Why do some of us go GA-GA over Hugo Chávez?

I don't think Hugo is a good guy, and makes me nervous. Radicals in all spectrums right or left make me uneasy. I also tend not to side with assholes who are heads of state and who also wear military outfits just to over compensate their wee widdle dicks. You know, like this asshole....



All I am saying is be careful DUers, just because he is an enemy of Bush and Robertson doesn't make him your friend. It's best to be flexible and not get too cozy, because some of your posts like "I wish Hugo was our president", "Viva Hugo", etc. can bite ALL OF US in the ass if anything ever boils over.

I find it rather disturbing... on many, many levels.

Yes, be careful who you trust. The Devil mixes lies with truth to confuse... oh, wait, yeah, that is Bush. Could go for Hugo too.

George Washington and Ike wore uinforms too.

And neither Washington nor Eisenhower tried to wrest power in a coup before getting elected, either.

Got a source for that? First I've heard of it...

From the BBC's profile of Chavez:

Mr Chavez first came to prominence in February 1992 when he led an attempt to overthrow the government of President Carlos Andres Perez amid growing anger at economic austerity measures.

But the foundations for that failed coup had been laid a decade earlier, when Mr Chavez and a group of fellow military officers founded a secret movement named after the father of South American independence leader, Simon Bolivar.

The February revolt by members of the Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement claimed 18 lives and left 60 injured before Colonel Chavez gave himself up.

I can see why he did it.

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

The same guy who warned us about the military-industrial complex conducted some rather nasty business in Guetemala, Iran, Vietnam and Cuba.

can have one bit of nasty business or other laid at his feet, either through overt action or tacit acceptance. Which means Eisenhower's not really much different to JFK, LBJ, both Roosevelts, et cetera in this regard. FDR made stirring defences of freedom and the right of all peoples to political self-determination...and still supported the Somoza regime in Nicaragua because "he may be a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch". Point being that Chavez' hands aren't clean, either; I find that there's a lot to admire about the man, but I'm not blind to the fact that there's a bit that's not so admirable, also. Not going to argue that he's effective and thus far has largely gotten positive results; I just don't really believe in hero-worship.

Which you'd see if you read closely. Uncritical admiration comes pretty damned close to the definition, though.

This isn't about ME, nor is it about my attitude towards anyone else's opinion as expressed in this thread. Is there some point you're trying to make here? If there is, would you get to it, please?

Oh, and it's "WHOM are you accusing". (Just for future reference.)

This isn't about ME, nor is it about my attitude towards anyone else's opinion as expressed in this thread. Is there some point you're trying to make here? If there is, would you get to it, please?

I didnt ask you about you, I asked you about the things you wrote in your posts. And I would love to make a point, except that I dont know your point because you wont answer my question. Which is certainly your right, I have no intention of interrogating you.

Oh, and it's "WHOM are you accusing". (Just for future reference.)

Oh, and I dont care. Just for future reference. If I wanted my grammer checked id have asked.

that employment of certain terms, and disparagement of them, DOESN'T mean that one is "accusing" anyone of ANYTHING?

The relevant passage from what I wrote (redacted for a bit more clarity, so perhaps you can see what my point was, since you missed it the first time): "Point being that Chavez' hands aren't clean, either; I find that there's a lot to admire about the man, but I'm not blind to the fact that there's a bit that's not so admirable...I ...don't believe in hero-worship."

Putting a political leader on a pedestal, and remaining blind to whatever flaws they possess, is hero-worship, at least in my book. Clear now? (Working on your grammar might help your reading comprehension, you know.)

Was that you werent accusing anyone.

Thank you. Thats all I wanted to know.

The relevant passage from what I wrote (redacted for a bit more clarity, so perhaps you can see what my point was, since you missed it the first time): "Point being that Chavez' hands aren't clean, either; I find that there's a lot to admire about the man, but I'm not blind to the fact that there's a bit that's not so admirable...I ...don't believe in hero-worship."

Just because I didnt comment on something, doesnt mean I didnt read it. So I'm not sure why you jumped to that conclusion.

Putting a political leader on a pedestal, and remaining blind to whatever flaws they possess, is hero-worship, at least in my book. Clear now?

Yes, that would be hero worship. I just was wondering why you brought up hero worship. I thought you might be suggesting that someone was engaging in it, so I asked.

(Working on your grammar might help your reading comprehension, you know.)

Well, if my reading comprehension were defficient, I might take that into account.

This is a discussion forum. The poster implied that others here were not meeting his/her level of critical thinking, and were prone to mindless hero worship. That's a cheap shot. Likewise, refusing to back those things up seems cheap. The comment about spelling was undignified.

People have the right to their own opinions. People will disagree from time to time. But we will all do better if we take the time to try to explain our positions, and respect other people's point of view.

And you'll note I also said that I admired Chavez. So I'm certainly not going to bash other people for doing it. I happen to be autistic (I have Asperger's Syndrome), and I don't do subtext. If you see a subtext in anything I've written, it is the product of your own mind, not of my intentions. Also, this sort of conversation REALLY ought to be carried out in private messages. Bad form to talk about a third party who's going to read what you say as though he's not there. In point of fact, you COULD have addressed your comments TO me instead of making them ABOUT me. And you talk about "cheap shots"....ah, the irony.

I could have sworn that George Washington was involved in some military action before he became president.

but it didn't involve ousting the governor of Virginia and declaring himself the new head of state.

Both involve revolutionaries.

The british would disagree with the statement of washington....

Flavin

Ike wore suits as president. I don't know about George, I assume there was no need for him to wear military getups.

But oh my - he also wears red. tsk fuckin' tsk.

two neckties some of our friends would feel more comfortable. After all, it would show he can top Dick Cheney in being formal.

I can't understand why some DUers like that Gandhi fellow. He wore some strange garb. I feel slightly anxious when people dress differently than I do. I wish President Bush would enforce a dress code around the globe.

it would put those folks at ease. Because they have very delicate sensibilities, and it is all about them.

forget to specify: are these shirts properly ironed? Makes ALL the difference to me. Leadership is defined by a crisply ironed shirt. Never trust a man who pretends to love the poor, but who does not pay close attention to his shirts. Point of fact: Nixon began his career with crisply ironed shirts (more so than those Kennedys), but by late 1973, one can see the drool-stains. Need I say more about the current conversation?

dignity and most importantly, compassion for the people that he's responsible for.

He's a good, kind, smart, witty, confident world class LEADER.

America could use a man like Chavez.

we just need a man man what we have now is a man child

I've yet to hear anything that makes me think twice about him.

Chavez is a TRUE hero in my opinion!

to wear a military uniform while in office.

It really shows what a little chickenshit he is.

Chavez seems to want to help the poor in Venezuela. Do you have any specific things he has done that warrant condemnation? I admit I'm really not an expert in Venezuelan affairs.

It was Jefferson who set the precedent of presidents never wearing military uniforms. The first and second prezes had no problem doing so. I'm not sure bush actually wore a uniform since (a) it was only a flightsuit and (b) it was really a costume.

Washington wore it after he was President, IIRC. I will happily admit to being wrong if you can provide a good cite/link that shows he wore it during the Whisky Rebellion.

I did a google on Adams. It seems he put on a military-style costume that he wore when speaking to private militias. IMO, not anything that could be considered a US military uniform, alhough still pretty inappropriate.

Bush's flight suit was an authorized duty uniform. The flight suit had a nametape with his name and rank indicated:

George W. Bush
Commander In Chief

That fits my definition of military uniform.

Thanks for any info !

to wait until there are mushroom clouds, can we? It's been proven he bought lemon cake from Niger. We must stop him.

I'm having a hard time telling the difference from the jokers and those that really believe this sh**!

I predict that YOU"RE just yanking my chain, right?

nothing more, nothing less.

He's a socialist - I am just wondering how close to communist he is. I appreciate and support his stand against Shrub but I really don’t have a lot of trust in the man.

Don't get all burned off now. I hear it can be a real drag -- as in behind a car....

So he lost his copy of World Leader Dress Code. Mr Chavez has busted his behind to make life better for the average person. Who cares what he wears.

the reason that the coup by the "civilian" leadership in fancy business suits failed.

Learn something about fascism before you go slinging it at the most progressive leader with the most democratic mandate in the world today.

BWA!! :rofl:

in uniform he should NEVER govern? Is that what you are saying?

He is a dictator. I have read about cases where he has had people disappear. He is no progressive.

Doesnt mean they exist.

Feel free to support your alligations with evidence.

I just read about it.

Want to convince me hes a good guy? Convince me, I am open minded.

and you say you're open minded? Pah.

give me a site or a link to an article with good info

Here are the problems I have with him. In 1992 did not his country already have free elections? He tried to over-turn that with a coup
Regardless of what he has done of late that causes me to be very suspicious of him

Next during the last election I read about a so called increase of 2 million voters that could not be accounted for. Is that true? Did that stand up to scrutiny?


Also from here


http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR530052004

this quote

"The confrontation between the government and the opposition has been characterised by violent discourse, with the private media explicitly supporting the opposition and the state media backing the administration. In the process both sides have sought to de-legitimise and demonise the other and have encouraged a polarized and violently intolerant climate in many parts of the country. The administration has been accused of inciting supporters to threaten and attack media workers who are identified with the opposition and many of these cases have never been adequately investigated by the authorities. There have been regular mass pro- and anti-government demonstrations that on a number of occasions have resulted in violent clashes between the different groups of demonstrators and the police and security forces, with several allegations of excessive use of force by security forces."

Way to attack someone who wants to learn. Yikes!

How does a dictatorship work when people vote in the person? :shrug:

You left yourself wide open there. :silly:

Venezuala's elections are certified by international monitors.

The US's arent.

Stealing an election isnt the same as winning one.

Wide open? I think not.

They also say his re-write of his country's constitution was sold to the voters in a misleading fashion. These are people who generally loathe George Bush, too. But they tend to see Chavez as the flip side of the same coin as Dubya. The middle class of Venezuela--not just the rich--are leaving in droves.

That's very different from what I've heard. I wonder which version is the truth and which is propoganda!

Venezualan elections unlike US elections monitered by international agencies and certified as democratic.

I doubt we'll get an answer from the Chavez haters though!

A dictator who allows opposing media - the long established commercial/corporate mainstream media in Venezuela, who constantly vilify Chavez much like the RW pundits on US TV vilify liberals.

A dictator who allows opposing political parties.

Claiming "I have read about cases" doesn't cut it. Sources please.

Otoh it is well established fact that the business/media elite of Venezuela with help from part of the military did actually make Chavez disappear - or they tried to, but failed. This was during the coup against Chavez in 2002. It's widely known that Chavez disappeared and re-appeared a few days later during that coup. What few people know is that he re-appeared thanks to a bloodless mini-revolution by the people with help from the palace guard against the newly (and illegally) established government.

And if you look at what he is doing for the people of Venezuela, there's no denying that he is a progressive.

you must have facts, links to back it up?

Btw, welcome ~ I think you'll find it very educational here, as most posters here require proof for such statements. Opinions are fine too, but that's all they are, without something that proves them otherwise :hi:

minded world class leader who puts the people before the corporations.

huh, radwriter?

Call Chavez a fascist is like calling a hammer a nail.

It makes no sense.

What can you back up this statement with?

I've seen NOTHING that supports your claim yet...

:eyes:

I give your troll a 2/10. Unoriginal and uninspiring.

Chavez is a socialist.

Bush is a Facist, or the closest thing the industrialized world has to one. Try to learn the difference if you're gonna troll here.

He opposes imperialism. And, let's please try to face facts: the U.S. is acting as an aggressive imperialist power. We shouldn't cover up that fact. The "war on terror" is simply a fig leaf for the most brutal attempts to maintain and expand U.S. hegemony. The U.S. is earning the hatred of hundreds of millions of people all around the globe. A leader like Chavez, who opposes such aggression while upholding basic human rights, women's rights and workers' rights, is just what is needed. If there aren't leaders like him, fundamentalists and populist fascists will step into the void.

the more we see of him, the more we like him

Yippie skippy!

Look up 'libertarian' and you'll see what I mean.

So, how about more impartial sources?

First I heard about that. If you are such a fan democracy you'd know that wikipedia is impartial.

And one can be a fan of democracy without thinking that it magically produces impartiality.

Work is involved in wikipedia, by the people (You know like democracy) . If you don't like what you see on wikipedia, and if you think you have better grasp of the facts. Edit it. Go ahead, free to do. You can challenge articles ad nauseum too. That's the beauty of it.

Work is involved in wikipedia, by the people (You know like democracy) .

No, work is involved in wikipedia by SOME people.

If you don't like what you see on wikipedia, and if you think you have better grasp of the facts. Edit it. Go ahead, free to do. You can challenge articles ad nauseum too. That's the beauty of it.

Of course I am free to join in editing it. But that has nothing to do with whether or not it is an impartial source. Contrary to what you seem to be saying I can in fact accurately point out that it isnt impartial without having to dedicate my time to working on it.

...you simply don't know what you're talking about, again. That seems to be a standing habit of yours.

But im glad you have an ad hominen attack to support your claim rather than a rational argument.

I mean who needs rational arguments when you have cheap rhetorical flourishes.

the 'discussion' pages on libertarianism. Look at the calls for impartiality being rejected in favor of partisanship.

Go ahead, really dig in. What you're seeing there is anti-democratic brownshirtery, not democracy.

Go look up 'libertarian'. Look at the commentary/argument page. See for yourself!

Having a discussion page is proof that Wikipedia is impartial. If it was partial to one side, all arguments would be stifled and the need for a discussion page would not exist.

Is there a specific part of this enormous page I should be looking at? There are also different libertarian entries, maybe I am not seeing what you are.

Having a discussion page is proof that Wikipedia is impartial. If it was partial to one side, all arguments would be stifled and the need for a discussion page would not exist.

The fact that you can discuss articles doesnt make the information contained in them impartial.

Is there a specific part of this enormous page I should be looking at? There are also different libertarian entries, maybe I am not seeing what you are.

What you are seeing is proof that the information in a wikipedia article isnt garunteed to be either impartial or true. Especially when there are politically interested groups trying to use the articles to push an agenda.

for good reason, as explained in the wiki article.

for good reason too? nah. Cmon.

Like I said in another post. There is nothing progressive about firing thousands of workers just to teach a political lesson.

as i said in another post

Do you think Hugo had and reviewed files on every single one of them?

They seem to have their shit together now, now that there aren't right wing opportunists running who are willing to impoverish the nation with a strike in order to protect the interests of the wealthy. Now PDVSA is making money for all Venezuelans.

Also, Venezuela has a history of union activity sympathetic with capital rather than labor.

Your allegations are convenient in that they sound anti-liberal on the surface. However, for anyone who cares to learn the context, they truth is that, like PDVSA, the actions Chavez has taken has been better for the poor and for all citizens of Venezuela.

Chavez knew those 18,000 personally or knew of their employment records. All that reeks of a political move, and like I said that is NOT progressive.

to sabotage the country.

Now that they're gone, PDVSA operates for the benefit of millions of Venezuelann citizens.

Do you think it would have been smart to leave the most important industry in the country in the hands of people who had displayed such contempt for the well-being of millions of fellow citizens?

LOL are you new to the internets?

Dude, I've seen bullshit edit wars break out over stupid crap like Harry Potter, and you're willing to believe on life and death issues like politics everyone is totally responsible and no one has an agenda?

I've got some prime beachfront real estate in Mississippi for you, then.

"although supporters of the oil bosses called the action "politically motivated". Hey, that sounds familiar doesn't it?

Anyway, you seem to assume these employees where not guilty of mismanagement and corruption - what's the basis for that?

"although supporters of the oil bosses called the action "politically motivated". Hey, that sounds familiar doesn't it?

Sure does, like Ronald Reagan firing air traffic controllers in 1981 because they wanted higher pay and better medical care.

Firing thousands of workers is not progressive in any book, even if they oppose you politically. This is true if you are a right-wing nutbag like Reagan or a left-wing nutbag like Chavez.

I've heard many allegations like this, and then found there were legitimate reasons for much of what he's done.

I like the fact that he's using Venezuela's oil resources to benefit his people.

I like that one of his first acts was to begin to eliminate illiteracy and to raise the poor out of the awful poverty the power elites had kept them in for so long.

I like the fact that he believes in an educated population, and that he is returning to the people of Venezuela what is theirs.

Mostly I like that he has refused to enrich foreign oil profiteers at the expense of his people.

I have seen nothing in his behavior that I would call fascist, by any means.

Mostly, he is enormously popular in Venezuela (way more popular than our current leader) and was elected in one of the cleanest elections ever.

Also, rather than just shoot those who tried to oust him (as our longtime ally, Saddam Hussein liked to do) he is giving them fair trials and has allowed many of them to remain free while awaiting trial. Imagine that happening here?

So far, I see no reason to think of him as anything but a fair leader who cares about his people and his country who has kept all the promises he made in the election!! Imagine us having such a leader??

Blackwater, mmm. Another difference between the US under Bush and Venezuela under Chavez. Chavez' people are enthusiastic about joining the military there.

Here, Bush can't meet his quota of recruitment, month after month and has had to create a 'private army' of mercenaries in Iraq, and it seems here in the US now, in order to fight all of his wars.

I don't see Chavez invading other countries either ~


Should he do anything to cause concerns that he may indeed be fascist or have dictatorial tendencies (as does our leader, according to himself) , then I'll change my mind.

Oh, and one more thing, he isn't a phony hero, he is courageous and has actually fought for his beliefs, unlike our AWOL leader and the rest of his administration.

I remember that. I don't think this was any ordinary union.

The majority of those who participated in the strike were opposition-supporting white-collar workers including management, opposed in particular to Chávez' attempt to gain control of the oil industry from longstanding vested interests.

Tens of thousands of the country's highest paid, most privileged engineers, technicians, managers, field and office workers that worked for PDVSA participated in these protests, risking their paychecks and their livelihood in order to protest the Chávez government. Many of these workers were dismissed and officially blacklisted by the government so that they would not be employed at any government or government-supporting firms. Most of them were unable to find oil-related jobs in Venezuela and now work abroad.

As I remember, these were the people who trampled on the poor and catered to interests outside their country, such as the Oil Industry. They were opposed to Chavez' refusal to privatize his country's oil industry! Seems to me he did the right thing, and probably could have filed charges against them for treason, but didn't, AIRC.

Also, isn't it a bit awkward to claim that the only contemporary Latin American leader to enact sweeping land reform is a fascist?

If they'd be fired for good reason then there's no ground to oppose the firing.
It turns out there is a good reason - or at least hat there very well might be a good reason. It's Chavez's word against the word of big oil corporations who were sharing the wealth only with an exclusive few.
It's all in the wiki article that you linked.

And were just as brutal during the failed coup attempt. The opposition is always stirring up trouble and violence. In fact, they used violence and media manipulation to paint pro-Chavez demonstrators as violent thugs, while their snipers randomly shot people in the crowd. Of course, the coup leaders were the ones the US backed.

All the dead and wounded were Chavez supporters.

I just wanted to have that clear.


see all about it:

The revolution will not be televised
www.chavezthefilm.com

also from your link:

"In April 2002 the confrontation between the opposition and the government led to wide-scale political violence and a short lived coup d’etat forcing the president from office for 48 hours, leaving at least 50 people dead and many more wounded. The human rights violations committed in this context have not been clarified and virtually all those allegedly responsible have avoided prosecution."

It;s interesting Amnesty does not mention who died and who did the killing.
I can tell you most by far of these deaths were Chavez supporters. Much of it was on camera.

see all about it:

The revolution will not be televised
www.chavezthefilm.com

From the link....

According to information gathered by Amnesty International, on 1 March Carlos Eduardo Izcaray, a cellist with the Venezuela Symphony Orchestra and music teacher, was reportedly a bystander as opposition demonstrators clashed violently with the Guardia Nacional (GN), National Guard in Altamira, a middleclass neighbourhood in Caracas known for its fervent opposition to the Chávez government. Opposition demonstrators had erected barricades with burning tyres and rubbish and were throwing stones and bottles and firing fireworks at GN lines, who fired tear gas and rubber bullets at protestors. According to Carlos Izcaray, he was not participating in the protest but merely observing. However, as the situation became increasingly violent he tried to leave the area, only to be detained by members of the GN who reportedly beat him with their baton (rolos y peinillas) and fists and dragged him by the hair. According to the victim, he was repeatedly insulted and beaten as he was taken to the rear of the GN lines and forced into the back of a GN truck. He was made to sit in a corner with 3 other detainees and was beaten around the head and the back of the neck with different objects, including GN helmets, traffic cones and tear gas canisters. Members of the GN reportedly shouted "Now you’re going to see who the Nacional Guard are" ("ahora si van a ver quien es la Guardia Nacional"). He was repeatedly insulted and one official forced his pistol into his mouth and compelled him to repeat humiliating phrases. Tear gas powder was repeatedly rubbed into his face and hair then water was thrown on him to increase the burning of the powder. Detainees were made to inhale tear gas fumes, while the GN present wore gas masks.

The opposition controls the police, not the national guard. And the opposition is constantly provoking violent protests, as cited in your example.

The abuse by the national guard should be investigated.

Damn them!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

on edit: spelling

I'm not exusing what the national guard did.

But it's pretty much standard operation procedure for the opposition movement to provoke violence for propaganda purposes.

Standard operation procedure for the opposition movement to provoke violence?

You can watch the movie "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" and see pro-Chavez supporters being shot in the head by snipers, while the opposition yucks it up with the people orchastrating the coup about how they planned the violence to cause the crisis which led to the nice white-looking people in business suits taking over the government.

Or you can see the police on the streets after they announced the "resignation" of Chavez (which never happened, despite threatening to bomb him and everyone inside the presidential building if he didn't) shooting Chavez supporters who refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the "new" government. Something which good ol' Ari Fleicher had no problem doing during the middle of the entire event.

I was watching Current TV where they were asking people in Caracas about what they thought about Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of Chavez, and the most vocal anti-Chavez people they talked to applauded the statement and openly called for Chavez's assassination.

It is a volitile climate, and they are trying to provoke violence for political reasons.

An imperialist country is one that actually wants to govern other countries; most empires have been essentially selfish, but there's often some attempt to take account of the interests of the governed as well as those of the governors.

George Bush and co don't give a damn about other countries. Provided they allow the US access to their markets and keep a regular supply of oil coming, they can go hang - Republicans are actively opposed to "Nation Building".

Bush and Co want tame but independent states where possible, and client (but still independent) states with puppet rulers where not, to avoid having to accept any responsibility for those under their rule.

I think that benign US imperialism would be one of the best developements possible in international politics, although I'm fully aware that a) that's an extremely controversial position, especially for a liberal, and b) that any prospective imperialism from the US in the forseeable future would be anything but benign, making it a complete pipe dream.

Because it is, very obviously an empire.

An imperialist country is one that actually wants to govern other countries; most empires have been essentially selfish, but there's often some attempt to take account of the interests of the governed as well as those of the governors.

That is rediculous. Empires only take into account the people so the people wont attack them too heavily.

Once upon a time that was done by taking over a country completely.

These days, economic and political manipulation suffices.

their victims. Rome might have been the last one that actually absorbed peoples with whom they had no pre-existing cultural ties, although I'm not familiar enough with the Ottoman Empire to know how they did it. The formation of nation-states in the 19th c. also went forward by absorption, but most of the victims were culturally similar (e.g., the formation of Italy and Germany out of Italian- and German-speaking feudal territories).

No, the US is definitely an imperialist power of a piece with the 19th c. imperialist-colonialist UK, France, Spain, Portugal, and Belgium. As did they, we create puppet/client governments and rule them instead of frankly making our victims US states and the people US citizens.

is doing good for his poor...too bad we can't say the same...

i think he's a democratic socialist. that is not a radical, except in the insular world of the united states.

But you do understand saying that makes you look bad. :D

Bomb throwing psychos those Finns.

we stopped them before they took over Grenada.

Gallows humor.

The Venezuelan economy has improved since Chavez has come into office.
The plight of the Venezuelan poor has improved BECAUSE of what Chavez is doing.
Chavez expresses his opinions freely without fear of retaliation.

He's more of a leader than we've seen in years.

If he allows


- a free press

-opposition parties

-habeas corpus

-freedom of religion


I have no problems with him....

Freedom is more than just process. It has to do with outcomes too.

I think Venezuela is doing well according to both measures.

(edited for clarity)

He says what he intends and then does it, for good, or ill.

He stood for election on LAND REFORM, then instituted a land reform program designed to assist small farmers and the landless poor.

He stood for election on BETTER EDUCATION AND OPPORTUNITIES, and Venezuelan education is now free (right through to university level) and is arguably the best educational program in South America.

He stood for election on CONSERVATION and ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, and his government has set up a marine conservation program and is taking steps to protect both the land and fishing rights of indigenous peoples.

He stood for election on HELPING POOR FARMERS and SMALL BUSINESSMEN and then set up special banks to assist small enterprises, worker cooperatives, and farmers.

He stood for election on NATIONALIZING OIL AND ENERGY INDUSTRIES, then frustrated ALL attempts to further privatize the state-run oil industry and placed limits on foreign capital penetration.

HE IS ANTI-IMPERIALIST, ANTI-BUSH, yet NOT ANTI-USA - Chavez kicked out U.S. military advisors in Venezuela and prohibited overflights by U.S. military aircraft engaged in counterinsurgency in Colombia, as well as kicking out DEA agents attempting to gather intelligence covertly. Venezuela remains the third largest exporter of oil to the USA, however...

HE IS A BOLIVARIAN POPULIST LEADER, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED TWICE and will remain so: "Bolivarian Circles" have been organized throughout the nation, neighborhood committees designed to activate citizens at the community level to assist in literacy, education, vaccination campaigns, and other public services.

He stood for election on HELPING THE EMPOVERISHED, and his government now hires unemployed men temporarily for street repair, garbage removal and to help fix neglected drainage and water systems in poor neighborhoods...

Then there is the government's new COMPREHENSIVE health program...

etc... etc... etc...

The fact that he is an extraordinarily COURAGEOUS foil to US imperialism is just icing on the cake...you have to remember that he literally takes his life in his hands every time he criticizes Booosh and US foreign policy...it's his RIGHT and obligation to do so as Venezuela's LEGITIMATELY ELECTED LEADER...

Look at other Central and South American states and what US imperialism has done with compliant dictators and militaristic despots - compare them (Guatemala, Honduras, Columbia, Argentina, El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc) with Chavez's Venezuela...

In particular: what's radical about Chavez that you don't like?

The reason why people go ga-ga over Chavez is because he responds to popular demand for improvement in low living standards and production for domestic needs.

Corporatocracy. That's a radical i can get behind everytime. I'd say he's anti-fascist.

nt

So Chavez publicly excoriates Bush for what he is, and uses his country's oil to leverage his agenda *for* his country--which, as far as I can tell, is primarily about changing the paradigm where the US stomps all over the economic independence of South American countries. How does that make him a radical?

If he's a fascist, why isn't he George's best friend?

I love it when cons try to call someone a leftist and a facist at the same time.

There's a chance for him to get even more fans.

so why did you ask? pray tell.

Just because everyone loves Hugo, doesn't mean I shouldn't question it.

otherwise I wouldn't have enough to argue with you about it. ;)

The posts I've seen about Venezuela tend to be well-argued and supported with links (unlike your drive-by post).

You could also read these books if you want an answer:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1920888004/qid=1126898197/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-0913486-6351016?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1844675335/qid=1126898197/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-0913486-6351016?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

How does one consider it a drive by post when the poster sticks around to respond?

sloganeering, it feels like a drive by.

and were found unsupportive of your claims.

Ill check out your movie in due time though. ;)

film festival?

http://www.google.com/search?q=amnesty+international&domains=venezuelanalysis.com&sitesearch=venezuelanalysis.com&Search=Search

Ill need some time to review. ;)

I remember reading something, i think from the film site, that they were going to show the film, but someone started calling in and threatening them with violence if they showed it...

Since when have they backed down on something merely because people willing to resort to violence threatened them?

And considering what they do, is that a good precedent to set? (Presuming that's was a legitimate reason.)

Since when have they backed down on something merely because people willing to resort to violence threatened them?

And considering what they do, is that a good precedent to set? (Presuming that's was a legitimate reason.)

They're as blind to their allegiances as the Bushies are. It is scary indeed.

It gets big business in a tizzy, and when you live on a large chunk of oil and aren't about to let BushCo and the IMF fuck your nation out of it's wealth it tends to get their puppets in the media riled up. You can't blame people for being un/misinformed about the whole situation down there, when people can get on our news channels and call him a dangerous terrorist supporting dictator who should be assassinated and it's considered enlightened debate.

And the inability to admit that no person or ideology is perfect. The mere idea that leftists can be dictators is lost on far too many at DU.

This is about what actually is.

Do you think Chavez is a dictator or not? And if so, why?

Just admiration of someone who is being a leader for his people and standing up to our corrupt administration.

and legitimate mandates, and their persistance in calling him a dictator, that drives me batshit crazy.

These are generally the same people who regard the Bush thefts of 2000 and 2004 "conspiracy theories."

I have neither patience nor respect for malign and wilfull ignorance.

In a fucking nutshell MB.This is a most disturbing thread.

Quite predictable, and sad.

Hail Chavez!!

Only if it is possible for Republicans to say similar things.

Brilliant. Out of curiousity, is there anything Republicans cant say? Is there any claim that would pass your odd ruberic?

Excuses are made for everything he has done, just like with Bush. Same thing with Castro. It's nuts, not an odd ruberic.

I don't even know what your reference to Republicans means.

I think it more accurate to say many people only like him because Bush doesn't.

That doesn't mean there aren't many good reasons to like him.

What do you think is a reason people shouldn't like him?

While you claim i don't care about the truth, you have yet to present a single shred of evidence that Chavez is as bad as you imply him to be, and you seem to be avoiding discussion on the issues.


It's not about admitting imperfection or realizing what "can be".
This is about what actually is.
Do you think Chavez is a dictator or not? And if so, why?

There is no blind following. There are no excuses being made up.

And my point was that Republicans can say anything, lie about anything. Your argument is that those praising chavez are blindly following him because republicans praise people they blindly follow, which is rediculous.

You are assuming that Chavez is not worthy of praise, and your only proof is that people praise him.

Tear up this guy.

http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/

He doesn't know what he's talking about, he's a corporatist tool, fascist, bla bla bla. I already know the responses I would get to anything I would say against Chavez.

And what makes you think it's blind?

At its core, there are people who like him for good reasons.

It does seem like some people like him just because Bush doesn't like him. That's sort of like how we almost picked a presidential candidate, and it's no more helpful in this context as it would have been in 2004. But that has nothing to do with ideology. It has to do with personality.

Rather than worrying about this part of the phenomenon, it might be more interesting to talk about what Chavez means to people who have thought about this beyond the context of Bush not liking Chavez.

Some of us realize that even a leftist dictator beats a "democratically elected" fascist regime.

Chavez is NOT a dictator, of course.

Nobody is perfect and neither is any political or economic philosophy. It is the blind loyalty to Chavez that is scary. I wouldn't want any group of people in charge if they couldn't look at their own failings honestly.

And I refuse to debate Chavez on this board again, it's a waste of time. Hail Chavez!!!

It's ridiculous that there isn't even skepticism considering the number of leftist dictators that have caused as much harm as the corporate ones.

If he starts censoring the media, from which the most insane and idiotic anti-Chavez propaganda comes from, or cancelling elections, let me know and i'll be the first to condemn him.

Because you'd deny he was doing it anyway.

That's fucking ridiculous. You don't have proof of your assertions, yet you expect us to believe you, and if we don't, we are blind ideologues.

Whatever.

:shrug:

Believe me? I haven't made any assertions. But it's clear if I had, the proof wouldn't meet your standards, and you wouldn't believe it.

But you aren't blind ideologues.

Whatever indeed.

Im not sure why you would choose to deny that.

as was to be expected

I've made NO assertions, just that I don't like blind leftist ideology anymore than when it comes from the right. Whether it's Nader or Chavez or even Kucinich.

"Leftist Ideologues: They're as blind to their allegiances as the Bushies are. It is scary indeed" - assertion

"The mere idea that leftists can be dictators is lost on far too many at DU." - assertion

"This could all be written by Bushbots" - assertion

"Chavez Ideologues don't care what's true
Excuses are made for everything he has done, just like with Bush. Same thing with Castro." - assertion


There are a few more, but I think this should do the trick since you claimed none.

These aren't assertions about Chavez. It's about leftist ideologues who can't see the failings of some of their own politics or leaders. It's impossible to argue because an ideologue would never understand what you're arguing about anyway, they're in denial and like it there.

I am more than aware that you made no assertions about Chavez. You have carefully avoided doing so.

It must be convienent that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong by definition.

All kinds of assertions about Chavez there. Have at 'em. Tell me that every newspaper or agency that reports anything negative about Chavez is a US corporate tool, bla bla bla...

I do appreciate that you posted a link to something substantive.

As far as your attempt to put words in my mouth, I can speak for myself.

Take some responsiblity for your arguments. Don't pass the buck off to this guy.

I'm not arguing about Chavez, I'm arguing about people who are incapable of acknowledging anything negative about him or any other leftist. This guy's arguments are as good as any I might choose to make, because my point is about the responses. If people are honest, they will be the same responses I always get. Anybody who says anything negative about Chavez is a US CIA corporate tool.

Maybe Chavez deserves the thumbs up that he gets from the left.

Do you think I don't read the rest of the thread?

?

Because any argument anybody put up, even Amnesty International, you proved them wrong. Right?

No dear, Chavez is not perfect, nor is any person, but if the facists who claim perfection win elections because of their claim of perfection..we need to claim perfection also...or ALL IS LOST!

Except to call everyone in this thread who has expressed approval for what Chavez is doing a blind ideologue.

Either Chavez is doing something wrong and people here are too blinded to see it, of which you offered no proof, or you're just stirring up shit for some reason and copping out on the "blind ideologue" bullshit so you don't have to back anything up.

You desmiss people without any rational argument because you claim they are blindly following chavez, when any honest reading of this thread and others shows that people are basing thier opinions on evidence.

Killbot, 1932, they know I have. In any event, my argument IS that the blind allegiance of leftist ideology is as dangerous as the Bushbots. The left wouldn't have a clue if one of their beloved leaders was slaughtering thousands because they'd deny it anyway. That's my primary problem with the Chavez love, I'm actually on wait and see mode politically. Although not holding my breath.

If Killbot and 1932 wanted to be honest, they'd let you know we have debated Chavez many, many times. And Castro as well. With JudiLyn, and a few others around here.

We'll see.

If you want to search the archives and give a link to one of your favorites, go ahead.

See, wouldn't believe anything anybody else presented anyway. Thanks so much.

I remember comments similar to the ones you're making here.

I remember comments similar to the ones you're making here.

If you have a star, feel free to search the archives and provide a link to a thread of which you're especially proud.

because the Caracazao riots (I'm not sure if I spelled that right) among other things.

The previous government murdered citizens who were protesting neoliberal government polices.

Chavez hasn't slaughtered thousands, or even dozens, and is, in fact, the consequence of a government which did do that.

You should read either of the two books I linked above somewhere.

NOT Chavez, at this particular moment. In any event, history has seen many horrific leaders replaced with equally horrific, sometimes more horrific, or just plain bad. Who the leader was before Chavez has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Creating a hero and placing your political ideology on him is exactly what the Bushbots do though.

your OP:
"Leftist Ideologues
They're as blind to their allegiances as the Bushies are. It is scary indeed."

Ever since you have presented nothing but assertions, nothing concrete, no evidence.

Two thirds of the posters here just like him because Bush doesn't. That has nothing to do with ideology.

The other third actually know what he has done for his country, and I see know reason to question their enthusiasm.

And anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, because they are wrong.

Wonderful.