Note to media: Chavez is NOT A DICTATOR

I've heard it now on CNN, MSNBC and even NPR. It's bullshit. The man's democratically elected and his country has as free (if not moreso) of a media as the U.S.

:rofl:

got any links that are not from right wing sources for that?

:rofl:

if they considered the WaPo non-right wing, which I don't. Almost all of this BS about Chavez getting wicked with Venezuelan journos comes from a hit piece in the WaPo and is complete BS.

Of course there will be no documentation forthcoming because it is patently false and just more RW propaganda against Chavez. In fact you'll find no more virulent anti-Chavez mouthpiece than that snakepit of a newsrag the WaPo.

Check it out:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7718

It's as if Kerry was in office and three of our four networks were owned by Fox.

And what do you call "signing statements" and secret NSA programs?

Apply the same standards to the USA and Bush is a dictator.

Sure, that makes it alright.

while lending credence to Chavez's designation of Bush.

He's fighting U.S. black/ops and U.S. psych/ops and right wing media propagandists who are backed by BushCo.

Nice right-wing talking point though!

Chavez talked with that Iran guy! Psyops from Iran!

Nice communist propaganda, though.

Censorship: COOL!

Check your keyboard for an inline right-wing random key-word generator.

You can't have thought of all those by yourself

Especially that part about censorship being cool, which Chavez and his apologists agree with.

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

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

Chavez is not a terrorist, he has NEVER attacked any other nation. He does not support terrorists. Yet you are not only suggesting he does, you are also suggesting that everyone who supports him has terrorist connections.

That is the type of argument a freeper makes.

Meanwhile, in the US, there are many reporters who have spent time in jail, and DAN RATHER said that he does exactly what the president asks him to do ("if the president asks me to line up, I ask him "where do I stand?").

Oh, and Venezuela manages to elect and anti-fascist, anti-merger of state and capital president, while the US can't manage that. Which country is healthier?

Remember the part in Animal Farm, where they took a vote on the windmill? No one objected there.

opinions and didn't try to support them with facts?

No?

I didn't think so.

Neither one of us know any examples where people were too intimidated to speak out about something. That might have never happened in history ever.

And not a single journalist is in jail.

Furthermore, anti-defamation laws prevent people from lying about you, and there are still plenty of lies told.

give that he can spin against the elected president of Venezuela.

:spray:

:7

Have you ever investigated this topic yourself?

The show is called Aló Presidente. I imagine the fact that it varies in length from week to week is he gets to commandeer however long he wants to air direct state propaganda.

So there is no need to chill the media seeing as he has as long as he wants to air whatever he wants. Unless, of course, he thinks the people are too stupid to make up their own minds, in which case he's a dictator!

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

and I think you know that.

its so predictable. And so boring.

"The show is called Aló Presidente. I imagine the fact that it varies in length from week to week is he gets to commandeer however long he wants to air direct state propaganda."

And OUR president gerts to air a radio address- or WHATEVER THE FUCK HE DECIDES TO PREEMPT ON TV.

Your point was.....?

"So there is no need to chill the media seeing as he has as long as he wants to air whatever he wants. Unless, of course, he thinks the people are too stupid to make up their own minds, in which case he's a dictator!"

At least you didn't deny we do the same thing.

in Venezuela is PRIVATE, and doesn't even carry his show. I'll call it a lie by ommission, you seem to be good at that.

Most of the media in Venezuela is PRIVATE, and doesn't even carry his show.

The rest of the media is free to do whatever they want (minus trying to violently overthrow the government, again)

have none.

After all, if a terrorist coup attempt happens they will shut down the media, therefore Bush* should rule the media!

Dan Rather: If the president asks me to line up, I say "where do you want me to stand?

It was the COUP PLOTTERS who jammed the government signal during the coup, while all the other stations kept airing lies.

of cancelling high-rated progressive shows (Donahue) and replacing them with low-rated conservative shows (Scarborough).

A Donanhue producer said that MSNBC told them they had to have two conservatives for every liberal guest and they had a list of Dems who required THREE conservative guests.

I think Bush will be fine with MSNBC.

And like I said, it was the coup-plotters outside the government who jammed the government station. They had one station. And then they had none when they really needed it.

If they can cancel them without consequence, why bother putting them on?

Oh yeah, Keith Olbermann disagrees with you on this one thing...must be a right-winger. :rofl:

But they might do to K.O. what they did to Donahue, unless he pulls what he did with Chavez every once in a while.

Like I said, Bush won't be shutting down MSNBC any time soon.

I never thought the state station would show chavez!!

:::Sarcasm:::

Of course this has nothing to do with the fact that all the other media is practically owned by the opposition.

...while the rest of the media can't (or else they'll face his courts). That's called "being a dictator".

There is a LOT of opposition aired on the Venezualan airwaves, that is an undeniable fact. Find a case of a person being prosecuted for stating an opinion in Venezuala, you have not done it yet.

But prepping him would take too long, and the Bush Pilots union is against it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3934788900154749704&q=bush+pilot

He keeps telling people that we're going to attack him to keep those people afraid! Where have we heard that before?

What do you expect him to do, forgive and forget?

Whenever the President here wants airtime they are generally able to get it, even in prime time. That has been true for years. The media in Venezuala is however generally owned by the opposition.

Are you suggesting that the President should not be able to have any airtime in Venezuala, but Bush should be allowed free airtime here? It is not like they don't ever have people on to refute him.

People who compare what goes on in Venezuela to what goes on here make my case for me. Why does everyone think that I'm pro-Bush* because I'm anti-Chavez and thus if they put down Bush* it's supposed to make Chavez look better? That makes no sense. A lot of things I don't like about Chavez, I don't like about Bush* either, including exaggerating and/or fabricating an external threat to advance a political agenda.

And I wasn't bringing this up to say he shouldn't be on the air to begin with, though I will say that at least the Bush* administration tries to hide when it's airing direct government-produced propaganda.

Doesn't the poster have more cred?
:sarcasm:

Sure he did his homework regarding the 2000 election, and that's great; he documented all sorts of stuff so it can be verified and stand on it's own. But am I supposed to believe his story about how he was walking around some IMF conference or something-or-other and some important document about starting riots in countries just happened to fly out the window of a limosine to him? Wasn't there one about a document flying out of a plane as well? Do I ever post such things?

How does that add up to censorship? What "decrees"?

And waaaah, they're criticizing Chavez! :nopity:
"Make them go away!" :cry:

a. He uses signing statements to refuse to acknowledge any Venezuelan law he doesn't like.

b. He has prisoners kept indefinitely without charges, and repeatedly tortured.

c. He has engaged in a pre-emptive invasion of another country.

d. He repeatedly lies to his country in order to justify war.

e. He has a warrantless wiretapping program to spy on millions of Venezuelan citizens.

f. Elections in Venezuela are conducted on electronic machines using secret software to count votes.

g. Laws in Venezuela disenfranchise poor people by requiring the equivalence of a poll tax.

h. He has threatened to imprison reporters who print things that he disagrees with.

he probably does manipulate the gas prices to help his popularity. What a bastard.

If this is the "Bush* is worse so it's OK that Chavez is not as bad" argument, you'll have to find another, for reasons that are obvious to you already, and that I have explained too many times.

Do any of those things apply to Chavez?

And if the answer is no, then on what basis do you consider him to be a dictator?

I'm not making an argument, I'm asking you a question, and you won't answer it. That doesn't provide any basis for discussion.

Seriously, cry me a fucking river, if OUR media did HALF the shit the Venezuelan media has done(Supported a coup, called for the DEATH of the president, etc.), they would have been thrown in jail. Your assertions are simply bullshit.

How does that add up to censorship? What "decrees"?

Media WHORES who get paid to lie are TRAITORS!

with the help of the do-nothing Republican congress and the handful of DINO assholes that enable them.

Thanks for your support.

I mean, your favorite Democrat is Bush's bestest buddy, after all.

So he sues them...I understand that.

Every last fucking one of them.

would you like to apply when the press prints something you don't like?You realize the freepers are all for stringing up the press too,right.Except they claim it's all left wing garbage.An amazing convergence.

"THE EXTREME LEFTIST DICTATOR OF VENEZUELA"!

I'm wondering what their definition of dictator is.

second grade namecalling when they don't have the facts.

THE definition of dictator is:

Main Entry: dic·ta·tor
Pronunciation: 'dik-"tA-t&r, dik-'
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from dictare
1 a : a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome b : one holding complete autocratic control c : one ruling absolutely and often oppressively

So theoretically, one could be a democratically-elected dictator. The current administration seems to use it in the "whoever doesn't agree with us" sense of the word.

Bush sees anyone who refuses to kowtow to multinational businesses as a dictator.

When Bush says that someone refuses to listen to the wishes of the people he's talking about his base - the billionaires.

If you don't have the ability to squander masses of cash propping up Bush's failing businesses you simply don't matter.

I heard this today on CNN, MSNBC and FOX. I've read articles about Venezuelan measures to stifle insulting comments about their government officials. Here is one from Human Rights Watch in 2005:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm

But I find it pathetic that the American press feels it can point a finger at another nation when our own MSM has been bought, paid for and hog tied by the right wing power brokers. Seems to me that the US MSM press would never dare be so critical of this administration.

At least Venezuelans, for some time, could read and hear their press blasting government. We haven't seen the likes of that since the Clinton years.

According to Peter Werbe, who traveled to Venezuela recently, their press blasts Chavez al the time. I think there's more freedom of the press in Venezuela than our MSM would have us believe. And I hope Werbe talks about it on his radio show.

:shrug: Thank you, I thought they elected him! K&R

;-)

NPR once again shows how suavely dangerous they are. Filter that shit out. Their coverage today was a perfect illustration of lies, half-truths and disinformation.

K&R

the other night that had some dude talking about what would happen when the rapture arrives. i almost crashed my car trying desperately to turn it off.
and that's about as liberal as we get in Oklahoma, so go figure.

It used to be that dissenting opinion was at least voiced. Now you can hardly understand them with their mouths full of the president's cock.

Linda Wertheymer is one of the worst, IMO. Right up there with Cokie Roberts, who has returned like a plague to offer her analysis on morning edition.

and "creative class" in line.

Formerly known as the "bourgeoisie".

I should know, I've lived amongst them.

They only believe it if NPR or NYT says so.

Chavez has a history of censoring the media in his country and jailing his dissenters and opponents.

but you got it all wrong.

Imagine a society where almost all private media, in accordance with the interests of the dominant class that owns and controls them, have made a conscious decision to subordinate their advertising, political "reporting" and publication of "polls" to the goal of overthrowing a democratically elected government. Venezuelans have no difficulty imagining this; the country's private media are completely devoted to the overthrow of a government that they consider insufficiently subservient to their interests.

The absence of politically pluralistic private media should not be very difficult for U.S. citizens to imagine either, since --to the extent that private U.S. media cover Venezuela-- they too are largely united in their hostility toward the Chavez government, for much the same reasons that private Venezuelan media are. The interests of the powerful demand that political debate exist only within narrow bounds. Thus, to move outside those bounds --in other words, to actually challenge powerful economic interests and to question the imperialist behavior upon which those interests depend-- is generally not considered acceptable "journalistic" behavior.

Venezuela's private media have essentially become a vast echo chamber, where debate is limited to tactical questions of how best to extinguish the threat to dominant class interests. Unfortunately, the de-pluralization of political discourse within private media tends to have highly degenerative effects on the rational faculties of those sectors of society that either belong to the economic elite or come under the mesmerizing influence of its propaganda apparatus.

almost all private media, in accordance with the interests of the dominant class almost all private media, in accordance with the inthat owns and controls them,

Sorta like America now.

It was America's version of this echo chamber that persecuted Clinton mercilessly and without basis for 8 goddamn years. The irony? Clinton signed away the regulations that prohibited the radio and television stations from being acquired by just a few companies.

The next president needs to bust up the media monopolies and bring back the fairness doctrine.

it's ok to censor things you don't agree with? that's not really your point, right? right?

The ignorance level in some of the posts is thru the stratosphere.

If I wanted right-wing talking points I'd go to freeperland.

It's always amazing to me how long obvious Right wing shit posts can survive here.

Yes I know that's what the "Alert" is for.

Sure they may be a long time member with a star next to their name
it doesn't make them any less a shitard.

:shrug:

nm

However, Chavez does not have a history of censoring it and no dissidents are in jail (not even the dozens who plotted the fascist attempted coup).

The only thing Chavez is doing to the anti-Chavez commercial media (the vast majority of Venezuelan media) is sue them for slander where it is due - ie saying Chavez is clinically insane, has a gay relationship with Castro.
If Chavez were a dictator he would have nationalized all those media (kindof like what Putin has done in Russia). Chavez only has one state-owned channel.

These people plotted with a foreign country to overthrow their government. When you do that you go to jail, if you are lucky. Try it in this country and you'll be shot.

You obviously know nothing about the situation in Venezuela!

Why should he give up power? He is the popular, elected leader.

Why do you (and BushCo Inc.) hate democracy?

:crazy:

to, and are apparently buying like a good little sheep?

1. He probably is an asshole, I've never met one single person that seeks power over others that wasn't, but that is par for the profession.

2. You are asking us to believe that you can read the future and, despite the very real opportunities and excuses he has had, he has repeatedly stated and shown his respect for Venezuela's Constitution.

3. baseless accusation based on nothing but your own prejudice.

So, do you have anything to back it up, or are you just wasting bandwidth with your mental masturbation?

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

Prove that he won't give up power(fighting off a coup against a DEMOCRATICALLY elected government doesn't count). Etc. More bullshit from the Right Wing Bullshit factory.

Chavez was ELECTED more than once, why should he give up power?

He is not a dictator, he is a democratically elected leader. It is the ones who have tried to overthrow him that truly hate democracy.

to propaganda.

He's withstood far worse than this in his home country, and the people love him. These right wing talking heads only have power if you listen to them. If and when Democrats return to power, you'd better hope these people are bad mouthing us too. Anything less is a sure sign of a Pyhrric victory.

Published on Thursday, July 6, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Go to Venezuela, You Idiot!
by Jeff Cohen

I don't usually take the advice of rightwingers. But I did this time. After receiving inflamed email messages from dozens of angry rightists that I should get the hell out of the USA and go to Venezuela, I accepted their challenge and flew to Caracas.

"Would you like me to start a fund to ship your ass down there, Comrade Cohen?"

What had provoked the often-abusive emailers was my 2005 Internet column urging U.S. residents to buy their gasoline at Citgo, a subsidiary of Venezuela's state oil company. I called for a Citgo BUY-cott, to protest Bush's interventionist foreign policy while supporting innovative anti-poverty programs in Venezuela. (Last winter, Citgo started a program that provided discounted home-heating oil to low-income families in the U.S.)

"Hey moron, if you hate America so much and love Venezuela, why don't you go there?"

I'm glad I listened to the conservative chorus. In late June, I headed to Venezuela with a fact-finding delegation sponsored by the respected U.S. human rights group, Witness for Peace. The grueling trip covered much ground and all sides of Venezuela's social/political landscape. It is a complex country, headed by sometimes volatile President Hugo Chavez, a leftist and harsh Bush critic who was first elected in 1998.

more:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0706-32.htm

Oh, wait, it doesn't - it signs off on legitimate elections.

Ooops. There goes THAT lie, Chavez-haters.

That must have bee cooked up by the smae moron at Forbes Magazine who calls Castro one of the world's wealthiest men by counting Cuban public assest as his private property. Privatization is a dirty concept as it is, but that is carrying it a little far.

I would remind them that Chávez has won more free and fair national elections than Bush has. In fact, Bush is yet to win one.

while calling bush a ... president?

"President" Musharraf

Which is incredibly ironic. Muslim in the state religion in Pakistan. This should cause freeper heads to implode.

this was posted a few months ago - it's a documentary about chavez filmed while the coup took place. watch up to the part where protesters get shot in the head and hopefully some of you may change your perspective.

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

So many parallels with the media in this country. I was seeing shades of Fox News (and NBC for that matter) throughout.

spread that far and wide.

in the head.

Yes he did call B*sh the DEVIL. And the audience at the UN clapped and cheered.

Read this speech (long, but fantastic)... even better than Olberman's latest...

http://www.counterpunch.org/chavez09202006.html

Funny, i see a lot of ignores from the top of this thread. Chavez does seem to bring out the creeps (misinformed) on this board.

Viva Chavez! Viva Venezuela!

The US government, State Department Country Report:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61745.htm

Amnesty International

http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/ven-summary-eng

Doesn't really look good, but then it's not so relevant as the fact that other countries are starting to band together to fight US dominance. Iran/Venezuela - shows the oil producing countries are not just going to sit for being pushed around.

is for January-December of 2005.

This item appeared in February 2006:

Caracas, Venezuela, February 17, 2006—The International Criminal Court (ICC) rejected an appeal by Venezuelan opposition groups to prosecute the Venezuelan government for human rights violations. Chief Prosecutor for the ICC, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, said the charges had a, “lack of precision as well as internal and external inconsistencies in the information.”

<http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1900>

I remember when the media started referring to him as "President Musharraf" instead of "General Musharraf". They all switched over to the new phrase at the same time- a couple of weeks after 9-11, IIRC.

"Israel Goldstein" (or whoever the boogeyman was in 1984) as soon as we thaw out Bin Laden.

supported down there, he's been a "dictator".

"Chavez as dictator" is often repeated here on DU.

Shocked?

:hi:

Careful, you might get that dreaded label "Leftist wackkko"

:toast:

See our President, see Fidel, see Mugabe.

You're full of it, honey. You could learn a lot about how to lead from Hugo Chavez.

If you had have the brilliance and even a tenth of his courage in resisting Bushism rather than collaborating with it, we wouldn't be in such a mess now.

I think this also neatly underscores the fact that Dem foreign policy would be no less imperialistic than that of the GOP. "Two cozily-fused buttocks of the same giant derriere," as C. Hitchens once said in better days...

I saw some people disagreeing with the OP, with posts that seemed pretty even-toned and reasonable. (Not all of them). These people were jumped on, sometimes heaped with abuse. I think the best way to debate someone is to challenge them with evidence of your own, ask to see their evidence, and counter reasoned debate with reasoned debate. I mean, not to criticize anybody, but is it necessary to be so REACTIONARY? If you think someone is misinformed, ask them to support their side with some solid evidence. If they don't provide the evidence and refuse, fine, you got a failure to communicate. If they do, however, you are obligated to refute it.
I don't really think it's fair to shout down somebody when they disagree with you. (And I don't mean saying 'Bush is great! Libs are commies! Man Coulter was right!' That's just trolling, and spewing RW-venom) But I think this issue is within the bounds of reasoned discussion.
As for me, I don't have a strong opinion. The media seems to shit itself everytime Chavez so much as sneezes. I am sure that Chavez is aware of how Bush feels about him, and I'm sure he heard about Pat Robertson saying we should assassinate him. I imagine he has no great love of the RW. He does come across as a little shrill to me, but I am interested in reading his comments. Pretty much anything you say about Bush isn't all that far from true at this point.
ANYWAY. I'm just saying this cause I hate to see infighting. Guys, they're longstanding DU members, I doubt they magically transformed to Rush's Dittohead Squad overnight.
We're a big family, we fight, we disagree. But those disagreements need to be heard for there to be any reasoned discourse. Except in matters of Bush. He will never be right. About anything. Unless he says 'I am a lying asshole.' Then he would be right.
I'm done!

a dictator is anyone ho rules with absolute authority, they dont need to have siezed power, they can be elected.

i agree that the connotation may be unfair, but the ord is apt.

that is not to say i dont disagree with what he said, i just wouldnt want to live under his power

any concentrated power is bad, even if the wielder is from our side of the isle

i dont condone hat he did with the papers and the oil industry, but i mean, he's a soverign, so i dont want to like invade him, but i dont agree with his policies in venezuela

And I mean that literally. :wtf: does this mean "he's a soverign"? You sound more that a bit confused.

i was on a computer with a effed up W key...

Main Entry: 1sov·er·eign
Variant(s): also sov·ran /'sä-v(&-)r&n, -v&rn also 's&-/
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English soverain, from Anglo-French soverein, from soverein, adjective
1 a : one possessing or held to possess sovereignty b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere c : an acknowledged leader : ARBITER
2 : any of various gold coins of the United Kingdom

check definition 1... im good at words! =D