have the appearance of legitimacy but the government does not operate in a democratic fashion. Reporters with out borders rates Venezuela near the bottom for press freedom.

Chavez before the election had de facto degree power given the members of the national assembly were all his allies. This election the opposition made gains enough gains to stop Chavez's allies from giving him more power. So before the New Assembly starts where the opposition would be able to exert the influence that they legitimately earned, Chavez asks for degree powers to by pass it.

A person who is committed to democracy does not ask for degree powers and excepts the results of elections when the loose cretin amount of power.

You're overstating the opposition's gains in the last election. They greatly improved their standing, but as you admitted, that still leaves them with a mere 40% of the seats in the National Assembly. They can't control the government with a 40% minority.

You know that he's not the first President of Venezuela to be given this power, right?

You know that he's used the authority granted him under the Enabling Act twice before and didn't declare himself dictator, right?

You do realize that President Obama is frequently called some horrific names and accused of heinous intentions by *our* opposition parties, too? See for example anything out of the mouths of republicans and tea baggers.

You do know that our press in the US is a little less than un-biased when reporting, right?

Do you have handy the list of areas in which he is allowed to legislate? And you're also aware that anything he "Decrees" must be evaluated by the Venezuelan Supreme Court, right?

I swear the only difference between his opposition parties and ours is English versus Spanish.

{copied and pasted from my reply in GD because I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over...}

:rofl:

er, something. I'm sure I can find something evil he did to me. :)

You know the thing that frequently "gets" me? Some of the very things I've seen people wish/demand/want done here in the US by the Democrats to the republicans/tea baggers, are the very things "El Dicktator" has done in Venezuela but they hate it there. Makes my head hurt and my teeth itch.

How can anyone not hate that? Mrs. Greenspan is doing a segment on Monday!

:hi:

Just wondering. :)

Sounds like perpetual "granting" of such powers becomes less and less like genuine granting.

circumstances this time which require addressing different issues due to the massive flooding?

Kriminey!

He's a dictator because he's been given this power which he wields so inefficiently they had to keep giving it to him because he's a dictator.

Oy.

Especially if you've shown that you've given them over in the past.

The question is if granting these powers actually works. It appears, no.

Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn't.

He's just damned and there's no room for argument or nuance. Do you believe all the r/w talking points our press publishes about President Obama, too?

Buh, bye.

Here's a link that might be of interest to you.

The policies he's implemented require perpetual granting of these powers, so that inefficient democracies have a very efficient dictatorship.

This shouldn't be hard to grasp.

And not very good, at that. (I am a socialist.)

He hasn't used his power to shut off media, has he?
He hasn't forced the media (and country) to listen to weekly propaganda sessions, has he?
He hasn't used his power to seize millions of dollars of private property for his own government's use, has he?

"So that they can have their streets, their highways, public services, electricity, everything to live in dignity, we are going to hear these proposals and concerns."

"The "Enabling Law," which means the president can issue decrees across a wide range of areas including housing, land, finances and security, has been denounced as autocratic by his political rivals as well as by the U.S. State Department."

Gee, it's not like he wants to be a dictator.

for limited periods and for specific goals, just as other Latin American demorcracies have the same practice.

But, OH NOES, they're different! That means, bad!

lol

already working to fix what was damaged.

Sorry. I couldn't resist the snark. :evilgrin: Please know, my snark was NOT aimed at you. :hi:

But both parties are controlled by the elites, even after a people-power revolution, so nothing ever really got done.

This Venezuelan government just does it.

their *Party of NO!* opposition, as well. Though it looks like they might be progressing; gradually.



Some updated information follows:

There seems to be a lot of good coming out of the reforms. It's just so damned hard to see it with all the crap being slung around by the corporate media and its enablers.

:hi:

Why doesn't the USG sell natural resources (oil, gas, time, minerals, etc) under service contracts and teh government sell the extracted comodity on the world market like any sane government (or informed individual) would do to maximize benefit to the people or an individual of an informed Democratic system?

Many of us knew and WikiLeaks confirmed the truth about Venezuela and Chavez. Chavez is no angel or one to be worshipped but he has done more for the people of Venezuela and Latin America than Bush or Obama for the citizens of the USA. I wish this was not true.

outside constitutional definitions. Executive findings and orders set its policy, but large parts of it are immune to oversight. Hidden islands of secret sovereignty are tucked away in the black budget and contractors who get 2/3 of the black budget, and they make policy, too.

And the US wages aggressive war and disappears people to detention without charges, which is as "dictatorial" as it gets (actually, just plain murderous). But apparently okay because it's not happening at the local mall just yet.

But the banks and the corporations fear nothing about this dictatorship by secrecy, because they benefit from it.


By the way, Chavez already had the decree power for a year before... as constitutionally enabled... and no dictatorship resulted, and they keep having elections as scheduled, and these are found to be clean by international observers, and Chavez keeps winning.

nt

...yeah OK.

No one had realized it could be used for anti-Chavez propaganda the first couple of times, or 3, so those periods came and went without the murdochians among us chewing the scenery, as they didn't know about it.

The last time, someone already realized it could be spun and harvested for propaganda.

Anyone can locate previous threads on this subject from a couple of years ago.

What a pity people won't take the time to educate themselves on this subject, and on the reality other Latin American leaders have been using the same opportunities, as well. No one tries to exploit it when the others do, but they would in a heartbeat if it will be useful.

Not every few years. :hi:

Why, that's what makes them great!

I mean, just look at the sterling shape Venezuela is in now - CLEARLY Chavez knows what he's doing.

First, they negatively drop the bomb describing whatever sinister deed he has committed, or infamy uttered, then go DIRECTLY without fail to get a scathing, withering condemnation, and expression of outrage, and horror from the ancient, racist, greedy, ruthless and small group of European-descended, U.S.-identifying elitists of the oligarchy.

Without fail, this IS the pattern. Just looking at the first couple of lines on those entries brings it all to mind for anyone who has forgotten. Simply Amazing.

People should take the time to find out how complete the US control of the Chilean media was during the time leading up to the election of Salvador Allende, during his Presidency, and now, lingering on simply because they bought that media long, long ago, during the Nixon Administration, even putting CIA people in place on the staff of media like Chile's largest newspaper, El Mercurio, owned by Chilean media tycoon Augustin Edwards, who ontrols newspapers, radio stations, etc. (By the way he still wields enormous power in South America, and is connected, along with his son,to a "jounalists'" association headquarted in Miami. That association is IAPA:

The Inter American Press Association (IAPA; Spanish: Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa, SIP) is a press advocacy group representing media organizations in North America, South America and the Caribbean. Founded in 1943, it represents more than 1,300 newspapers and magazines in the Americas. IAPA's stated objectives are to defend press freedom; protect the interests of the press in the Americas; promote responsible journalism; and encourage high standards of professional and business conduct.

IAPA has two autonomous affiliates – the IAPA Press Institute, which offers Latin American members advice on technical publishing matters, and the IAPA Scholarship Fund, which provides funds for educational activities.

IAPA is a member of the International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global network of more than 70 non-governmental organisations that monitors press freedom and freedom of expression violations worldwide.

It has been criticized by many Latin American journalists' trade unions, who claim that it only represents the owners of the large media corporations, that it does not seem to defend journalists themselves, and that it is closely related to right-wing parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_American_Press_Association

If all this had been accomplished, and was in operation during the days of "Tricky Dick" Nixon, how much more complete is that CIA hold on Latin American newspapers by now? There is no possibility that having succeeded in getting that level of control in the Latin American media that long ago, they would EVER consider stepping away from all that power in the present.

It's a damned dismal, UNDEMOCRATIC situation, isn't it? Swear words!

pointing out unpleasant influences of other interests upon their daily news access:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/_LvP4mWx84Tk/SO9URGbABkI/AAAAAAAALN4/QjR77lUYAIU/s400/La%2Bcorrupci%C3%B3n.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/_LvP4mWx84Tk/SO9JYqWY8HI/AAAAAAAALLg/kzsQJ61j-bw/s320/corrr.jpg
Undoubtedly this holds true throughout the Americas.

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

One of these days they're going to get more courageous people they CAN'T kill before they bring important change. I think it's going to happen.

Evil, greedy people won't control this world forever. They only think they will.

"Speaking to supporters in a televised address Friday, Chavez left little doubt that he would use his powers to push through a range of economic and political measures that would accelerate the oil-rich country's transformation into a socialist state.

'They will not be able to create even one law, the little Yankees," said Chavez, who brands his opponents as stooges of an imperialist U.S. government. "Let's see how they are going to make laws now.'"

Washington Post, Sunday, December 19, 2010

LOL

And how are you enjoying it down there, how that you've emigrated?

exact words, just as there's no denying that by his own words he admits that seeking Decree power because of the floods, etc. was just a pretext, the real reason being to prevent the newly elected opposition members of the next Congress (the 'little Yanquis' as he so elegantly phrases it) from passing any laws. Chavez's 'democracy' in action.

Chavez's United Socialist Party lost a significant number of seats, but they're still the overwhelming majority in the Venezuelan National Assembly. The Coalition for Democratic Unity won 67 seats in this year's election. That's out of 165. Chavez's party retained 98 seats. The opposition members won't be able to pass any laws because they're the minority.

funny, I never see you bitch about the fascists like Uribe?

exact words, just as there's no denying that by his own words he admits that seeking Decree power because of the floods, etc. was just a pretext, the real reason being to prevent the newly elected opposition members of the next Congress (the 'little Yanquis' as he so elegantly phrases it) from passing any laws. Chavez's 'democracy' in action.

him so viciously, not only in print and broadcast, but in internet forums and news groups.

They would throw out wild allegations, obsess over his personal life, and make up outright lies about him. Often, they accused him of the very things that they were guilty of.

Chavez has that same effect on some people. Threads about Chavez bring out the usual prattle about Chavez being an evil dictator (yawn) but for me the similarity ends there. I supported Clinton back then and I support Chavez now, but a hundred times more, because Chavez hasn't sold out his people to corporations.

Viva Chavez!

properly, retrieved the country's oil profits for the benefit of the people, instead of allowing the oligarchs to give the multinationals super sweet deals with low, low taxes, and reaping payoffs for themselves.

He wrought wonders by daring to make the oil companies start paying their fair share, against their furious opposition. This exposes those who used to control things since they did NOTHING whatsoever to improve the lot of the suffering masses.

The people voted for him because he promised to do what he's doing. This reflects poorly on criminals who screw everyone who can't fight back.

It's a hard thing to get ones head around, but in actuality the United States isn't having a big problem with him being in power.

and don't want others especially living here to take notice. SO the right wing attacks the man, the figure-head who represents democratic socialism. Everything else lobbed at this guy is a distraction most of the time. Same shit, different day. He's not perfect, but he sure as hell doesn't deserve as much attention as Uribe should be getting. That's why I know this is about ideology and not about right or wrong.

From an anarchist point of view Venezuela is actually capitalist, it's just that the government holds the corporations rather than the people rejecting corporations outright. The United States doesn't mind where your corporations are held, as long as they're doing business with us. This is why we are very China friendly, you can be a dirty communist politically speaking, but as long as you make our toys (or send us your oil), we're best buddies.

The United States tries to be the worlds police, but it cannot be on any substantiative level, which is why we attempt to do psyops and other nefarious things in Latin American countries.

As far as American's are concerned, we'll happily cling to socialist policies like Medicare and Social Security, but we'll lambast concepts like single payer health care. We'll have a federal interstate that is paid for by everyone, and the Southern States will get the most federal subsidies of all, while at the same time blasting the federal government. It's all so very cute.

I assure you that the United States doesn't care what Venezuela does as long as it keeps sending us oil. If Chavez ever decides to turn off the oil and kick out our companies, then things will get interesting.

but I still think his socialistic agenda urks many in powerful positions. I will say this, those in power are fanatics when it comes to economic ideology and it's hurting this country.

Monday, December 20th 2010 - 06:09 UTC

Which are the countries most effective in reducing poverty and inequality?

Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia and Venezuela are the countries which most reduced inequality and poverty during the last decade in Latinamerica, according to Alicia Bárcena, executive secretary from the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, Cepal.

“There’s a big cut when one compares the decade of the nineties in Argentina, together with Brazil, Bolivia and Venezuela, they are the countries which most reduced inequality and poverty”, said Ms Barcena interviewed by the Buenos Aires press.

“We can say Latinamerica is nowadays a progressive region of the world, since the only way out of inequality is with jobs, but jobs with rights and protection”.

“Progressive countries leave a very positive legacy, since there is no way back for social policies. Social expenditure is not lost, on the contrary it has become the dynamo for several economies” underlined Ms Barcena who nevertheless pointed out that “investment in science and technology is one of the region’s main deficits”, and must be addressed if the path to effectively eliminate poverty is to continue.

More:
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/12/20/which-are-the-countries-most-effective-in-reducing-poverty-and-inequality

involvement in Bolivia. This is usually a sign of disapproval, either on the part of the U.S. or on the part of the host country. If a country has developed to the point where it no longer needs the Peace Corps (e.g. South Korea), they END the program, not "suspend" it.

I'll keep my ears open for more on that.

To inform people unaware of the trouble US ambassador Phillip Goldberg's people caused in Bolivia, I'll post the following:

March 12, 2008
Recruiting Spies in the Peace Corps
Washington’s blunder in Bolivia strains relations with the Morales government
By Jean Friedman-Rudovsky (La Paz, Bolivia)

In February, allegations surfaced that the U.S. embassy in La Paz, located in western Bolivia, has been asking Peace Corps volunteers and Fulbright scholars to provide intelligence information to the U.S. embassy about foreign nationals in Bolivia.

“It flies in the face of what the Fulbright program is all about,” says John Alexander van Schaick, 23, a Fulbright scholar from Rutgers University, who says that last year, an embassy official instructed him to report on Venezuelans and Cubans living and working in Bolivia. “We’re supposed to be here to help with mutual understanding, not intelligence operations.”

~snip~
Anatomy of a scandal
On Nov. 5, 2007, van Schaick entered the U.S. embassy in La Paz for a routine orientation in preparation for his year-long fellowship in Bolivia. After meeting with various cultural affairs officials, the 2006 Rutgers grad met with Assistant Regional Security Adviser Vincent Cooper.

“He said that he was going to give me a ‘scaled-down’ version of the normal briefing given to U.S. embassy employees,” says van Schaick. According to the scholar, Cooper explained that although Fulbright participants are not U.S. government employees, the embassy likes to keep them “under its wing.”

The meeting consisted mainly of helpful tips for the newcomer—heed caution while on public transportation, steer clear of street protests and respond appropriately in medical emergencies. “But the part that made my ears perk up was when he casually said, ‘Alex, if, when you are out in the field, should you encounter any Venezuelans or Cubans like field workers or doctors,’ that I should report to the U.S. embassy with their names and where they live,” van Schaick explains.

His experience wasn’t an isolated incident. On July 29, 2007, Cooper visited a group of 30 Peace Corps trainees in Bolivia to give a security talk that included similar instructions, this time with respect to Cubans.

More:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3562/

I wouldn't blame them, given the circumstances.

in this region.

But did I sign up for the right "democratic" underground?

Please don't support the wrong people for the right reasons.