Chavez-As Honest As Any Other Tin Pot Dictator

[Cavalier22]

Supporters of Venezuelan president and ardent socialist Hugo Chavez point to his past two elections, one of which was a recall effort, as measures of his popularity. However, a group of analysts in Caracas contend that he rigged both elections (http://www.nysun.com/article/48925) by making wholesale changes to the voter rolls:

Hugo Chavez may have lost both the recall referendum in 2004 and the December 2006 presidential election, according to studies conducted by a distinguished multidisciplinary team in Caracas, Venezuela. The team includes the rector of Universidad Simon Bolivar, Frederick Malpica, and a former rector of the National Electoral Council, Alfredo Weil.
Astonishing as it may seem to Americans who believe the contention by Mr. Chavez that he won both elections by a landslide — 58% to 42% in the recall and 61% to 39% in the presidential election — the studies show that since 2003, Mr. Chavez has added 4.4 million favorable names to the voter list and "migrated" 2.6 million unfavorable voters to places where it was difficult or impossible for them to vote.

None of these additions or migrations to the voter-register has been independently audited in Venezuela. Instead, the votes have been electronically counted by Chavez cronies. So when Mr. Chavez announces a landslide, there has been no way to prove otherwise, even though exit polls and other data have consistently shown that half the voters of Venezuela or more oppose Mr. Chavez.


It's worth noting that Jimmy Carter vouched for the results of both elections. Michael Rowan and Doug Schoen want an accounting of his methodology. More importantly, they want an accounting of the favorable treatment Chavez gets from the Left, as well as from 17 Congressmen who have oil subsidized by Chavez delivered to their districts.

Chavez is another banana-republic ruler whose threats to nationalize industry and impose socialism by imperial diktat would (rightfully) raise screams if they happened in Zimbabwe or Russia. Why is Venezuela different?

[ribonucleic]

Between a a tin-pot dictator who helps the poor [Chavez] and one who doesn't [Bush], I'll take the former.

Just sayin'.

[Cavalier22]

bush=dictator?

[ribonucleic]

bush=dictator?

Yes.

Hope this helps. 

[Hugo Chavez]

Yes.

Hope this helps. 

DITTO THAT



 

[BRUCE]

Between a a tin-pot dictator who helps the poor [Chavez] and one who doesn't [Bush], I'll take the former.

Just sayin'.

Oh, dear 

[Hedgehog]

bush=dictator?

I don't believe so.

I do however believe Bush has fucked with the Checks and Balance during his reign.

Who can honestly say that the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) and the Legislative Branch (House and Senate) are as powerful as the Executive branch ( President) these days?

But he's no dictator.

And, thankfully, he will be gone in little over a year pretty much.

Also, good to see that the Legislative branch since the mid-terms has started to little by little gain back some of the power, balancing it out some.

As far as Chavez goes: I believe Venezuela definitely should nationalize its own oil resources.

Look at Norway(oil:Statoil,Norsk Hydro), Saudi Arabia(oil:Aramco) Russia(gas, Gazprom). In these three countries, the natural resources are owned in part or wholly nationally, either by the government or by different citizens of the country in question.

It has been key to boost the national economy of each of these countries.

In contrast, look at Nigeria. A country where all the oil resources are owned by multinational oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon.

All the earnings are brought out of the country. And Nigeria is still poor.


Hence, it's easy to see why oil resources in Venezuela should be nationalized. Only then will the citizens of Venezuela reap the benefits of the oil riches.

The benefit for USA, and the rest of the world, is that a better economic situation for Venezuela's citizens is a good platform for good education and democracy, a sound society.

-Hedge

[tu_holmes]

I don't believe so.

I do however believe Bush has fucked with the Checks and Balance during his reign.

Who can honestly say that the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) and the Legislative Branch (House and Senate) are as powerful as the Executive branch ( President) these days?

But he's no dictator.

And, thankfully, he will be gone in little over a year pretty much.

Also, good to see that the Legislative branch since the mid-terms has started to little by little gain back some of the power, balancing it out some.

As far as Chavez goes: I believe Venezuela definitely should nationalize its own oil resources.

Look at Norway(oil:Statoil,Norsk Hydro), Saudi Arabia(oil:Aramco) Russia(gas, Gazprom). In these three countries, the natural resources are owned in part or wholly nationally, either by the government or by different citizens of the country in question.

It has been key to boost the national economy of each of these countries.

In contrast, look at Nigeria. A country where all the oil resources are owned by multinational oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon.

All the earnings are brought out of the country. And Nigeria is still poor.


Hence, it's easy to see why oil resources in Venezuela should be nationalized. Only then will the citizens of Venezuela reap the benefits of the oil riches.

The benefit for USA, and the rest of the world, is that a better economic situation for Venezuela's citizens is a good platform for good education and democracy, a sound society.

-Hedge

Good post!

[Hugo Chavez]

You people are just being mean to my papa

[Thin Lizzy]

Yes.

Hope this helps. 

The far left is an abettor of anti-American forces everywhere. Chavez is a pain in America's ass; therefore, he's a darling of the left.

[OKMike]

The far left is an abettor of anti-American forces everywhere. Chavez is a pain in America's ass; therefore, he's a darling of the left.

Good call!

[BRUCE]

The far left is an abettor of anti-American forces everywhere. Chavez is a pain in America's ass; therefore, he's a darling of the left.

Spot on, Lizzy.

[tu_holmes]

The far left is an abettor of anti-American forces everywhere. Chavez is a pain in America's ass; therefore, he's a darling of the left.

Why does Liberal mean "Dislike of America"?

I always thought Liberal people loved America because of its immense freedoms.

[Cavalier22]

how can you say bush is a dictator? its absurd

can you say in some peoples opinion he overstepped his bounds on some matters? debateble

but a dictator?  get real

[Hedgehog]

Why does Liberal mean "Dislike of America"?

I always thought Liberal people loved America because of its immense freedoms.

Idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have perverted the term liberal.

A liberal person believes in personal freedom and integrity, little government, little regulation, believes in free trade, et al.

Does that look like the description of someone that Limbaugh and O'Reilly claims are "Libs"?

Those two are apparently politically illiterates. Otherwise they wouldn't be repeatedly misusing, and abusing the word.

-Hedge

[Hugo Chavez]

In American politics, Neoliberalism is where you'll find the connect to the liberal term, but the term is just used because it applies total liberty to the corporation and free will to proceed however they see fit on the global scene.  That will put them politically at odds with many who define themselves as liberals.  Infact many hardcore neoliberals are far right politicall--exceptions like Bill Clinton are not uncommon.  But I agree... These days you're going to find that liberals in America believe in personal liberty and min government that meets the common good.  But not little regulation, that's again a neoliberal thing.  Being overshadowed with scandal after scandal of corporate corruption, crime and intrution into government, you'll find no shortage of the liberal crowd in America calling for greater regulation of the corporations.  This is confirmed usually after watching 5 minutes of Free Speech TV   I call it a call for policing of the corporation because right now, it's lawlessness in the wild west for these clowns and they don't give a rats ass how many innocent people get gunned down going after that dollar.

[militarymuscle69]

Why does Liberal mean "Dislike of America"?

I always thought Liberal people loved America because of its immense freedoms.

Think about how the definitions of liberal and conservative have changed. When Archie Bunker was on TV he was considered a liberal right? back then saying the things he said were anything but conservative. Today however people would call him a conservative because people tend to look at conservatives as back woods white folks that don't like equal rights for everyone. I think liberals today (by liberals I mean far left) they tend to be sympathetic because of American guilt. They feel bad that they have it so good and that America is such a power, so in their hearts of hearts it makes them feel more guilty the better we do. In turn far left liberal = America "hater"

[Dos Equis]

I don't believe so.

I do however believe Bush has fucked with the Checks and Balance during his reign.

Who can honestly say that the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) and the Legislative Branch (House and Senate) are as powerful as the Executive branch ( President) these days?

Not at all.  We've seen Bush get checked by the judicial branch at least twice.  We've seen laws passed to address concerns by the judicial branch.  The system is working just fine. 

[Hedgehog]

Not at all.  We've seen Bush get checked by the judicial branch at least twice.  We've seen laws passed to address concerns by the judicial branch.  The system is working just fine. 

I wasn't aware of that, or at least can't recall it. Thanks for setting facts straight.

I still believe the balance is skewed though, but it's nowhere near a dictatorship. Of course not.

-Hedge

[Hugo Chavez]

Think about how the definitions of liberal and conservative have changed. When Archie Bunker was on TV he was considered a liberal right? back then saying the things he said were anything but conservative. Today however people would call him a conservative because people tend to look at conservatives as back woods white folks that don't like equal rights for everyone. I think liberals today (by liberals I mean far left) they tend to be sympathetic because of American guilt. They feel bad that they have it so good and that America is such a power, so in their hearts of hearts it makes them feel more guilty the better we do. In turn far left liberal = America "hater"

LOL... Well I watched all the All in the Family episodes, most of them when they aired and no... I can't imagine where you got Archie was considered a liberal.  He was your stereotypical bigot... His son in law, yes, not Archie...  Did archie often to the right thing as defined by what a liberal might call right, yes... Was he presented as a liberal, no he was not... And we do not feel bad that we have it good in America, that is a gross mischaracterization of the American Liberal.  It is not that we have issues with our doing well, we have issues with preventing others from doing well both here and around the world, which I could write a book on....  Your label of "liberal=American Hater"=Clueless Rightwing Pundit Sheeple.

[Dos Equis]

I wasn't aware of that, or at least can't recall it. Thanks for setting facts straight.

I still believe the balance is skewed though, but it's nowhere near a dictatorship. Of course not.

-Hedge

No problem.  I think one of the most recent examples might be warrantless wiretaps.  Executive branch authorized them, judicial branch determined they were unconstitutional, executive branch stopped, legislative branch passed new law.  That's how the system is supposed to work. 

And I agree we're nowhere near a dictatorship.  Ridiculous. 

[militarymuscle69]

LOL... Well I watched all the All in the Family episodes, most of them when they aired and no... I can't imagine where you got Archie was considered a liberal.  He was your stereotypical bigot... His son in law, yes, not Archie...  Did archie often to the right thing as defined by what a liberal might call right, yes... Was he presented as a liberal, no he was not... And we do not feel bad that we have it good in America, that is a gross mischaracterization of the American Liberal.  It is not that we have issues with our doing well, we have issues with preventing others from doing well both here and around the world, which I could write a book on....  Your label of "liberal=American Hater"=Clueless Rightwing Pundit Sheeple.

So you are FAR left? because I do agree that both liberals and conservatives are mis labled. I specifically said my characterization was on far left libs. But in his day bunker would have been liberal. Me and my much older civilian co-workers have had a lot of talks on this. In todayy's eyes he wouldn't be but if you think about what the difference was then it was different.

[240 is Back]

Idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have perverted the term liberal.

A liberal person believes in personal freedom and integrity, little government, little regulation, believes in free trade, et al.

Does that look like the description of someone that Limbaugh and O'Reilly claims are "Libs"?

Those two are apparently politically illiterates. Otherwise they wouldn't be repeatedly misusing, and abusing the word.

-Hedge

How would you label the people who parrot the words of these two political illiterates?

[ribonucleic]

How would you label the people who parrot the words of these two political illiterates?

I usually just call them "Bruce". 

[Hugo Chavez]

No problem.  I think one of the most recent examples might be warrantless wiretaps.  Executive branch authorized them, judicial branch determined they were unconstitutional, executive branch stopped, legislative branch passed new law.  That's how the system is supposed to work. 

And I agree we're nowhere near a dictatorship.  Ridiculous. 

Yea, so ridiculous...

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

Are we a dictatorship?  Obviously no... Are we closer to one than before Bush, obviously yes...  Is he consolidating power?  Obviously... Name it whatever you want... I'll name it what it looks like... Bush=Wannabe dictator.

"A dictatorship would be a lot easier... So long as I'm the dictator."--GW Bush

But these days, he just goes with, "I’m the decider, and I decide what is best."--GW Bush