Hugo Chavez: The War On Demcracy

reply to post by solizer
I doubt anyone is a good guy but he was certainly not the demon the USA politicians would have you believe he was.

He has not only left Venezuela as a country free from N American colonisation but encouraged the rest of South America to do the same. I wonder if that is why the USA is so determined to destroy the middle east to feed its oil habit.

His predecessors, puppets of the USA cared only for the rich at the cost of the poor. They kept power by violence and oppression.

Chavez has made the lives of the poor better and given them something his predecessors never thought of. Chavez has given them a future and he managed that with their support. Let's hope they don’t waste it.

So until we are allowed to know the truth and be given enough respect to be able to decided for ourselves how much of a saint or sinner he was you can only judge him against those that came before. By Who his enemies are and why against who his supporters are and why.

He comes out as the winner to me until I see something that changes that.

As for why so many spew so much hatred for him on yahoo? Propaganda works and the USA and its allies paid a lot of money to produce and promote it.

reply to post by nenothtu


Incorrect.

Etymology

The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[15] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.[16][17]
The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[18] Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left anarchism since the 1890s.[19] The term libertarianism is commonly considered to be a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US.[10] Albert Jay Nock and H.L. Mencken were the first prominent conservatives in the US to call themselves "libertarians," which they used to signify their allegiance to individualism and limited government, feeling that Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word "liberal" for his New Deal policies, which they opposed.[20]

wikipedia

Originally posted by 33055
Hi, I felt compelled to register here in order to reply to this very thread.

Would you guys explain to me why Hugo Chavez is a great leader?

I live in Doral,FL. A suburb in Miami-Dade county. Doral is very Venezuelan based. Many of them moved to Doral back in 2003 and since then, the Venezuelans are the majority.

They all left due to Chavez. They all had to leave and transfer their business here. They despise this man. I have talks with them about him Chavez. I even brought up that gas is 6 cents a gallon in Venezuela. They explained to me that even though the gas of gasoline is low, the cost of a comfortable living is high. A Quiksilver shirt sells for 120 dollars in Venezuelan when the worth of the shirt in The States is merely 12 dollars. Needless to say, Doral was packed with happy Venezuelans celebrating his death and wishing Venezuelans a speedy recovery to what Hugo Chavez has done to it.

I'm just curious to know why Hugo Chavez is a great leader because if its because he's against American ideals then that's not really a fair thing to say. He made millions of families migrate out of their own lands. He corrupted elections all the time and even had tanks in case the Venezuelan people would retaliate. I just don't see that as traits of a great leader.

edit on 6-3-2013 by 33055 because: g.e

They think he is great because;

1. They hate America

2, If Chavez is what you say he is, it may mean the USA isn't that bad.


You will see tons of anti-american post here. Not one which is really backed with factual information. For a site that slogan is "Deny Ignorance", there is an awful lot of it.

reply to post by mekhanics


I will take first hand accounts from the people who moved from Venezuela when he came to power. These quotes from people who lived there sure don't share your sentiment.

“We are not celebrating someone’s death,” Mary LaBarca, whose grandmother was dancing outside the restaurant, said in Spanish. “We are celebrating freedom.....”

“We hope this is the path to return our democracy and that hopefully we can have the same country we once had,” said Daniela Calzadilla, who moved from Caracas five years ago. She left because crime in the Venezuelan capital skyrocketed under Chávez’s leadership, she said, and career opportunities dwindled.

Corina Calzadilla, who moved to Weston a decade ago, said she felt bad for Chávez’s children. “The death of a parent is painful,” she said....

At Doggi’s, a Venezuelan fast-food restaurant in The Roads neighborhood of Miami, Nayana Nava took back-to-back calls on her cell phone. “Everyone is calling me, as if it were my birthday,” she said. “Thank God. Finally. We’re free.....”

“There’s so much happiness,” said Pérez, who moved to Weston from Caracas the year Chávez took power. “We’ve been waiting 14 years. I’ve seen how he ruined the country. It’s anarchy....”

“I never wish anyone’s death,” Marino said, “but in this case I did. He poisoned the Caribbean.”

Marino lives in Miami Lakes. He moved to South Florida 15 year ago, he said, because he did not like Chávez. “I have a new life here,” he said, “but I always wish happiness and liberty for my people.”

Chavez was a dictator. not a great leader



Sounds to me that the people who actually are from there, disagree with the posters who watch youtube videos on this site and take them as truth.

reply to post by tide88

Sounds to me that the people who actually are from there, disagree with the posters who watch youtube videos on this site and take them as truth.

That may or may not be true. The fact they had the money to flee to Florida would indicate they were not the poor. So yes they were the losers whereas before they were the winners at the expense of many more. They cared little about freedom when they were at the top.

Maybe if they had treated the poor better then people like Chavez would not have been needed to readdress the balance.

So maybe, just maybe your views are just as wrong as those you disagree with.

Originally posted by Char-Lee

But a fair number of cancers are clearly caused by viral or bacterial infections:

For some of these cancers, nearly 100% of the cases have an infectious link—when researchers check to see if a virus or bacterium is working in the tumor or has left signs of its presence in a patient’s blood, the answer is nearly always yes.

Nor did I deny that - but "infection with cancer" is not a terribly effective assasination tool. It's not in the top ten, or even the top 100.

I don't understand the blindness! Read the historical data on American attacks of leaders they want dead! read the congressional hearing reports on the ice bullet to deliver disease or fake heart attack chemicals.

I would say "trust me" when I say this, but then I really don't care whether you trust me or not. I'm fairly familiar with the methodology, and know about the "heart attack chemicals". I actually already posted about one of them, and how it's done. Chavez does not seem to have died of a heart attack, however. On the other hand, I was once told by someone who knows that "all deaths are heart attacks - you don't die until it stops beating", when I asked him about a particular death, so hell, who knows? In any event, I'd bet everything I own that Chavez was not given cancer by the CIA.

These things are facts not fantasy! It is being done! has been done...what world are you living in?

Another bet I'd be willing to make is that you don't really want an honest answer to that question. I can tell you with all confidence that death by CIA induced cancer IS a fantasy.

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Saddens me that anyone would find it "funny".

I hate that for ya. I'm not responsible for your happiness, and I won't apologize simply because the ludicrous amuses me.

You know if someone was given cancer and didn't die soon enough to make them happy they may inject them with heart attack drug.

Yeah, or, you know, just kill him to begin with and have done with it, instead of playing out this super-spook spy movie fantasy. I dunno about you, but if someone is trouble enough that I wanted them dead, I'm not going to fix 'em up so that they still have a few YEARS to annoy me before they kick the bucket. They'd just take a whiff off the nice clean air and meet their maker a mite sooner.

Now, sure enough, Chavez was an annoying little man, but he wasn't important enough to actually go to the trouble of killing, or he'd have been dead a lot sooner than he was. Seriously - if you're able to inject the heart attack drug at all, what's the point of "infecting them with cancer" in the first place? Real problems are to be dealt with, not fiddled around with, and if they're not a real problem, why mess with them at all?

You really need to read more real straight history!

Uh, yeah, one of us does, and the other one already has real straight history in the rear-view mirror, without benefit of all that book larnin'. The real world is not a spy novel or a text book.

I think the world lost a great man by Hugo`s passing. He really cared about the poor and laborers. He had a crime problem in the nation but still people were willing to stand by him. He showed what South American socialism can do.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Incorrect.

Etymology

The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[15] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.[16][17]
The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[18] Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left anarchism since the 1890s.[19] The term libertarianism is commonly considered to be a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US.[10] Albert Jay Nock and H.L. Mencken were the first prominent conservatives in the US to call themselves "libertarians," which they used to signify their allegiance to individualism and limited government, feeling that Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word "liberal" for his New Deal policies, which they opposed.[20]

wikipedia

Ummmm... oookaaaay...

The post you were responding to said this:

It's possible that the word was coined there, but that's not where the philosophy was born. There was no "left" or "right" when people first experienced freedom.

So what precisely are you claiming to be "incorrect" in it? Are you trying to say that people never experienced freedom until a word had been invented in 1789? That prior to that there were no individuals? That government had no limits at any point before that? What exactly is it you're trying to say that makes my observation "incorrect"?

reply to post by nenothtu


I'm talking about the ideology.
Libertarianism is Left.

reply to post by Kali74


If you say so, Jack. After all, you guys ARE the architects of the Worker's Paradise!

I'm curious as to why you posted a wikiquote that directly contradicts that notion if that's the point you were trying to make.

reply to post by nenothtu


Does it?
If you want to take this to PM's or a new thread let me know, I'm not going to keep talking it in this one.

R.I.H. (Rot. In. hell.) Chavez! To sane sound minds, you wont' be missed. "Don't let me die" lol What courageous words from a 'strong' leader. This man was only in power to feed his own damn ego. He stole $2 billion from his people, and $5 billion annually as political favors to keep himself in power. He was a power hungry, greedy bastard who got what he deserved. Karma can be a total bitch!

reply to post by Kali74


Fair enough - consider it laid to rest. First time I've ever seen conservatives labeled as leftists, but I reckon there's a first time for everything. Strikes me as odd, but then it's YOUR world - I'm just passing through.

Apparently they are going to keep him on display in a glass coffin like other famous people.....

Just like Ho Chi Minh.
Just like Lenin.
Just like Mao Zedong,


....just like Snow White

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by VonDinkinDunken

 

You seem to be grasping at straws. What the hell has a Gorgian demonstration in 1978 got to do with Venezuela?

Media of Venezuela

In 2010 declassified US State Department documents showed over $4m of funding (in the previous 3 years) to Venezuelan journalists and private media opposed to the Bolivarian Revolution, part of a larger $40m funding for opposition groups.[6]

and

In recent years, the audience share of private terrestrial broadcasters has fallen from around 80% in 2000 to around 60% in 2010, with the bulk of the lost audience going to cable and satellite broadcasters, which increased audience share from around 17% to around 33% over the same period. State television's low share, of around 2%, increased to 5%, although the government also makes regular use of cadenas (mandatory interruptions on all channels to show government broadcasts).[7]

Oh, come on. Don't be so freakin idiotic. Obviously, you are quoting me out of context. Go back and read all the other words I included with that sentence, and even the quote I was responding to and your question will be answered.

I'm starting to think you're trolling.

Originally posted by colin42

Originally posted by VonDinkinDunken

Originally posted by Exitt

Originally posted by VonDinkinDunken

There are no pictures and there are no links.

Well then, IT NEVER HAPPENED !



wishing you a wonderful day, rainbows & little pink hamsters

I bet there are an awful lot of Venezuelans who wish they could honestly say the same thing.

Wow another flip flop from you

Experience makes him much more qualified than those who merely speculate on what is or isn't socialism.

All you have supplied as in this post is your speculation.

Tell me did you even bother to look at either of the documentaries posted in this thread?

Wow! You completely ripped my words from their context so you could make a point which has nothing at all to do with the context of my words!!!

The first and second quote were individual responses on two seperate posts to two entirely different topics

Do you regularly twist and distort other people's words to make your points?

Or do you only do this when you're trolling?

After reading every post of this thread...

I'm still not convinced that he was a great leader. A great leader is loved by a majority and doesn't make people leave their country. There's a reason for that.

Originally posted by Exitt

Originally posted by VonDinkinDunken
Not everyone can afford even the cheapest of digital cameras; much less have access to the internet. Also, in most of Caracas, pulling out a camera would certainly draw the unwanted attention of someone with a gun who wants your digital camera. its not a very good idea to let anyone see you with one of you have one.

Look what i found on daily mail (of all places)


CAPTION - Momentous: The crowd held out their mobile phones and cameras
to capture the historic moment

-----------------------------------------

edit on 7-3-2013 by Exitt because: (no reason given)

Did I say no-one in Caracas has a cell phone? I did not.

Three things for you to consider:
1. There are over 3 million Venezuelans in Caracas who are not in your picture
2. There is a difference between what you see in a press photo of pro-regime people at a pro-regime event vs day-to-day life on the street of ordinary Venezuelans .
3. Did you ask yourself why these pictures only seem to show large groups of Chavista's and no one else?

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

Would it surprise you If the US did? seeing they tried to get Castro 8 times and failed....nah you would have only cocked up Chavez's assassination as well...so yes natural causes.

It's entirely possible that he was assassinated. It wouldn't be surprised if he was. Still, there is no proof. At present time, all we have are accusations.