Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hugo Chavez Takes Over Venezuelan TV Station

page: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Well, inciting a murder attempt on a president is something serious I think.



Prove it....

It has been shown several times already that the laws that Chavez has put does not allow criticism of him or any other political figure....

I guess criticism has now moved into the realm of "inciting murder" according to you and Chavez....




posted on May, 29 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Second Venezuela TV is under fire





Venezuela's government has accused a TV station of inciting a murder attempt on President Hugo Chavez, hours after taking another network off the air.

It said footage shown on Globovision implicitly called for Mr Chavez to be killed. The station denies the claim.

Police fired tear gas and plastic bullets as thousands protested across the country against the earlier closure of Venezuela's oldest TV network.

Mr Chavez said Radio Caracas TV (RCTV) had tried to undermine his government.


news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

the thing is, he claims to be socialist..or apart of the bolivarism movement.

He is far from a socialist or even a communist. Anyone who has read Marx (myself included) will tell you that Chavez doesn't stick to the doctrine. In a Socialist or even Communist state, you aim to overthrow and remove the State. Not make it powerful. This is what Chavez is doing.


Except for the fact that before all power is given to the people, in a Communist system devised by Marx, all power goes to a few people first who "supposedly consolidate all power to the state which then devises how to better "distribute wealth"... "before all this power is supposedly given to the people"...

It is always the same story...



Originally posted by infinite
He is not nationalizing the industry, oil, TV, etc to distribute the wealth, but to gain more control. Of course, he has a good record of distributing the wealth and is now planning to redistribute the land. But thats not the point. Its giving with one hand and taking from the other.


He is consolidating the power. In any, and all Communist systems all power is given to the state, which then "decides what is better to distribute the wealth among the people". Which like always it will mean that most people get less than before, but they all get the same, and the few in power "get control over everything in that country."



Originally posted by infinite
If he was a true socialist, he wouldn't give a damn about how long he stays in power. Heck, he would remove the power he has and give it back to the people.


This is what people like yourself obviously will never understand.

You can't have millions of people in power...because then it would be an inneficient economic system. All infraestructure would be caught up in red tape and in the indecisions which happens when millions of people disagree on what to do, the economy of that system collapses..... which is why even in a Communist system a few people will always have all the power...

The sooner people realize what this means the better it will be for them.

Since from the start in a Communist system all power is being consolidated to the state, at the end nomatter what a few people will be the only ones in power...

Communism does not work, it will never work.

The best economic system is one of free market, where there can be competition and all power is not in the hands of just a few people, but instead the power is divided among different branches of government, with elected officials, which should be representing the people.

Even such an economic system will have flaws, because at the end we are human, and people will disagree.

Any, and every "Communist system", will always create a dictatorship. Nomatter how many times Communists claim "oh, later on the power will be for the people, trust me"....

[edit on 29-5-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Communism does not work, it will never work.


Muaddib, I beg to differ.

It has worked and its possible. Take Spain during the civil war, small communities came together in socialist/anarchist groups.

Kibbutz in Israel are a socialist like structure and it does work. I remember my Sociology Teacher using the Kibbutz as an example of Socialism when it works.

If you break down a country into small communities, or areas, who work and produce together, it will be successful. Without interference from the state.

But when you introduce centralizations, it will not work. You are correct, it leads to a dictatorship. Thats the problem with Marxism because it leads to an autocratic group.

Socialism/Communism will never work if you create a powerful state.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Another democracy takes a big step down the road towards dictatorship. South America has been making a lot of progress on the democracy front over the last couple of decades, but it seems now that we're going back.

Chavez has always had a very questionable view on democracy (he himself was involved in a military coup back in 1992). I suppose we're now seeing his true colours.

He'll keep the masses happy by distracting them using the funds from oil sales. All he wants in return is their freedom. Not much to ask, is it?



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

Second Venezuela TV is under fire




Well, well, well...

Apparently Chavez is going to claim every communication media which disagrees with his policies, and his "Communist state" is trying to get him killed...


What a nice way to get rid of all criticism and all oposition....



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
What a nice way to get rid of all criticism and all oposition....


I fail to see how he can defend himself.

Apparently the station called for his "death"? If that was true, I swear it would be international news.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
....................
If you break down a country into small communities, or areas, who work and produce together, it will be successful. Without interference from the state.

But when you introduce centralizations, it will not work. You are correct, it leads to a dictatorship. Thats the problem with Marxism because it leads to an autocratic group.

Socialism/Communism will never work if you create a powerful state.


Infinite, I have heard that so many times that my ears hurt.


Small communities will create more instability because then the small communities will be fighting amongst each other over control of resources.

There used to be such small communities over two thousand years ago, and such communities were always at war with each other, or were having small raids taking resources from other small communities.

The ancient Celtic tribes are an example of what happens when there are several small communities competing over resources.

We have a lot of information, and examples of what happens when there are numerous small communities all which have autonomous power.

---edited to reflect Celtic tribes over 2,000 years ago are an example---

[edit on 29-5-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
There used to be such small communities a thousand years ago, and such communities were alweays at war with each other, or were having small raids taking resources from other small communities.


Yes, very true and a very good point.

In rural areas, it probably will work like charm, but it will be interesting to see how it would work in major cities and towns. Could the people come together and work as one? I believe they can.

But lets agree to disagree



We have a lot of information, and examples of what happens when there are numerous small communities all which have autonomous power.


The young United States, when it was still apart of the British Empire, worked and operated well together. They even came together to rebel against exploitation. Many of the European Colonies did operate on their own.

Have you heard of the theory called "self sufficient colony"? (I believe thats what it's called) It's not necessarily socialism, but its an example of a community working together without control or influence from the state. Nobody had ruling power, everyone was equal in a local council.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

I fail to see how he can defend himself.

Apparently the station called for his "death"? If that was true, I swear it would be international news.


I agree with you, he can't defend himself.

Now the international community can see that Chavez is doing pretty much whatever he wants.

I remember he used to say, sometime after he got elected, that he would like to be in power for as long as castro has been in power in Cuba, and it seems he is making sure that's exactly what will happen.

So what now? Venezuelans already tried to get Chavez ousted from office by recall referendums but even Chavez has said nomatter what happens in such recall referendums he will not be taken from oiffice.

So what now?



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
So what now? Venezuelans already tried to get Chavez ousted from office by recall referendums but even Chavez has said nomatter what happens in such recall referendums he will not be taken from oiffice.

So what now?


It depends on what he does to his own people and the reaction for the international community.

Could we see the UN raising an eyebrow on drowning the opposition in Venezuela? Will the European Union even make some noise (who are VERY strong on defending citizen rights)

[edit on 29-5-2007 by infinite]



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Muaddib dude you are just paranoid because you grew up in a comunist nation.
France, England , Italy are ran by socialist goverments and they are doing just fine.
As long as you respect democratic values like human rights, free elections then I don't see the problem.
I too am from eastern europe, and even if a grew up in United States before leaving I knew how comunism was, because I left after it was all over, you know this is funny because the guy that helped to get rid of comunism here was a socialist, after a couple of years after he was president with his socialist party his term ran out, free elections took place
and he lost, 3 years later people elected him again, now we have a right wing goverment that favor capitalism.
You are a paranoid person that views every one that are not capitalists as comunists, not that I have something against capitalism I think the 2 idiologies have good points and bad points, but you take it so far that you lable every one that does not think like you a comunist.
People like you are never going to learn what a truly democratic sistem means, but I think your kids got a chance if you have any.
It's that old ideology that never go's away, even if you are against comunism, you grew up in it as a mature person, and you act and think like them, you would go so far that you your self would impose your will on others by force, even if you hate the people that ran your country, you are just like them.........



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Muaddib dude you are just paranoid because you grew up in a comunist nation.
France, England , Italy are ran by socialist goverments and they are doing just fine.


EKKKK!!!!

I don't think Tony Blair will like being called a socialist
he basically gagged the Labour left (even though he did rewrite clause IV by calling labour a "democratic socialist party")..

but, you have to remember, the UK labour party (a traditional socialist party) now supports free markets.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by pepsi78
Muaddib dude you are just paranoid because you grew up in a comunist nation.
France, England , Italy are ran by socialist goverments and they are doing just fine.


EKKKK!!!!

I don't think Tony Blair will like being called a socialist
he basically gagged the Labour left (even though he did rewrite clause IV by calling labour a "democratic socialist party")..

but, you have to remember, the UK labour party (a traditional socialist party) now supports free markets.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by pepsi78
Muaddib dude you are just paranoid because you grew up in a comunist nation.
France, England , Italy are ran by socialist goverments and they are doing just fine.


EKKKK!!!!

I don't think Tony Blair will like being called a socialist
he basically gagged the Labour left (even though he did rewrite clause IV by calling labour a "democratic socialist party")..

but, you have to remember, the UK labour party (a traditional socialist party) now supports free markets.


I too think socialists need to alow free markets to a point, to the point that it does not hurt the little guy that has a small grocery store and has no chance against big guys with bilions and bilions of dolars.
But free market is good, only if competition still exists, when that go's away I guess people with small bussines go broke, so there must be a clause that protects some how small owned bussines

[edit on 29-5-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
I too think socialists need to alow free markets to a point, to the point that it does not hurt the little guy that has a small grocery store and has no chance against big guys with bilions and bilions of dolars.
But free market is good, only if competition still exists, when that go's away I guess people with small bussines go broke, so there must be a clause that protects some how small owned bussines


Free markets do have benefits, but it has bad points too.

But lets not get into it shall we


[edit on 29-5-2007 by infinite]



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Muaddib dude you are just paranoid because you grew up in a comunist nation.
France, England , Italy are ran by socialist goverments and they are doing just fine.


i assure you, i am not "paranoid".

First of all Italy, England and such countries are not really "socialist countries", they are a mix. And such countries are not without flaws.

Look at the problems in those countries when it comes to immigration and rioting.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Look at the problems in those countries when it comes to immigration and rioting.


the UK hasn't had riots for a very long time.

our problem with immigration is no where near as bad as French and majority of it is over hyped by the media.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
...............
The young United States, when it was still apart of the British Empire, worked and operated well together. They even came together to rebel against exploitation. Many of the European Colonies did operate on their own.


Yes, I have heard of self sufficient colonies.

infinite, the history of the United States, and that of other countries was not all "peaceful".

Before the colonies decided to become independent of Brittish rule, there were other wars among the people living in the U.S.

Tribes of Native Americans united with either the French, or the Brittish colonies, or among themselves to fight against the others.

Remember the old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" They should have added in that adage "until our common enemy is conquered".

Enemies in the past, and even now have grouped together many times to fight a common enemy.

The history of every nation is exactly the same. Small tribes fought among each other because of resources, then forged alliances with other tribes which used to be enemies, just so they could fight a common enemy, and after the battle/s with the common enemy was won, the small tribes would go back to fight among each other.

Even in the United States the same thing happened.

Have you ever heard of the Johnson County War? It was a war in Wyoming between farmers and ranchers. Wyoming was not the only place where such a war/battle conflict happened.

en.wikipedia.org...

You see, when there are many autonomous small communities, they all have different rules and laws which often time can be in conflict with the rules and laws of other small autonomous communities, which then would lead to conflicts, and raids, and later on to large wars.

That is the history of "small autonomous communities/tribes", which is one of the reasons why we created large societies. In large societies everyone has to abide by the same laws if they want to be part of such large communities.

Don't get me wrong. I rather stay in a medium-small sized city than a large one, because large cities have problems of their own. But if we had small sized communities all over the world instead of the mayorily large societies we have, we would be living in the "Wild West" once again.


[edit on 29-5-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   


i assure you, i am not "paranoid".

First of all Italy, England and such countries are not really "socialist countries", they are a mix. And such countries are not without flaws.

Look at the problems in those countries when it comes to immigration and rioting.

The 2 economical sistems have bad parts and good parts.
Capitalism has bad points just as much as Socialism does, want me to argue on that?
You should wach that movie made by michael moore called "roger and me"
It's a story about a town called flynt, the town turns and looks like a zombie, like a dead man.

In my opinion capitalism is good as long as there is the spirit of fair play, but 100% capitalism will bring down every one except big corportations.
Since you depend on big corporations that eat small corporations you become a corporate slave, this is the future, because except big corporations there will be nothing else, they will rule your life or you will starve if you're not slave corpotate.

This is the big idea don't you get it, globalisation by corporation, they pay you they own you, you are their little robot, hey just like in comunism.
It's already a harsh enviorment for people that want to open something with the few money they got,not like the old days, people use to make a good buck from small owned bussineses back then.
If you think capitalism is perfect then I beg you to look at the corporate wellfare
, don't get me wrong I would rather be healthy before all things health is first, if you worry about that , and if you have problems with your health then you are in serios problems, because guess what, no one gives a heck about you, to them you are a walking wallet.
Don't worry about france, it's a healthy nation, it's the family doctor and he don't cost a thing, pluss medication is cheap, if I break my leg it will cost me around 20 dolars around here, how much will it cost you?
hey I pay for a pack of malboro $2 dolars from the butique how much do you pay for it?

With no social program kids eat in school practicly steroids at lunch and less natural food, don't tell me people chook there at home, maybe they chook hamburgers?
what can I say real chooked food dude? right, with tomatos that don't have taste and are big as water mellons.
What I'm trying to say is that with no social sistem at all humans are not humans anymore, there needs to be a balance, you are right when you say people in england , france and other europian nations are not 100% socialist but what they don't also want to be is 100% capitalist,just like I said , somewhere in betewen is perfect.


I do favor capitalism just to the limit of stupidity, when people are no longer people but corporate monsters.








top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join