This charismatic and ardent defending of the rural poor of Venezuela has lost his battle to cancer (If I am hearing right), he died in Caracas within the last two hours I think.
He will be missed, I think we can all take solace that the CIA were likely not involved, since y'know, he actually died.
I wonder if the the VP gets to fill out the rest of his new 6 year term or if they'll hold immediate elections. Hopefully the cause of Bolivarian Socialism is left in able and capable hands.
I good joke I heard, "I told you he wanted to stay in power for life, but nobody wanted to listen." Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Good riddance.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: "I told you he wanted to stay in power for life, but nobody wanted to listen."
Ha ha. It's funny because he was a monstrous dictator, see?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Good riddance.
That's rather awful act of spite from you Dan, the dead deserve more respect than that, especially for a democratically elected leader who loved his country and did a massive and incalculable amount of good in reducing poverty.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: "I told you he wanted to stay in power for life, but nobody wanted to listen."
Ha ha. It's funny because he was a monstrous dictator, see?
He was democratically elected and legitimately the target of US undemocratic efforts at a coup, I'm drawing the line for your deluded BullShit Mountain randoid special snowflade status here, light hearted jokes are fine but you've gone too far, shut up.
[ March 05, 2013, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Blayne Bradley ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Incalculable? You can't calculate the amount of poverty he reduced?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Incalculable? You can't calculate the amount of poverty he reduced?
That's not what I actually said, I said the amount of good was incalculable. Which it is, because you can't calculation how "good" something ethically or morally is.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Chavez may not have been on the level of some of the really despicable mass-murdering dictators, but that doesn't make him any less of a dictator. He's inflicted lasting harm on the entire country, especially Venezuelan political dissidents.
Do you take offense with my satisfaction that he won't be able to continue his tyrannical reign? Okay. I find your lionization of a petty, thuggish dictator (because he was a socialist?) to be pretty offensive too. I guess we're even?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Hey look at the two words I typed, "Democratically elected", or did Chavez offer free stuff to the people too?
I'm okay with you being offended, you are always offended whenever the "Left" does anything of substance, for having balls so it doesn't mean anything.
The point is, at the end of the day there are facts, and then there's Bullshit Mountain, where do you hang out?
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Incalculable? You can't calculate the amount of poverty he reduced?
That's not what I actually said, I said the amount of good was incalculable. Which it is, because you can't calculation how "good" something ethically or morally is.
You can (and must) if you're a utilitarian. Lucky for you, I'm not.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If by Democratic you mean he locked up his opponents, and rewrote the constitution to give himself almost unlimited power then yes.
Nobody is pretending the US was some crusader for right in regards to Venezuela, but Chavez was a thug, who supported drug cartels in Columbia to keep that government weak, and regularly crushed his opposition when they got strong enough to win elections.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Life isn't a game with karma meters, I saved a kitten, that gives me 100 points of "good".
Although somethings I contend are ethically more good than others, but I understand the complexity.
For example, suppose a situation where a person, unless you help him will die. It doesn't matter the circumstances aside from absolutely speaking you will not be remotely harmed by helping him; but you have a choice, either save the man, or save your animal companion suppose a dog or a cat, that's been with you for nearly 15 years or more (very long lived cat!).
Some people would be tempted to save their pet over another human being, I consider this ethically the wrong choice, but it isn't necessarily the evil choice. (for bonus points, assume that the pet nor the man can see you or know that you are there or saving the opposite).
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Useful info about Venezuela
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If by Democratic you mean he locked up his opponents, and rewrote the constitution to give himself almost unlimited power then yes.
Nobody is pretending the US was some crusader for right in regards to Venezuela, but Chavez was a thug, who supported drug cartels in Columbia to keep that government weak, and regularly crushed his opposition when they got strong enough to win elections.
Why is rewriting a constitution a bad thing? This is purely an cultural Americanism that doesn't apply to the rest of the world, some countries seem to rewrite their constitution every 10 years why should they be immune to being fiddled with to create a more perfect country?
Of course the "if by x you really mean y" is kind of stupid in context of the complete picture, there's freedom of the press, actual fair elections (Chazes won with 55% of the vote, what "thuggish" dictator doesn't win by at least 80%?) and institutionalized right to protest, police suppression of protests had fallen to 1 in 35 last I checked.
Regardless, Dan's rather spiteful and hateful comments are unfounded and an exaggeration. You don't help anyone with hyperbole.
Still has nothing on how powerful the PM of Canada is with a majority government.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You called someone a 'libertard', Blayne. For the sake of eyes that don't wish to roll and your own dignity, *please* don't lecture anyone else about hyperbole or spite.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote: Area Man Unsure If He’s Supposed To Want Hugo Chavez To Die Or Not
ROCKVILLE, MD—After noticing several news stories about the failing health of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, local man Spencer Gutowski, 45, struggled Monday to figure out if the death of Chavez was something he was supposed to be pleased about or not. “He’s bad, right? I mean, I’m pretty sure he’s one of the bad ones, but maybe he’s good?” Gutowski told reporters, adding that he believes Chavez is a Communist, which, according to Gutowski, means he should probably want Chavez dead, although he is not entirely certain. “Fidel Castro is bad and I want him to die, and I think Chavez is sort of like him, maybe. I also think I’m not supposed to like Venezuela. But then again [President] Bush didn’t like Venezuela, and I didn’t like Bush, so...” Sources later confirmed that Gutowksi asked if something at some point happened between the Venezuelan leader and actor Sean Penn in which Penn either ended up liking or not liking Chavez.
- The Onion.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You called someone a 'libertard', Blayne. For the sake of eyes that don't wish to roll and your own dignity, *please* don't lecture anyone else about hyperbole or spite.
Well I edited it, don't suppose Dan will withdraw his remarks.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What, that particular word? Yeah, that was the only thing which would call your standing to lecture on respect and spite and hyperbole into question.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Why is rewriting a constitution a bad thing? This is purely an cultural Americanism that doesn't apply to the rest of the world
the heck are you even on about.
Rewriting a state's governing documents essentially by fiat to give yourself all the power you need, then promptly using said powers to be a political thug, oust or imprison political opponents or dissidents, and a whole laundry list of other, worse things.
yeah okay, if objecting to these things are "purely an cultural Americanism [sp]" then, congratulations, you've announced that american attitudes are the only just and good ones.
(to note: it's not true, of course, so I'm not actually saying that we're exceptional in that regard.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne: So he's talented at making sure he wins by believable margins. And have you *looked* at the changes he made to the constitution? Unlimited emergency powers for him, to be turned on and off at his leisure. No more term limits. If *one* of those things happened in a 1st world country, alarm sirens would be screaming.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:All one needs to know about Hugo Chávez’s poisonous political legacy can be determined from the circumstances in which he died. Or how little we know about the manner in which—or when, or how—he died. As Venezuela’s bombastic caudillo was expiring in Cuba—and then at a military hospital in Caracas—various newspapers, pundits, and bloggers had already declared him dead, speculated on the cause of his supposed death, and examined the fragmentary evidence of his condition in an attempt to determine with what he was afflicted.
His handpicked successor, the fanatically loyal former union leader Nicolas Maduro, denounced those who speculated that the president was dying as “mentally ill,” “sick with hatred, sick with evil,” and hopelessly right wing. A Spanish news report suggesting that he was sliding off this mortal coil was written by “Francoists.” In Bolivarian Venezuela, where politically subtlety disappeared along with political stability, to question the government—which still hasn’t revealed the nature of his illness—was tantamount to treason against the republic.
Today, at last, Maduro, who possesses both the charm and politics of Erich Honecker, held a Chávez-like press conference to tell Venezuelans that their leader’s medical situation had worsened, and that it was the United States that likely gave him cancer. It was clear that Chávez had either already died (or was barely hanging on) when Maduro announced that the United States was planning a coup and, in response, he was expelling an American diplomat. If the military rises—and such a thing is unlikely, because after the 2002 coup Chávez ensured their loyalty—it would be the sinister machinations of the empire at work. A little preemptive explanation.
SUCH A CHAMPION OF TRUTH, FREEDOM, AND THE GORMLESS SOCIALIST'S WAY
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Chavez didn't just die. He was *assassinated* with cancer (of course!).
I fear for Venezuela if their second in command believes this. So much for anything getting better in Venezuela.
ETA: Samp's post already mentioned this.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I want to echo Dan here.
Good riddance to another one of the world's dictators. I hope his death was prolonged and painful.
Bullshit mountain.
[ March 05, 2013, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Tittles ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tittles: It isn't, and I try to give *some* flexibility on it, but if you'd rather we go to a zero-tolerance policy...
Please edit.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Blayne: So he's talented at making sure he wins by believable margins. And have you *looked* at the changes he made to the constitution? Unlimited emergency powers for him, to be turned on and off at his leisure. No more term limits. If *one* of those things happened in a 1st world country, alarm sirens would be screaming.
*blink* Have you looked at other 1st world countries to see what reserve powers they have? Again, I point to Trudeau, one of Canada's most beloved prime ministers who served for something like 15 years and completely turned off most political rights when the FLQ started bombing their terrorist campaign.
And that's the point, Venezuela isn't a first world country, you have to play hardball or else you get your ass brought up against the wall and shot with bullets paid for by the United States. Have you ever heard of a dude named Salvador Allende? Socialists get overthrown by a foreign backed military.
Chavez did much good for improving the quality of life for his poorest citizens and did much to propose an alternative to neoliberal globalist thinking. "Good Riddance" is in remarkable poor taste, and comparisons to being a "dictator" are quite outlandish because quite frankly Venezuela isn't a dictatorship, it isn't one, and I honestly expected better than conspiracy theory bullshit from you, and expected better overall, didn't you take Political Science? Dictatorship/Dictators have precise definitions.
quote: What, that particular word? Yeah, that was the only thing which would call your standing to lecture on respect and spite and hyperbole into question.
I do so love the dogpiling train for daring to suggest that maybe Dan should show a little more class instead of being y'know, his completely spiteful remarks in what should be a semi-respectful farewell to the death of a democratically elected foreign leader, especially considering Dan has shown umbrage in the past regarding people denigrating George Bush and his objectively worse policies.
I am not wrong for wanting that, at least in my thread Dan should show a little class and courtesy to a departed world leader, he looses nothing for doing so.
Is Chavez's legacy contentious? Sure as hell! But it can be done in a respectful manner, without the lies and distortions. Since Chavez is not a Dictator, it is certainly wrong to couch such commentary with that as justification, as poor a rationalization as it is.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dogpilinf?
Blayne. Get a grip, dude. You could say all of the things you're saying twice as well with half as much profanity and sneering, which would serve both your defense of Chavez better and make you look less a glaring hypocrite on the subjects of courtesy, spite, expectations, and so on.
If you wanna bitch at Dan for saying something mean about Chavez, well alright, but I'm not sure why you would expect a high handed lecture on courtesy in the midst of other things you've said would go unremarked upon.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne:
quote:*blink* Have you looked at other 1st world countries to see what reserve powers they have? Again, I point to Trudeau, one of Canada's most beloved prime ministers who served for something like 15 years and completely turned off most political rights when the FLQ started bombing their terrorist campaign.
Britain (and I am not sure about Canada, it's possible) has a system that lends itself extraordinarily well to a dictatorship ala V for Vendetta.
And guess what? The US stopped interfering severely in Venezuela's government a long time ago, but hey that didn't stop him from blaming us for everything wrong he was doing. I mean, why oh why did that idiot Washington not blame Britain's militaristic interference in our affairs and just be president for life?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: And guess what? The US stopped interfering severely in Venezuela's government a long time ago
Pfft.
What do you call financially backing basically any rebellious faction in Venezuela?
Neo-cons don't change, even when they're Democrats.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Blayne:
quote:*blink* Have you looked at other 1st world countries to see what reserve powers they have? Again, I point to Trudeau, one of Canada's most beloved prime ministers who served for something like 15 years and completely turned off most political rights when the FLQ started bombing their terrorist campaign.
Britain (and I am not sure about Canada, it's possible) has a system that lends itself extraordinarily well to a dictatorship ala V for Vendetta.
And guess what? The US stopped interfering severely in Venezuela's government a long time ago, but hey that didn't stop him from blaming us for everything wrong he was doing. I mean, why oh why did that idiot Washington not blame Britain's militaristic interference in our affairs and just be president for life?
Blackblade this is quite shocking that you don't seem to be understanding the point. Of the world's first world industrialized nations, of at least two have legitimate systems of governance that gives the government an truly overwhelming amount of power especially in emergencies with no term limits than how is President Chavez inherently a dictator for implementing changes to the constitution that more closely resemble the first world standard? You and I both know, and probably agree that yes this can be abused, its probably been abused several times in both Canadian and British history, but neither countries are dictatorships today despite a history of authoritarianism; and in the case of Canada electioneering shenanigans.
Thus, it is perfectly valid, and very accurate, to describe the accusations of President Chavez of being a dictator as being knee jerk inaccuracies of the highest order; they are appeals to emotion, dictatorships are bad see, but somehow "democratically and legitimate leader of a developing nation that has a below average human rights record, but still otherwise allows freedom of the press, expression, association, and assembly" doesn't quite has the same ring to it.
And secondly the assertion that the United States has *stopped* intervening in the internal affairs of Venezuela is laughable because you honestly, in all frankness, could not possibly know this to be true. Especially not in the current administration that has declared war on whistleblowers and is even less transparent than the Bush Administration.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: I want to echo Dan here.
Tittles please edit your post, I and I think any reasonable person would find it to be deeply disturbing to wish the painful and inhumane death of any person, especially one you did not know and could not have known personally.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Nah
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tittles: After reviewing the TOS, your post does in fact violate part of it. I'd appreciate it if you'd edit.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne:
quote:Blackblade this is quite shocking that you don't seem to be understanding the point.
It's so unfortunate that the line that makes me not want to read anything after that comes at the very beginning of your post.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would say that President Chavez was indeed a dictator. But our real problem with him was that he wasn't our dictator. His human rights record was not great, true, and that is bad. But South America is not the US; very few leaders there are not dictators. And while he did trampled rights, he did enact policies that lifted much of his country out of desperate poverty. That is an improvment over most of the SA dictators that we did back who were every bit as "thuggish" and exploited their people and their countries resources for their (or our) gain.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Blayne:
quote:Blackblade this is quite shocking that you don't seem to be understanding the point.
It's so unfortunate that the line that makes me not want to read anything after that comes at the very beginning of your post.
Okay.
quote: I would say that President Chavez was indeed a dictator. But our real problem with him was that he wasn't our dictator. His human rights record was not great, true, and that is bad. But South America is not the US; very few leaders there are not dictators. And while he did trampled rights, he did enact policies that lifted much of his country out of desperate poverty. That is an improvment over most of the SA dictators that we did back who were every bit as "thuggish" and exploited their people and their countries resources for their (or our) gain.
While I agree with most of this, I still insist, not a matter of opinion, but that of academic fact that Hugo Chavez does not meet even the loosest definition of the word. Words have meaning and is just as bad as the American Right calling everyone left of Reagan of Socialist Commie Nazi.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's cute that you think there is such a thing as "academic fact." Particularly when discussing semantics. You really should have learned this by now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Important conversational fact! Remember, when your words drive away even the people noted for being calm and polite, the problem is always, always with other people and never with what you wrote.
-----
It's funny-no one can know Chavez well enough to be satisfied he was a bad man now dead-but you can know him well enough to nearly have him canonized. No one can know the US has stopped interfering, but you can know well enough to dismiss the mockery of those Venezualan officials who blame everything on America.
When it comes to states antagonistic to the USA, you've got a great double-standard going.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Calling him a democratically elected leader is not a valid argument Blayne. So was Hitler.
But it is hard to say what is best for Venezuela, we rich countries have a different perspective on things. Human rights issues are not the reason the United States doesn't like him. I'm sure China, a favored nation, has more issues. He has nationalized US companies there. I don't blame him for that though, easy way to keep the money at home.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Blayne:
quote:Blackblade this is quite shocking that you don't seem to be understanding the point.
It's so unfortunate that the line that makes me not want to read anything after that comes at the very beginning of your post.
Okay.
Roll your eyes until they are in perpetual orbit, telling me it's shocking that I don't understand something is condescending, obnoxious, and makes me not want to listen to you.
You're not a seasoned teacher standing at the board trying to help me, an ignorant whipper snapper, understand history.
More importantly I should just recognize that there are general assumptions we both have that make agreement impossible. Namely your belief that one man can force everybody kicking and screaming into whatever situation they want so long as it's for the greater good.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... No more term limits. If *one* of those things happened in a 1st world country, alarm sirens would be screaming.
Hmmm, not sure about this one. Canada doesn't have term limits for Prime Minister and senators. Since we copied Britain in that regard, I suspect that many countries with similar histories would have the same system.
quote: Countries that operate a parliamentary system of government are less likely to employ term limits on their leaders. This is because such leaders rarely have a set "term" at all: rather, they serve as long as they have the confidence of the parliament, a period which could potentially last for life.
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Calling him a democratically elected leader is not a valid argument Blayne. So was Hitler.
But it is hard to say what is best for Venezuela, we rich countries have a different perspective on things. Human rights issues are not the reason the United States doesn't like him. I'm sure China, a favored nation, has more issues. He has nationalized US companies there. I don't blame him for that though, easy way to keep the money at home.
Godwin's Law?
Aside from that its actually wrong, Hitler was not democratically elected, he was appointed by the President to be Chancellor in order to allow government to function again; the Germans certainly did not have democratic and fair elections during the period of Nazi rule.
Chavez on the other hand, has been elected four times in what are both democratic and largely fair for a developing country elections.
quote: Roll your eyes until they are in perpetual orbit, telling me it's shocking that I don't understand something is condescending, obnoxious, and makes me not want to listen to you.
I said my point, you did not listen to my point, but proceeded to continue to say something as if it were relevant.
I said "First world nations have governments that grant the government just as much or more power that the new Venezeulan constitution does" your refutation was pretty much irrelevant, "that they can be abused and turned into dictatorships." This misses the point because it doesn't matter whether a particular mode of government can be prone towards authoritarianism or not, what matters is that it is the standard set; the first world for better or not sets a standard and this mode of governence is whether you like it or not The Standard.
That is why I said you missed the point, because you did, that somehow the proneness of a government towards authoritarianism somehow matters in judging a developing nation absent of all context that would be useful in the endeavor.
quote: More importantly I should just recognize that there are general assumptions we both have that make agreement impossible. Namely your belief that one man can force everybody kicking and screaming into whatever situation they want so long as it's for the greater good.
Which is the case with Karzai and Nouri al-Maliki, both American appointed strongmen, what needs to be recognized is that for nations that want to raise themselves out of the gutter that the first world keeps them in through neoliberal policies of the Washington Consensus you need to play hardball in order to actually make progress. Without doing what he needed to do Chavez would've been dead by now due to American backed coup and there would not be an American strongman instead but advocating neoliberalism economic policies.
What would you be doing now if that were the case? Probably poo hoo'ing how terrible it was for your government to continue its terrible practices on violating national sovereignty on the world stage but there's nothing you can do and c'mon man Chavez wasn't any better amirite?
What about what happened in Nicaragua? Do you also assert that the Sandinistas were morally wrong, a dictatorship, thuggish etc for doing largely the samething's or worse in order to quell the US funded insurgency by the Contras?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... No more term limits. If *one* of those things happened in a 1st world country, alarm sirens would be screaming.
Hmmm, not sure about this one. Canada doesn't have term limits for Prime Minister and senators. Since we copied Britain in that regard, I suspect that many countries with similar histories would have the same system.
quote: Countries that operate a parliamentary system of government are less likely to employ term limits on their leaders. This is because such leaders rarely have a set "term" at all: rather, they serve as long as they have the confidence of the parliament, a period which could potentially last for life.
And the United States didn't set term limits for president until the 40s largely because we had a similar precedent, though it was more because our first president only stayed for two terms. Teddy Roosevelts attempt for a third term after leaving the presidency (after serving the standard two terms) was not successful, and when FDR stuck around during war time people allowed it, but we still passed limits as soon as he died.
There's a difference between not having term limits, and just using precedence as your guide, and *having* term limits (like in Chavez's case) and removing them.
When you're the guy saying limits need to be moved out of your way, then it's time for people to take notice.
edit: Anyway, this lack of term limits is one major reason why the UK (and Canada is looking less and less like it's different) is very susceptible to a demagogue dictator, especially if there was some sort of crisis going on.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Calling him a democratically elected leader is not a valid argument Blayne. So was Hitler.
No he wasn't.
Venezuelan elections are almost unanimously seen as extremely fair, and there were more elections under Chavez than the 40 years before him.
I don't understand why so many are so quick to call him a dictator.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: He's inflicted lasting harm on the entire country, especially Venezuelan political dissidents.
What are you talking about? Please be specific, he has and had plenty of vocal opponents who are still around. (And still being funded by Americans)
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Can we play Blayne bingo? Has he told other people what is "objective" yet?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Can we play Blayne bingo? Has he told other people what is "objective" yet?
Are we ever going to have conversations that stick to the topic at hand or are we going to keep pretending that I somehow brought this upon myself when its really the perverse obsessive inability to simply not click on threads I start about topics you never had a real, honest, or substantiative interest in?
I can easily count on two hands the number of times posters such as yourself, post one liner rejoinders about my style of argumentation, and yet never ever, under any circumstances for as long as I have been a poster here seen you, or others actually contribute to said threads?
It's trolling, and I will treat it as such since I don't think you are actually interested in an substantiative discussion on the validity of objectivity but I consider such a discussion to be existentialist wannabe nihilistic bullshit anyways of no practical real world import.
quote: And the United States didn't set term limits for president until the 40s largely because we had a similar precedent, though it was more because our first president only stayed for two terms. Teddy Roosevelts attempt for a third term after leaving the presidency (after serving the standard two terms) was not successful, and when FDR stuck around during war time people allowed it, but we still passed limits as soon as he died.
This is actually inaccurate, term limits were added by Republicans to prevent another FDR style "tyranny" which hilariously backfired as only Republicans ended up seriously affected by it.
quote: There's a difference between not having term limits, and just using precedence as your guide, and *having* term limits (like in Chavez's case) and removing them.
Again, why so sacred? Why is the constitution which is at best the law of the land something that shouldn't be changed without provoking dogwhistles? Many nations rewrite their constitutions, the Russians for instance have several times and managed to become more Authoritarian without removing Term Limits!
At best you have a process that when enact may enable authoritarianism of a particular sort, but not removing term limits isn't a successful vanguard against it, for example many Military Junta's in South America simply reshuffled the deck chairs and took turns being Senor President.
Its a tool nothing more and you haven't shown that it's removal is inherently more undemocratic than not removing it.
quote: When you're the guy saying limits need to be moved out of your way, then it's time for people to take notice.
Again, why? Its strange to see such denunciation of Populism outside the United States when while there have been obvious examples of where its gone wrong, examples of when its gone right. You wouldn't find it so strange to remove an anachronistic law that said anyone jailed would need to be given a gun and horse on release correct? You don't see people clamouring about the injustice of leaving former felons alone unharmed immobile on the streets without transportation?
Your argument rests on that if a Politician does anything or any statecraft Machiavelli would suggest than its automatically Bad(tm) and indicative of a tyrant, and not simply indicative of a politician partaking in statecraft that is simply the most effective to Get The Job Done(tm).
If Venezuela was perhaps in a vacuum of where all actions taken only ever needed to purely consider whats within Venezuela you may have a stronger position. But its undercut by the fact that there is a long and infamous history of the US in violating the sovereignty of states, in overthrowing their governments in military or paramilitary coups, in assassinating democratically elected leaders like Allende or vocal critics (Catholic Priests even!) of American backed military junta's like in Guatemala.
In such a political environment, where weakness, where showing up one day with just one too few body guards may very well lead to an paramilitary ambush and death by your political, class and ideological enemies; you cannot be too careful.
In this context Chavez has shown remarkable and praise worthy if albeit, naive restraint.
quote: When you're the guy saying limits need to be moved out of your way, then it's time for people to take notice.
We simply have faith that such reserve powers will be dutifully withdrawn and handed back to the people as soon as its clear the emergancy is over; reserve powers exist precisely to avoid partisan gridlock and allow the government to respond quickly and decisively. History has so far shown the Canadian and British systems as enduring in this regard.
Canada crushed the FLQ and then the War Powers Act was avoided by Parliament. In fact, Parliamentary systems have many aspects and powers that exist but are not used out of tradition or compact, a gentleman's agreement if you will, like the NotWithstanding Clause, which allows for Provincial governments to ignore the charter at will.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: or are we going to keep pretending that I somehow brought this upon myself
pretending?
quote:In such a political environment, where weakness, where showing up one day with just one too few body guards may very well lead to an paramilitary ambush and death by your political, class and ideological enemies; you cannot be too careful.
In this context Chavez has shown remarkable and praise worthy if albeit, naive restraint.
Ugh, god. Yeah right. "Remarkable and praise worthy if albeit, [sp sp sp sp sp sp sp sp] naive restraint"
Dude. He installed a handpicked autocracy of hand-picked cronies, ignored his own constitution whenever it was inconvenient for him, and has pretty much guaranteed great degrees of continued ruin and waste to the Venezuelan economy after many years of callous state seizure and price control schemes.
Wow, okay, the Chavez you are talking about does not exist outside of the head of the same sort of fiction that Chavez's bombastic state propaganda attests.
Also please never use the word 'albeit' again till you figure out how it works in sentences please Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:This is actually inaccurate, term limits were added by Republicans to prevent another FDR style "tyranny" which hilariously backfired as only Republicans ended up seriously affected by it.
Ummm....what is inaccurate? You just agreed with my entire summation. Term limits passed Congress in 1947, this was during Roosevelt's final term which by that time was being filled by Harry Truman.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Dude. He installed a handpicked autocracy of hand-picked cronies, ignored his own constitution whenever it was inconvenient for him, and has pretty much guaranteed great degrees of continued ruin and waste to the Venezuelan economy after many years of callous state seizure and price control schemes.
Assertion. I doubt you've looked at each individual action plan/law/initiative passed and determined "Yeah this was an obviously broken scheme". Because really Price controls? Nationalizing industries? Neither of this innately imply what you ~say it does~
quote: Wow, okay, the Chavez you are talking about does not exist outside of the head of the same sort of fiction that Chavez's bombastic state propaganda attests. [/QB]
I would first point out that the Chavez Dan thinks the world is better off without, and the Chavez that Tittles has wished violent and hateful death of (Has he edited his post yet as the Moderator requested?) does not exist in reality either.
While you may disagree with the policies Chavez has implemented you cannot deny that good has been done, better good in terms of results than the Neoliberals would have done (deregulation, lower taxes, lower tarrifs, outsourcing, privatization etc all failed policies) and that there was an arguable positive outcomes intended by those policies.
The point is that to wit, the vitriol and hate spewed in Chavez's direction in this thread by Dan and Tittles is not justified, that is the point I am trying to make.
quote: What are you talking about? Please be specific, he has and had plenty of vocal opponents who are still around. (And still being funded by Americans)
Dan believes that it is only acceptable for the rich to steal wealth and productivity from the poor than the other way around, because in the case in legitimate theft the poors have a way to totally shut that thing down.
quote: Ummm....what is inaccurate? You just agreed with my entire summation. Term limits passed Congress in 1947, this was during Roosevelt's final term which by that time was being filled by Harry Truman.
Your post could be read and construed as if it was something that "just happened" as something "people were uncomfortable with" for quite sometime and was changed to reflect a proper order of things rather than being described as the purely political calculation it was.
That is how it came off to me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Dan believes that it is only acceptable for the rich to steal wealth and productivity from the poor than the other way around, because in the case in legitimate theft the poors have a way to totally shut that thing down.
If you felt this is what Dan has actually said or suggested, it would be wise to be *very* skeptical of your own initial reactions to what he's saying.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:While you may disagree with the policies Chavez has implemented you cannot deny that good has been done, better good in terms of results than the Neoliberals would have done
Yes I can. I can argue that there's no point in trying to piece together whether an autocratic thug installing a corrupt crony Bolivarian socialism nightmare, or a neoliberal patsy expecting that the free market will solve everything and we should deregulate everything and leave people to sink or swim, is going to take home the prize of "left Venezuela in shambles." We have the same result either way, whether hypothetical or real.
Chavez was a bad man. His policies were bad. Sorry, Venezuela. You lost.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Chavez was a bad man. His policies were bad. Sorry, Venezuela. You lost.
*significantly reduces poverty*
*improves living conditions for the poor*
*free education, healthcare*
Yup, real loss.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Your post could be read and construed as if it was something that "just happened" [Dont Know] as something "people were uncomfortable with" [Dont Know] for quite sometime and was changed to reflect a proper order of things rather than being described as the purely political calculation it was.
That is how it came off to me.
I'm more confused than before. I never said it just happened for no reason. I said a man was elected to four terms and that unnerved people because Roosevelt had actually broken the precedent, something nobody else had successfully managed, though three had tried in the past.
Also, calling it a Republican machination is just wrong, the Democrats were riding the euphoria of WWII having been won. It was the precise thing that worried people. That a president during war time could seize emergency powers and overstay his welcome indefinitely. God forbid it ever happen in the UK or Canada, but you guys are basically wide open for it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I feel like this is a low stakes version of the gun rights debate in the US. On one hand, there's the theory that a higher concentration of guns will be better at preventing tyranny. But there's the practical reality that it hasn't worked out that way, the US government is if anything, more tyrannical than Canada's.
Same with term limits, I feel like in theory, maybe it could work. But in practice, when you look at the list of prime ministers that served more than two terms, we're looking at the very best Prime Ministers. Mackenzie King, Macdonald, Trudeau, Laurier, and Chretien. There's no doubt in my mind that we'd be much much worse off were these Prime Ministers cut-off in the middle of their work. The practical upside of having these skilled individuals continue their work outweighs the theoretical concern. Also, it isn't as if the UK hasn't faced challenges. Between Irish terrorism, the London bombings, and Hitler himself, British leaders have in fact restrained their powers much better than the US has in the face of 9/11.
Honestly, if we're looking at powers that define dictators, I would say post 9/11 powers like "having the ability to detain people indefinitely without charge and torture them" or "having the ability to assassinate people without any oversight" would be much much more obvious candidates for abuse in my view than "existing in a system without term limits."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ...and yet never ever, under any circumstances for as long as I have been a poster here seen you, or others actually contribute to said threads?
You are either misremembering, or lying. Because everyone here, at one time or another, usually many times, have contributed discussion to threads you have started.
Maybe not contributions you *liked*, and maybe not always directly in line with what *you* wanted to talk about. But this is simply not the case Blayne. You must know this. You would not be here for 8 years if this was not the case.
I contributed to a thread you started not a month ago. Something about aircraft carriers. That doesn't count? Or you just don't remember it because it didn't set you off, because I wasn't criticizing you? One difficulty of your self-centeredness in all things is that you rarely pay attention to anyone when they aren't speaking directly *to* you, and usually if they are not giving you negative attention as well.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Chavez was a bad man. His policies were bad. Sorry, Venezuela. You lost.
*significantly reduces poverty*
*improves living conditions for the poor*
*free education, healthcare*
Yup, real loss.
Again, and this ought not even bear repeatedly pointing out: many very violent, and very bad people have given their people these things.
And please, everyone, this is not "Godwin's Law," because I am not comparing any argument you are making to on Hitler would make. This is a valid reference to history:
Hitler gave his people marked improvements in almost all areas of their daily lives. And then came genocide, devastation, massive death, and the denigration of his nation, and the dominance of the Soviet Union over central and Eastern Europe for half a century.
This is not to say that Chavez was as bad as Hitler. Certainly he didn't have the opportunity to be so, nor do I think, the will or desire. But the point is: we do not necessarily judge people according to their list of successes- just as we do not entirely judge people according to their "righteousness."
Take Bill Gates and Steve Jobs for example: both wildly successful business men- both receive public adulation and are idealized as pillars of society. Gates not for his products, but for his charitable works. Jobs for his products, and his effect on society and consumer culture, but *despite* the fact that the man never gave a cent, of his Billions, to charity. My point being that people recognize success in different ways, but we take the person as a whole and decide if their lives were good for the world, or bad.
Chavez, with little strong argument, was the type who was bad for the world. Now, you could argue that he was a product of his circumstances, and you'd be right about that. But great men and women do not do what is expected of them. They do what is right.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:*significantly reduces poverty*
*improves living conditions for the poor*
*free education, healthcare*
Yup, real loss.
Ahahahaha. Scrimmage time? I don't like to see people lionizing a petty thug that put a country on a real quick trip to opaque, corrupt autocracy. I especially don't like to see this lionization happening because of a school of bias ever so friendly to people who jangle tasty socialist treats and sucker people with anti-imperialist bombast.
He has, in essence, utterly destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and made official what was only before tacit cronyism. He restructured the entirety of political life around his individual decision making.
He put into place a constitution, and then wantonly disregarded it at every turn (even a court appointed by him, loyal to him, occasionally called him out on this and then were reprimanded).
Chavez has dismantled Venezuela's economy and public life. He has squandered oil money with 0 transparency. He promised the world, and has delivered very, very, very little.
It's actually rather depressing how much they could have done with all the resources they have wasted (a ton of which has literally disappeared into thin air), and yet there is practically nothing to show for the vast majority of the influx of what should have been a great deal of prosperity.
He blames everything on media conspiracies (hey by the way! His government recently closed down the last independently run news channel!), on western conspiracies, evil america, whatever, and has completely screwed discourse in the country.
Violence is already spiraling out of control, and the sort of people who have learned to succeed in the new Venezuela are people like in this article. These are the people who will try to consolidate their power now that a vacuum popped up at the top, and I can guarantee that a lot of the cronyism that was going on around oil money is going to dry up a bit as people consolidate power, waiting to see how things play out. I can't wait to watch you guys be totally surprised when austerity-style measures happen there.
Chavez' opaque, corrupt government is one that has completely squandered what rising oil prices could have done for the people. Venezuela has seen a gigantic rise in the price of oil since Chavez originally took power, and yet public debt has also skyrocketed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I suspect a military coup is very likely, assuming some other guy doesn't become dictator next.
Or civil war.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Chavez absolutely did his part to make things go nuts after he lost power; setting the precedent to flout one's own law, consolidate power, redistribute wantonly to party insiders, etc.
A civil war? Can't rule it out but it doesn't seem likely. Most likely there will just be a crony shuffle and an even more outright spoils autocracy with the next head of state.
Well, at least until such time as a hypothetical venezuelan economic crash.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
So the results are in. And I'm sure every one of you will be shocked to hear this, but Chavez's handpicked man won in a very contested vote.
Probably a dirty election, or definitely a dirty election? We report, you decide!
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
According to Fox News there was also many incidents of voter fraud in the [2012] elections hrrrmmmm....
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
as something "people were uncomfortable with"