Hugo Chavez Takes Over Venezuelan TV Station

Chavez has claimed that Jesus was a Communist, an anti-imperialist, which is not true. Chavez is just using religion because he knows most Venezuelans are religious.

BTW, I have said it many times in the past. I am not a religious person, but truth be told, Jesus Christ was nothing close to a Communist or a socialist.

let me guess he was a capitalist
Tell me do you know what are the foundations of capitalism or how it works? do you know how socialism works? have you heard of social-democratic political groups?

Did you know that the labor party from great britain is socialist along with tony blair is socialist in natrure?
www.answers.com...

British political party whose historic links with trade unions have led it to promote an active role for the state in the creation of economic prosperity and the provision of social services. In opposition to the Conservative Party, it has been Britain's major democratic socialist party since the early 20th century. In 1900 the Trades Union Congress

You are probaly thinking because comunists use to own everything then everything regarding socialists equals comunism.
You have a vision where you just see in front what you want to see.
Russia was at times imperialist and socialist in it's comunismt era, probaly because your country from where you originated from was comunist and had a sistem where everything was owned by the state makes you think that this must be it.
In fact most of europe is Social-democratic what we call left wing here in europe, spain is socialist democratic, england is socialist democratic, france, italy.......
Before them it was right wing then left wing then right wing then left again, as people decided on elections.

Socialism is just a policy for economy






[edit on 28-5-2007 by pepsi78]

GlobalResearch.ca

Venezuelan TV station Radio Caracas Television's (known as RCTV) VHF Channel 2's operating license expired May 27, and it went off the air because the Chavez government, with ample justification, chose not to renew it. RCTV was the nation's oldest private broadcaster, operating since 1953.

Along with the other four major corporate-owned dominant television channels (controlling 90% of the nation's TV market), RCTV played a leading role instigating and supporting the aborted April, 2002 two-day coup against President Chavez mass public opposition on the streets helped overturn restoring Chavez to office and likely saving his life. Later in the year, these stations conspired again as active participants in the economically devastating 2002-03 main trade union confederation (CTV) - chamber of commerce (Fedecameras) lockout and industry-wide oil strike including willful sabotage against state oil company PDVSA costing it an estimated $14 billion in lost revenue and damage.

This writer explained the dominant corporate media's active role in these events in an extended January, 2007 article titled "Venezuela's RCTV Acts of Sedition." It presented conclusive evidence RCTV and the other four corporate-run TV stations violated Venezuela's Law of Social Responsibility for Radio and Television (LSR). That law guarantees freedom of expression without censorship but prohibits, as it should, transmission of messages illegally promoting, apologizing for, or inciting disobedience to the law that includes enlisting public support for the overthrow of a democratically elected president and his government.

Well I certainly can see, where mister Chavez had a problem with this RCTV station; not that they were just supporting the aborted two-day coup against President Chavez (when I only ask myself, what would president Bush do, in a similar situation, when a TV or radio station is promoting a coup against the president of United States himself - I think that is called an ACT OF TREASON according to Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution) - but they were also showing most hard right yellow journalism, consistently showing a lack of ethics, integrity or professional standard of journalism.

Just to shed a light to the other side of this story.

[edit on 28/5/07 by Souljah]

Originally posted by iori_komei
It is still vastly different from enforcing the ideology on the people and discipling
those who do not accept it.

Did you read the post afew up that spoke about him creating his own religion based around him? thats enforcing an ideology

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by iori_komei
It is still vastly different from enforcing the ideology on the people and discipling
those who do not accept it.

Did you read the post afew up that spoke about him creating his own religion based around him? thats enforcing an ideology

It's not enforcing unless people are forced. Whether he declares himself the Messiah, Buddha or the Tooth fairy is up to him, as long as he doesn't force people to worship him.

You mean the ones about some of his supporters doing so?

What I ma saying is that there is a difference between his supporters (and even if he himself
were to believe it) believing it, than there is with the state enforcement of that belief,
like disciplining people who would'nt believe in it.

But if you are banning the opposition media then you are enforcing citizens to believe what you say and agree with it.

In theory, there may not be an opposition in Venezuela anymore, but its still legally there. However, if the opposition is gagged, what else are you doing apart from enforcing people to believe your doctrine?

It's not enforcing unless people are forced. Whether he declares himself the Messiah, Buddha or the Tooth fairy is up to him, as long as he doesn't force people to worship him.
Yep we already know some one by the name of the "The Decider"
I have to agree with you, if he does not force people to worship him it's a publicity stunt, not very nice but it's legal.


[edit on 28-5-2007 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by infinite
But if you are banning the opposition media then you are enforcing citizens to believe what you say and agree with it.

In theory, there may not be an opposition in Venezuela anymore, but its still legally there. However, if the opposition is gagged, what else are you doing apart from enforcing people to believe your doctrine?

Are there still not other non-state broadcasters? Surely this wasn't the only one?

Also, control of a TV station does not mean your going to force everyone to worship you. Otherwise we'd all be Murdochites's.......

Originally posted by stumason
Are there still not other non-state broadcasters? Surely this wasn't the only one?

its the only opposition media with a national reach

news.bbc.co.uk...

Mr Chavez says that private stations like RCTV were involved in a coup that nearly toppled him five years ago and that they have since actively tried to bring down his government.

has Chavez provided evidence to show this?

[edit on 28-5-2007 by infinite]

Originally posted by stumason

To be honest, I never knew he said that.

I hope you don't mind if I try and find a translation though. It's not that I don't believe you, I just prefer to see things for myself..

Stumason...we have discussed this many times in the past, and you were discussing in other threads related to this topic where i have posted the videos, and when i asked Marg, who speaks Spanish, to watch the video and see whether nor not i was saying the truth...

Here is a video where Chavez warns those people who voted against him, or any Venezuelan who would vote against him.

WARNING. THERE IS VIOLENCE AND PEOPLE WERE FILMED BEING SHOT TO DEATH IN THE VIDEO!!!

video.google.com...

This is one of the videos i have shown in the past.

Marg is again part of this discussion, and i call on her, or even on DG to watch that video and tell whether i am saying the truth or not.

This is a translation of what Chavez says at 45 seconds into the video.

"whoever signs against Chavez, there will their names stay registered for history, because they will have to put their name, their last name, their signature, and their cell number, [social security number] and their fingerprint."

Since that day, the Venezuelan government has used the list of Venezuelans who signed against Chavez in the referendum, and have harrassed, and even fired en mass many Venezuelans who voted against Chavez.

Chavez called for a new Constitution, and even in the new Constitution, in article 72 it says it enough Venezuelans vote a referendum against Chavez, he will be out of office. At first Chavez said that if there were enough vote against him, the Venezuelan people could get him out of office. At 3 minutes 18 seconds in that same video there is a segment in the video where he says this.

Then the April 2002 massacre happened. There were estimates which put the amount of Venezuelans who took to the streets to protest against Chavez at 500,000 and even more than a million. In that video is said more than 100,000 people took to the streets.

I have shown that video several times. in the video you see how Venezuelans who were peacefully protesting were shot in the head and chest, or injured by bullets.

Anyways, when the referendum happened Chavez himself said that nomatter how many people vote against him in the referendum, he will not be taken out of office. You can see where he says this at 6 minutes 40 seconds, and again, i call on Marg, or DG to at least watch that part of the video and tell me i am wrong.

I doubt you will find a translation in English.


[edit on 28-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Anyways, what Chavez says exactly is that: "even if 90% of the votes [against him] are collected, I will not renounce, you can all forget about it"

Again, i make the call for Marg or DG to watch at least that part of the video and tell us here whether i am saying the truth or not.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Amnesty International

There were reports of unlawful killings of criminal suspects by police. Most cases were not investigated and the perpetrators remained unpunished. The lack of independence of the judiciary remained a concern. Persistent social and economic inequalities continued to limit access to the economic and social rights of Afro-descendants and indigenous peoples.

Background

Political polarization continued to be a destabilizing factor. There were continued concerns that critics of the government were being harassed, including through the criminal justice system. Some confrontations between supporters of President Chávez and the opposition took place before August municipal elections, which were won by President Chávez’ party, Movimiento V República.

* In January, 16-year-old Rigoberto Barrios died in hospital after being shot eight times by the police in Guanayen town, Aragua State. He was the third member of his family allegedly killed by the police since they reported the killing of Narciso Barrios in December 2003, following an argument with Aragua State police officers. In June an attempt was made on the life of Óscar Barrios. He escaped unharmed. In August, Juan Barrios was threatened by two uniformed police officers. The family was granted police protection in May, following instructions from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. However, by the end of 2005, none of the police officers implicated in the killings and threats had been prosecuted.
* Carmen Alicia Mota de Hernández and her family in Valle de la Pascua town, Guárico State, were reportedly subjected to a campaign of intimidation by police officers after reporting the killing of her husband, Arturo Hernández, in April 2004.

web.amnesty.org...


Amnesty International is a valid source and cannot be dismissed or accused of being biased.

www.hrw.org...

In March 2007 the government published details of its case—a 360–page “White Book on RCTV”—which includes pages of allegations against the station, some of them based on investigations by the government broadcasting authority CONATEL. The report was issued months after Chávez made his announcement and does not address the station’s replies to CONATEL’s investigation.

The White Book accuses RCTV of “inciting rebellion,” showing “lack of respect for authorities and institutions,” breaking the laws protecting minors, engaging in monopolistic practices, and failing to pay taxes. However, it does not cite a single final judicial or administrative ruling establishing that the channel had in fact committed any of these alleged offenses during its 20–year contract. No one from the channel has been convicted for their alleged complicity in the attempted coup.

hrw.org...

[edit on 28-5-2007 by infinite]

Hey at least now my grandma can watch something else than those constant soap opera's at night. But there's still Venevision.


Anyway.. RCTV committed treason IMO. They deliberately encouraged people to protest against Chavez, where one of the first to refer to the new leader Carmona as "mr President", and for a while after the failed coup, still refered to him as the president. Funny I didn't see an election that got Carmona in office.

And as for those Chavez supporters who where shooting.. They were NOT shooting at anti-Chavez supporters, but at snipers that were shooting at them. The street was empty. The lie that they were shooting at anti-Chavez crowds was perpetrated by RCTV themselves!

Besides that in the hours that the coup turned into a failure RCTV refused to broadcast anything showing that. They refused to report to the Venezuelian people that the coup failed. They instead chose to put on Looney Tunes all day. There was never free speech with this station as it was controlled by it's ownsers. Now suddenly the owners of a media corporation censoring information is good? Nonsense.

Those people are so called "elites" who believe they have more rights than anyone else in Venezuela, and even when they go visit other countries (like Aruba) they believe they're better than "colored people" and should have more privilige than them. Talk about racism. To them colored people don't mean spit other than to bend over, starve and do the dirty work while they live their luxurious lives.

And don't get me wrong.. I'm not saying that Chavez is a saint. The guy is wacko, nuts and paranoid, but for good reason. For decades any Latin American head of state was always either threatened or under control by western (mainly U.S.) corporate interests. Just take a look at the United Fruit induced massacre of Guatemalan natives from the 50's to the 80's. Or the economic hitmen that have been active for years in these areas. Native people have suffered and died under corporations for decades. Don't deny that. DO NOT DENY THAT!

I think it's time you guys start thinking in ways of autocratic/libertrarian instead of only left-right, because left/right, because a right wing or a left wing administration can be autocratic. Chavez and Castro are left, but they are more autocratic. Ghandi was socialist, but was libertrarian. Hitler was right wing and extremely autocratic.

As for the Bolshevik revolution and installation of communism... It was sponsored by the Uber capitalists at Wall Street.

has Chavez provided evidence to show this?

It's the other way, not that I'm taking chaves side, the tv station is the defendent, since the goverment took the station to court.

Any way we won't find any answers and probaly won't know what happened there, if chaves did this with out any legal bounds then I would have to agree with you, but I'm not sure it was like that, and I'm not sure it was not, chaves is fine with it, the people from the tv station are probaly upset, so it's probaly them who would have to come out with details.
When did you see a president last time that came out and said that he is going to demonstrate everything.

Originally posted by iori_komei
A country being Socialist does not mean it will have a military regime or any sort of dictatorship.
Socialism, the true kind, not the kinds that have been warped to fit into other ideologies,
is democratic in nature.

You are talking theoretical here. There is no pure socialistic society in existence. It cannot exist because it goes against human nature.

As for what it has to do with this thread, you have to ask yourself why such an oil-rich country has such a large incidence of poverty. And why Chavez needs to silence freedom of speech.

Considering things were bad before he was president, and you can't fix things in a few years,
it's not surprising that there are still people in poverty.

And things will never be fixed, using his current tactics of theft from the middle and upper classes. Socialism requires victims to extort from. Sooner or later, you run out of host systems, then the parasites die.

As for the oil rich aspect, well he only nationalized the oil production in the last year or two,
so the flow of money from it is pretty new.

That is one of the characteristics of socialism: you must wait until an industry is profitable before you steal it. Socialism cannot create wealth, it can only extort it from the productive members of society.

In regards to the freedom of speech thing, well, what if it turns out this station is getting
monetary support from say the CIA, I think, in such an instance the shutting down
of the station would be justifiable, however if it is just because of the criticism aspect,
than it is not right.

What if? It has not been proven.

And a truly free nation should be able to stand up to criticism. We in the US allow dissenting groups to be funded from the outside; that's what makes us so strong.

Originally posted by pepsi78

It's the other way, not that I'm taking chaves side, the tv station is the defendent, since the goverment took the station to court.

taken from my post (two posts up)

However, it does not cite a single final judicial or administrative ruling establishing that the channel had in fact committed any of these alleged offenses during its 20–year contract. No one from the channel has been convicted for their alleged complicity in the attempted coup.

Originally posted by jsobecky
You are talking theoretical here. There is no pure socialistic society in existence. It cannot exist because it goes against human nature.

Kibbutz in Israel are an example of a socialist style community (even though its not officially declared as socialism). And many true socialist communities existed during the Spanish war. It can work, but you need to remove the State for it to work.

Originally posted by TheBandit795
............
Anyway.. RCTV committed treason IMO. They deliberately encouraged people to protest against Chavez, where one of the first to refer to the new leader Carmona as "mr President", and for a while after the failed coup, still refered to him as the president. Funny I didn't see an election that got Carmona in office.

So asking for people to protest against Chavez is treason?... Please... i guess everyone in these forums who have protested "peacefully" against any president is a "traitor"....

Originally posted by TheBandit795
And as for those Chavez supporters who where shooting.. They were NOT shooting at anti-Chavez supporters, but at snipers that were shooting at them. The street was empty. The lie that they were shooting at anti-Chavez crowds was perpetrated by RCTV themselves!

Sorry but that is simply BS. In the video of the people who were shooting you can see some of them wearing the red cap of the Chavistas....and when Chavez took control again of the government, the government didn't want to make an investigation into the fatal shooting, even though several of the shooters were caught on photos and video and at least some could very well be identified....

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Besides that in the hours that the coup turned into a failure RCTV refused to broadcast anything showing that. They refused to report to the Venezuelian people that the coup failed. They instead chose to put on Looney Tunes all day. There was never free speech with this station as it was controlled by it's ownsers. Now suddenly the owners of a media corporation censoring information is good? Nonsense.
......

Again, I call you on your claims, because Chavez himself during the protests went on live TV and said the government had to shut down several of the TV stations and he didn't know how long they would have them down.... It was Chavez who did this not the TV stations.....

[edit on 28-5-2007 by Muaddib]

The programme about the coup I watched and mentioned in an earlier post was Chavez: Inside the coup. It was made by an Irish film crew, not from the UK (apologies). I would recommend this to anyone discussing the topic of the coup, if you can find an online copy to watch.
Kinda casts a whole new light on what many news agencies were showing as "fact" about the coup and the shootings at the demonstration.

Here's a brief description about the film:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by Britguy
The programme about the coup I watched and mentioned in an earlier post was Chavez: Inside the coup. It was made by an Irish film crew, not from the UK (apologies). I would recommend this to anyone discussing the topic of the coup, if you can find an online copy to watch.
Kinda casts a whole new light on what many news agencies were showing as "fact" about the coup and the shootings at the demonstration.

Here's a brief description about the film:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Sorry but that "Irish" film is nothing more than a lie... The truth of what Chavez did and said has been posted with corroborating evidence as to what he said and what was done...

The "Irish film" cherry picked what to say and write, and what not to...

It is exactly the same thing as what has been said about "Castro"...by some "English speaking producers/filmakers such as Oliver Stone and even Moore.....

Most if not all communication media in Venezuela is now owned and operated by the Chavistas, and any communication medium which has even tried to criticize Chavez has been shut down or taken over... That says a lot as to what has been happening over there...

[edit on 28-5-2007 by Muaddib]