Hugo Chavez & Term Limits
- Thread starter Greed
- Start date
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
Makk,
I told you scraping term limits will be next on his agenda. He wants to be a dictator. During his lifetime, he is going to dig a hole so deep for venezuela it is going to take 100 years to get it out of it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16559935/
Chavez now wants to scrap term limits and lead the OPEC nation for decades.
CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was sworn in Wednesday for a new six-year term that he vows to use to press a radical socialist revolution including nationalizations that have roiled financial markets.
Emboldened by his landslide re-election win, the typically combative anti-U.S. leader has gone on the attack, deciding to strip a private opposition TV channel of its license and take over some major companies owned by foreign investors.
“Fatherland, socialism or death — I take the oath,” Chavez said.
Investors took fright this week at the leftist drive that further consolidates power in the hands of a former coup leader who already controls Congress, the courts and says he has total support in the army and the giant state oil company.
As the United States criticized Chavez’s moves against private property, the stock market lost almost a fifth of its value on Tuesday, debt prices tumbled to a six-week low and the currency changed hands at nearly twice the official rate
Still, buoyed by strong oil revenues and high popularity, the leader, who calls Cuban President Fidel Castro his mentor, is expected to ride out any economic and political storm.
In his political career, the former army officer has survived jail, a coup and a recall referendum.
Chavez wants to lead for years to come
A leading anti-U.S. voice in the world and in the vanguard of a shift to the left in Latin America, Chavez now wants to scrap term limits and lead the OPEC nation for decades.
New Vice President Jorge Rodriguez sought to calm Venezuelans’ nerves over the economic turmoil.
“The stock exchange is more solid than ever. ... It’s nothing,” he told reporters.
Chavez, who rode to Congress for the swearing-in ceremony in an open-top car waving at crowds of supporters, highlighted on Monday his new term’s plans, such as stripping the central bank of its autonomy and taking on special legislative powers.
The opposition has accused Chavez, in power since 1999, of seeking to transform the fourth-biggest oil exporter to the United States into a Cuban-style centralized economy.
“Chavez interprets the election result as giving him a blank check to develop a program that runs against the interests of Venezuela and only serves to benefit himself,” Omar Barboza, a leading opposition official, told Reuters.
Makk,
I told you scraping term limits will be next on his agenda. He wants to be a dictator. During his lifetime, he is going to dig a hole so deep for venezuela it is going to take 100 years to get it out of it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16559935/
Chavez now wants to scrap term limits and lead the OPEC nation for decades.
CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was sworn in Wednesday for a new six-year term that he vows to use to press a radical socialist revolution including nationalizations that have roiled financial markets.
Emboldened by his landslide re-election win, the typically combative anti-U.S. leader has gone on the attack, deciding to strip a private opposition TV channel of its license and take over some major companies owned by foreign investors.
“Fatherland, socialism or death — I take the oath,” Chavez said.
Investors took fright this week at the leftist drive that further consolidates power in the hands of a former coup leader who already controls Congress, the courts and says he has total support in the army and the giant state oil company.
As the United States criticized Chavez’s moves against private property, the stock market lost almost a fifth of its value on Tuesday, debt prices tumbled to a six-week low and the currency changed hands at nearly twice the official rate
Still, buoyed by strong oil revenues and high popularity, the leader, who calls Cuban President Fidel Castro his mentor, is expected to ride out any economic and political storm.
In his political career, the former army officer has survived jail, a coup and a recall referendum.
Chavez wants to lead for years to come
A leading anti-U.S. voice in the world and in the vanguard of a shift to the left in Latin America, Chavez now wants to scrap term limits and lead the OPEC nation for decades.
New Vice President Jorge Rodriguez sought to calm Venezuelans’ nerves over the economic turmoil.
“The stock exchange is more solid than ever. ... It’s nothing,” he told reporters.
Chavez, who rode to Congress for the swearing-in ceremony in an open-top car waving at crowds of supporters, highlighted on Monday his new term’s plans, such as stripping the central bank of its autonomy and taking on special legislative powers.
The opposition has accused Chavez, in power since 1999, of seeking to transform the fourth-biggest oil exporter to the United States into a Cuban-style centralized economy.
“Chavez interprets the election result as giving him a blank check to develop a program that runs against the interests of Venezuela and only serves to benefit himself,” Omar Barboza, a leading opposition official, told Reuters.
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
He's been talking about ditching term limits since he got in office because he knows the MAJORITY of his DEMOCRATIC nation back him. That wasn't unseen by anyone AFAIK. A democratically elected dictator? Never seen that before.
A dictator would be more like the guy who the US recognized illegally as the new unelected head of Venezuela hours after the coup took place.The same guy who had long convos with the US State Dept and CIA hours before a US military plane arrived on the island Chavez was being held on so they could take him to the Dominican Republic.
Oh you mean like the hole dug by white spainiard racists and other assorted europeans for the MAJORITY of Venezuelans? Please man. I understand the multiple failures which possibly await him considering the formidable opposition he faces, not within his own country or continent, but within the US.
Do you know why he wins by landslides????? Cuz he's black, he cares about his own people and he'll end the white ruling elite aristocracy fuckery placed on the back of his people by white spainiard opportunist murderers and other exploiters.
Do you know what the tv station that he's shutting down did along with CNN and the ruling class before the coup? If so its no wonder hes shutting it down.
How long would a national television station last in Brazil or the US that openly advocated the overthrow of the government? Or openly lied about riots and their cause? Or openly worked with rogue generals to lie in fake press conferences regarding loyalty of troops?
I know you live out of country now but you know how many Americans are taught to read with the nation's constiution and it aint many.
Chavez and his party teach reading to all the poor. What do they do it with?
Their constitution aint commie either.
I know how you feel about where politics hits economics and we are on different ends of the spectrum but believe similar stuff. If GW and friends hate him so much he must be a great person
As for Brazil getting shit on. Don't act like he's robbing the disenfranchised people of color who make up Brazil. He undid sweetheart deal bullshit put in place by who? White spainard aristocrats who have been living off the nation's resources for hundreds of years while the majority suffered.
I aint a commie but you know what Chavez does that others havent- he tries. He also has accomplished some things that would never ever happen with the currently jeopardized system of world bank/imf puppets the US has installed in South America.
Brazil could use a little more leftist shit themselves. Fuckin cops crushing homeless children's skulls in the streets? That aint Eden bruh.
on another note-
Im curious- do any black people run anything governmental in Brazil at all? All I see are white portugese running shit but Im not over there or that knowledgeable about it. Just seems like a super segregated on the hush type nation.
eewwll said:
He's been talking about ditching term limits since he got in office because he knows the MAJORITY of his DEMOCRATIC nation back him. That wasn't unseen by anyone AFAIK. A democratically elected dictator? Never seen that before. A dictator would be more like the guy who the US recognized illegally as the new unelected head of Venezuela hours after the coup took place.The same guy who had long convos with the US State Dept and CIA hours before a US military plane arrived on the island Chavez was being held on so they could take him to the Dominican Republic.
Oh you mean like the hole dug by white spainiard racists and other assorted europeans for the MAJORITY of Venezuelans? Please man. I understand the multiple failures which possibly await him considering the formidable opposition he faces, not within his own country or continent, but within the US.
Do you know why he wins by landslides????? Cuz he's black, he cares about his own people and he'll end the white ruling elite aristocracy fuckery placed on the back of his people by white spainiard opportunist murderers and other exploiters.
Do you know what the tv station that he's shutting down did along with CNN and the ruling class before the coup? If so its no wonder hes shutting it down.
How long would a national television station last in Brazil or the US that openly advocated the overthrow of the government? Or openly lied about riots and their cause? Or openly worked with rogue generals to lie in fake press conferences regarding loyalty of troops?
I know you live out of country now but you know how many Americans are taught to read with the nation's constiution and it aint many.
Chavez and his party teach reading to all the poor. What do they do it with?
Their constitution aint commie either.
I know how you feel about where politics hits economics and we are on different ends of the spectrum but believe similar stuff. If GW and friends hate him so much he must be a great person
As for Brazil getting shit on. Don't act like he's robbing the disenfranchised people of color who make up Brazil. He undid sweetheart deal bullshit put in place by who? White spainard aristocrats who have been living off the nation's resources for hundreds of years while the majority suffered.
I aint a commie but you know what Chavez does that others havent- he tries. He also has accomplished some things that would never ever happen with the currently jeopardized system of world bank/imf puppets the US has installed in South America.
Brazil could use a little more leftist shit themselves. Fuckin cops crushing homeless children's skulls in the streets? That aint Eden bruh.
on another note-
Im curious- do any black people run anything governmental in Brazil at all? All I see are white portugese running shit but Im not over there or that knowledgeable about it. Just seems like a super segregated on the hush type nation.
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
Makk..dont confuse my statement. I said he WANTS to be a dictator. I did not say that he currently IS a dictator. Some of the worlds most cruel dictators (hitler as an example) were all VOTED in by the people at one point all under th guise of bringing THEIR people out of plight. Look at the history of the clock towards dictatorship. The pattern is usually the same as he is following. Nationalize industries, concentration power over business, media,etc in the centralized government completely, modify term limitations. This is an obvious one Makk. You are falling for the socialistic jargin and his media postering. Look at how he is changing the law to concentrate power centrally under his direct control. It does not take a rocket scientist to see what is going on here especially considering his stated aspirations. Also consider Castro is his mentor, ally and model. Venezuela is clearly heading toward the tightly regulated, one party communist system of Cuba's Castro.
He will concentrate power within the hands of him and his cronies as he is doing now.. I guarantee you when we fast forward 10 years, the PEOPLE are not only not in a better predicament, but the overall financial situation of the country has worsened.
at the pot calling the kettle black..the coup plotter is Chavez, who as everyone knows tried to overthrow the government in 1992, years before he was elected. Not renewing their license is like President Bush one day announcing that NBC is going off the air because it was involved in a conspiracy against the United States. It is power that he should not even have in the first place. Also the station(venezuelas most popular by the way) contends it never promoted the coup and merely covered it as a news event. The CEO said in an interview that the network executives had not been presented with a formal notice or complaint that they could contest in court or at a public hearing. Chavez restricting freedom of expression at the same time serves as a warning against other news organizations to limit their actions at the risk of facing the same fate. Now, their will be no oppositional talk against Chavez...the road continues. Makk..come on man. I KNOW you are better than that. He is erasing OPPOSITION...period. Why not take it to the courts and handle it democratically and have the very serious claims proven in the courts.
But the Bovarian Revolution is its brother: Socialist...at the end of the day..there is not much difference between the two. Difference between between a lemon and a lime.. may not be the same fruit... but same family, consistency, similar taste, etc.
Sweetheart deals where companies come in and completely development an industry in a nation investing Billions of dollars in investment, resources, etc.
See this is where you and I differ... You seem to support thievery, as long as you dislike the supposedly group that has the assets that are being stolen. The Brasilian entities that owned those conduits of business in Venezuela did not steal those assets. See, you agree with suspending the law if supposedly it helps the PEOPLE. What happens when the government decides to suspend your rights to HELP the people. This is not about money or assets... this is about limited what a government has to the power to do and not do. The Irony of you attempting to argue this from a moral perspective baffles me.
The people are not going to rise out over poverty on the back of SOCIALISM. It never has and never will happen. I will never congratulate a person for HELPING (smh) with a system that has a 100 percent failure rate.
The world banj and IMF shit I agree with though. Those are the same mechanisms that were used to put the U.S. under control of the bankers: The Federal Reserve System.
How do you think Brasil got into its situation in the first place. However, the contrary... well more contrary in a relevant type of view considering this is south america, has been what has made Brasil the beacon of stability in South America for the most part.
How is SOCIALISM going to save the kids in the street
Just answer that one question. I am trying to understand how can anyone... from a historical, economical, metrical, etc point of view come to the conclusion that socialism is the answer to the problems.
Who the hell said BRASIL was EDEN. The ONLY reason why I even mentioned Brasil in this thread was because that dipshit said I was brainwashed by the American Media. My point was...I didnt know how that was possible considering I am not even in the U.S. to be brainwashed by the U.S. media.
I get a rather consistent wide ranging view of the politics of other south american countries because they all border brasil. And the effects of their politics has a much direct affect on this nation than the U.S.
There are a few ministers that head large sectors of the government. However, Brasil is not different than most places around the world...looking at the pictures of the heads of state and their administration around the world..we know what the photo looks like.
However, your thought that SOCIALISM is the answer is incorrect. That shit never has and never will solve the problem.
Brasil is not a segregated nation. It has a form of classism. Man.. I need to take a photo of some favellas for you next time I go. The poor are white, black, etc. No group has a monopoly over poverty in this country.
Makkonnen said:
A dictator would be more like the guy who the US recognized illegally as the new unelected head of Venezuela hours after the coup took place.The same guy who had long convos with the US State Dept and CIA hours before a US military plane arrived on the island Chavez was being held on so they could take him to the Dominican Republic.
Makk..dont confuse my statement. I said he WANTS to be a dictator. I did not say that he currently IS a dictator. Some of the worlds most cruel dictators (hitler as an example) were all VOTED in by the people at one point all under th guise of bringing THEIR people out of plight. Look at the history of the clock towards dictatorship. The pattern is usually the same as he is following. Nationalize industries, concentration power over business, media,etc in the centralized government completely, modify term limitations. This is an obvious one Makk. You are falling for the socialistic jargin and his media postering. Look at how he is changing the law to concentrate power centrally under his direct control. It does not take a rocket scientist to see what is going on here especially considering his stated aspirations. Also consider Castro is his mentor, ally and model. Venezuela is clearly heading toward the tightly regulated, one party communist system of Cuba's Castro.
Makkonnen said:
He will concentrate power within the hands of him and his cronies as he is doing now.. I guarantee you when we fast forward 10 years, the PEOPLE are not only not in a better predicament, but the overall financial situation of the country has worsened.
Makkonnen said:
at the pot calling the kettle black..the coup plotter is Chavez, who as everyone knows tried to overthrow the government in 1992, years before he was elected. Not renewing their license is like President Bush one day announcing that NBC is going off the air because it was involved in a conspiracy against the United States. It is power that he should not even have in the first place. Also the station(venezuelas most popular by the way) contends it never promoted the coup and merely covered it as a news event. The CEO said in an interview that the network executives had not been presented with a formal notice or complaint that they could contest in court or at a public hearing. Chavez restricting freedom of expression at the same time serves as a warning against other news organizations to limit their actions at the risk of facing the same fate. Now, their will be no oppositional talk against Chavez...the road continues. Makk..come on man. I KNOW you are better than that. He is erasing OPPOSITION...period. Why not take it to the courts and handle it democratically and have the very serious claims proven in the courts.Makkonnen said:
But the Bovarian Revolution is its brother: Socialist...at the end of the day..there is not much difference between the two. Difference between between a lemon and a lime.. may not be the same fruit... but same family, consistency, similar taste, etc.
Makkonnen said:
Sweetheart deals where companies come in and completely development an industry in a nation investing Billions of dollars in investment, resources, etc. See this is where you and I differ... You seem to support thievery, as long as you dislike the supposedly group that has the assets that are being stolen. The Brasilian entities that owned those conduits of business in Venezuela did not steal those assets. See, you agree with suspending the law if supposedly it helps the PEOPLE. What happens when the government decides to suspend your rights to HELP the people. This is not about money or assets... this is about limited what a government has to the power to do and not do. The Irony of you attempting to argue this from a moral perspective baffles me.
Makkonnen said:
The people are not going to rise out over poverty on the back of SOCIALISM. It never has and never will happen. I will never congratulate a person for HELPING (smh) with a system that has a 100 percent failure rate.
The world banj and IMF shit I agree with though. Those are the same mechanisms that were used to put the U.S. under control of the bankers: The Federal Reserve System.
Makkonnen said:
How do you think Brasil got into its situation in the first place. However, the contrary... well more contrary in a relevant type of view considering this is south america, has been what has made Brasil the beacon of stability in South America for the most part.How is SOCIALISM going to save the kids in the street
Just answer that one question. I am trying to understand how can anyone... from a historical, economical, metrical, etc point of view come to the conclusion that socialism is the answer to the problems.
Who the hell said BRASIL was EDEN. The ONLY reason why I even mentioned Brasil in this thread was because that dipshit said I was brainwashed by the American Media. My point was...I didnt know how that was possible considering I am not even in the U.S. to be brainwashed by the U.S. media.
I get a rather consistent wide ranging view of the politics of other south american countries because they all border brasil. And the effects of their politics has a much direct affect on this nation than the U.S.
Makkonnen said:
There are a few ministers that head large sectors of the government. However, Brasil is not different than most places around the world...looking at the pictures of the heads of state and their administration around the world..we know what the photo looks like.
However, your thought that SOCIALISM is the answer is incorrect. That shit never has and never will solve the problem.
Brasil is not a segregated nation. It has a form of classism. Man.. I need to take a photo of some favellas for you next time I go. The poor are white, black, etc. No group has a monopoly over poverty in this country.
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
Chavez to expel foreign critics
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6911246.stm
Chavez to expel foreign critics
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. File photo
Mr Chavez said public criticism by foreigners would not be tolerated
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has vowed to expel foreigners who publicly criticise him or his government.
"No foreigner can come here to attack us. Anyone who does must be removed from this country," he said during his weekly TV and radio programme.
Mr Chavez also ordered officials to monitor statements made by international figures in Venezuela.
His comments came shortly after a senior Mexican politician publicly criticised the Venezuelan government.
"How long are we going to allow a person - from any country in the world - to come to our own house to say there's a dictatorship here, that the president is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?" Mr Chavez said during his "Hello, President" broadcast on Sunday.
"It cannot be allowed - it is a question of national dignity," he said.
He did not mention any names, but his comments came on the same weekend that Manuel Espino, president of Mexico's ruling National Action Party, criticised Mr Chavez at a pro-democracy conference in Caracas.
Mr Espino told the conference a plan by Mr Chavez to end term limits on Venezuela's presidency were a threat to democracy.
He accused Mr Chavez of trying to extend his rule indefinitely with the proposed constitutional reform, which would let Mr Chavez run for the presidency again in 2012.
Mr Chavez said the reform package would increase the influence of local community councils and student groups as part of his "21st-Century socialism" revolution.
He is due to present the proposal to Venezuela's National Assembly next month. The assembly consists solely of politicians who back the president.
Mr Chavez was re-elected to a third term last year with support from the millions of impoverished Venezuelans who back his social development policies.
Chavez to expel foreign critics
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6911246.stm
Chavez to expel foreign critics
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. File photo
Mr Chavez said public criticism by foreigners would not be tolerated
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has vowed to expel foreigners who publicly criticise him or his government.
"No foreigner can come here to attack us. Anyone who does must be removed from this country," he said during his weekly TV and radio programme.
Mr Chavez also ordered officials to monitor statements made by international figures in Venezuela.
His comments came shortly after a senior Mexican politician publicly criticised the Venezuelan government.
"How long are we going to allow a person - from any country in the world - to come to our own house to say there's a dictatorship here, that the president is a tyrant, and nobody does anything about it?" Mr Chavez said during his "Hello, President" broadcast on Sunday.
"It cannot be allowed - it is a question of national dignity," he said.
He did not mention any names, but his comments came on the same weekend that Manuel Espino, president of Mexico's ruling National Action Party, criticised Mr Chavez at a pro-democracy conference in Caracas.
Mr Espino told the conference a plan by Mr Chavez to end term limits on Venezuela's presidency were a threat to democracy.
He accused Mr Chavez of trying to extend his rule indefinitely with the proposed constitutional reform, which would let Mr Chavez run for the presidency again in 2012.
Mr Chavez said the reform package would increase the influence of local community councils and student groups as part of his "21st-Century socialism" revolution.
He is due to present the proposal to Venezuela's National Assembly next month. The assembly consists solely of politicians who back the president.
Mr Chavez was re-elected to a third term last year with support from the millions of impoverished Venezuelans who back his social development policies.
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
<font size="5"><center>Chávez seeks changes allowing indefinite rule</font size></center>
Fred Attewill and agencies
Monday August 6, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
The Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, has announced his intention to change the country's constitution, allowing him to rule indefinitely.
The socialist leader used his weekly television programme, Hello President, to confirm widely anticipated plans to scrap the limits on presidential terms.
Mr Chávez said the expected change - which must be agreed by parliament and approved by voters in a referendum - would enhance democracy.
However, critics of his leadership will see it as an attempt to tighten his grip on Venezuela and cement his self-styled "revolution", which has sharply divided opinion at home and abroad.
"It will be the people who make the final decision about how long I stay," Mr Chávez told viewers during a marathon edition of Hello President - which lasted for more than seven hours - yesterday.
Under the current law, the Venezuelan president must leave office when his presidential term expires in 2012. By then, he will have been in power for 13 years.
Mr Chávez had earlier admitted that indefinite re-election would "naturally cause controversy", but said the system was used in many European and Asian countries.
Last month, he announced plans to expel foreigners who criticised his government while in the country, ordering cabinet ministers to monitor statements by visitors and deport them if they "denigrated" his leadership.
He also told the armed services to reflect socialist values, and said education officials must purge the "perversity of capitalism" from school textbooks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2142710,00.html
<font size="5"><center>Chávez seeks changes allowing indefinite rule</font size></center>
Fred Attewill and agencies
Monday August 6, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
The Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, has announced his intention to change the country's constitution, allowing him to rule indefinitely.
The socialist leader used his weekly television programme, Hello President, to confirm widely anticipated plans to scrap the limits on presidential terms.
Mr Chávez said the expected change - which must be agreed by parliament and approved by voters in a referendum - would enhance democracy.
However, critics of his leadership will see it as an attempt to tighten his grip on Venezuela and cement his self-styled "revolution", which has sharply divided opinion at home and abroad.
"It will be the people who make the final decision about how long I stay," Mr Chávez told viewers during a marathon edition of Hello President - which lasted for more than seven hours - yesterday.
Under the current law, the Venezuelan president must leave office when his presidential term expires in 2012. By then, he will have been in power for 13 years.
Mr Chávez had earlier admitted that indefinite re-election would "naturally cause controversy", but said the system was used in many European and Asian countries.
Last month, he announced plans to expel foreigners who criticised his government while in the country, ordering cabinet ministers to monitor statements by visitors and deport them if they "denigrated" his leadership.
He also told the armed services to reflect socialist values, and said education officials must purge the "perversity of capitalism" from school textbooks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2142710,00.html
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
Gunmen have opened fire on students returning from a protest
in Caracas against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's planned reforms
BBC News
Thursday, 8 November 2007
Several people have been reported injured during the clashes, including at least two by gunfire.
The students were protesting against plans to remove presidential term limits, the subject of a referendum.
Thousands had marched peacefully to the Supreme Court and filed a demand for the vote to be suspended.
Unidentified gunmen opened fire on the students as they returned from the march, prompting scenes of chaos as students fled.
One witness told the Reuters news agency that after the initial violence supporters of Mr Chavez drove through the area on motorbikes and shooting into the air.
National Guardsmen had been posted along the march route to stop clashes between protesters and Chavez supporters.
Troops also surrounded the Central University of Venezuela, a centre of opposition to Mr Chavez's government.
'Power grab'
The amendments up for approval in a December referendum include giving the president control over the central back and the creation of new provinces governed by centrally appointed officials.
President Chavez is also proposing to bypass legal controls on the executive during a state of emergency, bring in a maximum six-hour working day, and cut the voting age from 18 to 16.
Supporters say the changes will deepen Venezuela's democracy but critics accuse Mr Chavez of a power grab.
Last week troops used tear gas and water cannon to disperse thousands of students protesting in Caracas against the proposed amendments.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7084262.stm
Gunmen fire on Venezuela protest
Gunmen have opened fire on students returning from a protest
in Caracas against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's planned reforms
BBC News
Thursday, 8 November 2007
Several people have been reported injured during the clashes, including at least two by gunfire.
The students were protesting against plans to remove presidential term limits, the subject of a referendum.
Thousands had marched peacefully to the Supreme Court and filed a demand for the vote to be suspended.
Unidentified gunmen opened fire on the students as they returned from the march, prompting scenes of chaos as students fled.
One witness told the Reuters news agency that after the initial violence supporters of Mr Chavez drove through the area on motorbikes and shooting into the air.
National Guardsmen had been posted along the march route to stop clashes between protesters and Chavez supporters.
Troops also surrounded the Central University of Venezuela, a centre of opposition to Mr Chavez's government.
'Power grab'
The amendments up for approval in a December referendum include giving the president control over the central back and the creation of new provinces governed by centrally appointed officials.
President Chavez is also proposing to bypass legal controls on the executive during a state of emergency, bring in a maximum six-hour working day, and cut the voting age from 18 to 16.
Supporters say the changes will deepen Venezuela's democracy but critics accuse Mr Chavez of a power grab.
Last week troops used tear gas and water cannon to disperse thousands of students protesting in Caracas against the proposed amendments.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7084262.stm
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
By Matthew Walter and Steven Bodzin
Nov. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan student protesters were fired on, resulting in two gun-shot injuries, when they returned to campus today from a march opposing President Hugo Chavez's plan to rewrite the nation's constitution.
Seven more victims suffered other injuries, according to university official. Local television station Globovision broadcast images of protesters running for cover during the incident on the campus of the Universidad Central de Venezuela. One image showed a man in a black leather jacket firing a pistol twice. Interior Minister Pedro Carreno said at 7:10 p.m. New York time that the situation was under control.
Tens of thousands of students marched across downtown Caracas to the Supreme Court building today to petition for a delay to a planned referendum Dec. 2 on Chavez's proposal to modify the constitution. The changes would include eliminating presidential term limits, easing the seizure private property and reducing the powers of state governments.
``I'd like to make a call for reflection,'' Carreno said in a national address. ``We are making a call to the owners of the mass media, to the students, to the leaders of the opposition political parties -- enough already.''
Injuries
Dr. Rodolfo Tapa, dean of the university's medical school, said in an interview with Globovision that two of the victims suffered gun-shot wounds. Others suffered respiration problems caused by tear-gas bombs, among other injuries, Dr. Fernando Alvarado, assistant director of the university's hospital, said on state television.
Students, business groups, the Catholic Church and some of Chavez's former allies have come out against the constitutional plan during the past two weeks.
Protests at the Universidad de Lara, in Lara state, on Nov. 2 turned violent, resulting in two deaths by gunshot.
Carreno said television reports broadcasting images from the crime scene were irresponsible, and are a clear attempt to foment opposition to the government.
``It's inconceivable that in this transcendental moment for the political life of the country, that they would want to harden mass opinion against the reform.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Matthew Walter in Caracas at mwalter4@bloomberg.net ; Steven Bodzin in Caracas at sbodzin@bloomberg.net .
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aQ983Gmv50Gs&refer=latin_america
Venezuela Students Shot After Anti-Chavez Protest
By Matthew Walter and Steven Bodzin
Nov. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan student protesters were fired on, resulting in two gun-shot injuries, when they returned to campus today from a march opposing President Hugo Chavez's plan to rewrite the nation's constitution.
Seven more victims suffered other injuries, according to university official. Local television station Globovision broadcast images of protesters running for cover during the incident on the campus of the Universidad Central de Venezuela. One image showed a man in a black leather jacket firing a pistol twice. Interior Minister Pedro Carreno said at 7:10 p.m. New York time that the situation was under control.
Tens of thousands of students marched across downtown Caracas to the Supreme Court building today to petition for a delay to a planned referendum Dec. 2 on Chavez's proposal to modify the constitution. The changes would include eliminating presidential term limits, easing the seizure private property and reducing the powers of state governments.
``I'd like to make a call for reflection,'' Carreno said in a national address. ``We are making a call to the owners of the mass media, to the students, to the leaders of the opposition political parties -- enough already.''
Injuries
Dr. Rodolfo Tapa, dean of the university's medical school, said in an interview with Globovision that two of the victims suffered gun-shot wounds. Others suffered respiration problems caused by tear-gas bombs, among other injuries, Dr. Fernando Alvarado, assistant director of the university's hospital, said on state television.
Students, business groups, the Catholic Church and some of Chavez's former allies have come out against the constitutional plan during the past two weeks.
Protests at the Universidad de Lara, in Lara state, on Nov. 2 turned violent, resulting in two deaths by gunshot.
Carreno said television reports broadcasting images from the crime scene were irresponsible, and are a clear attempt to foment opposition to the government.
``It's inconceivable that in this transcendental moment for the political life of the country, that they would want to harden mass opinion against the reform.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Matthew Walter in Caracas at mwalter4@bloomberg.net ; Steven Bodzin in Caracas at sbodzin@bloomberg.net .
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aQ983Gmv50Gs&refer=latin_america
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
`
In pictures: Venezuela clashes:
Unknown gunmen have opened fire on students protesters in
the Venezuelan capital, Caracas.
The men, mostly wearing masks, confronted students after a
peaceful demonstration against planned constitutional changes
proposed by President Hugo Chavez.
The two groups clashed, leaving at least eight people injured,
one of them from gunfire.
It is not clear how the violence first erupted, but a number of
gunmen entered the campus of the Central University of Venezuela
on motorbikes.
Angry students threw rocks at a building where the gunmen
were hiding.
They also set fire to benches and threw firebombs.
The students were protesting constitutional reforms being put
to a referendum next month.
Among the changes are amendments to abolish presidential
term limits, and to give the president control over the Central Bank.
`
`
In pictures: Venezuela clashes:
Unknown gunmen have opened fire on students protesters in
the Venezuelan capital, Caracas.
The men, mostly wearing masks, confronted students after a
peaceful demonstration against planned constitutional changes
proposed by President Hugo Chavez.
The two groups clashed, leaving at least eight people injured,
one of them from gunfire.
It is not clear how the violence first erupted, but a number of
gunmen entered the campus of the Central University of Venezuela
on motorbikes.
Angry students threw rocks at a building where the gunmen
were hiding.
They also set fire to benches and threw firebombs.
The students were protesting constitutional reforms being put
to a referendum next month.
Among the changes are amendments to abolish presidential
term limits, and to give the president control over the Central Bank.
`
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
I don't remember Castro keeping power that way. Maybe I need a refresher in Cuban History.
That anti-Chavez shooting bullshit happened before the coup too. It was all a setup by anti-chavez people last time. Wouldnt be surprised if it was the same bullshit all over again. Last time the neutral media showed pics of proChavez people shooting and said they were attacking people and it turned out they were shooting back at antichavez snipers.
oh yeah all dictators get democratically elected and seek memorandums to justify their democratic dictatorship.
I don't remember Castro keeping power that way. Maybe I need a refresher in Cuban History.That anti-Chavez shooting bullshit happened before the coup too. It was all a setup by anti-chavez people last time. Wouldnt be surprised if it was the same bullshit all over again. Last time the neutral media showed pics of proChavez people shooting and said they were attacking people and it turned out they were shooting back at antichavez snipers.
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
^^^
Makk,
You seem to be walking around the point. Most dictators are voted in by their countries (castro, hitler, lenin, stalin, etc) before they systematically depower the system from removing them from office. Dude is systematically ratifying the constitution and policies of his country to not only remain in power indefinitely... but also to have authorative-absolute powers.
^^^
Makk,
You seem to be walking around the point. Most dictators are voted in by their countries (castro, hitler, lenin, stalin, etc) before they systematically depower the system from removing them from office. Dude is systematically ratifying the constitution and policies of his country to not only remain in power indefinitely... but also to have authorative-absolute powers.
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
If you think Im avoiding the point maybe you could be more straight forward with who he is mimicking - is it Castro or Hitler or Stalin or Lenin? Lenin and Stalin were voted in but not by the russian people - I dont consider the Congress of Soviets electing them the same as a popular general election. I thought it was just Castro you said he was idolizing and following in the footsteps of. He clearly has the military and political power do throw out the constitution and impose his will on his nation if he wanted but he doesnt have to- you know why? The majority of the people in his country LIKE HIM AND WHAT HE DOES. That's just the truth.
If he was Castro Jr. he would have killed and imprisoned all the coup leaders and opposition groups long ago.
You're saying the same stuff you always say. But somehow its another year later and it still hasn't become what you say it will.
How am I walking around the point? Term limits? We've talked about that shit for a long time. Hell every politician who thinks he can swing it talks term limits - even Bush.
If you think Im avoiding the point maybe you could be more straight forward with who he is mimicking - is it Castro or Hitler or Stalin or Lenin? Lenin and Stalin were voted in but not by the russian people - I dont consider the Congress of Soviets electing them the same as a popular general election. I thought it was just Castro you said he was idolizing and following in the footsteps of. He clearly has the military and political power do throw out the constitution and impose his will on his nation if he wanted but he doesnt have to- you know why? The majority of the people in his country LIKE HIM AND WHAT HE DOES. That's just the truth.
If he was Castro Jr. he would have killed and imprisoned all the coup leaders and opposition groups long ago.
You're saying the same stuff you always say. But somehow its another year later and it still hasn't become what you say it will.
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
Makk,
It's not like you to avoid facts. Why are you so in denial about this dude? Look at what he is doing systematically. I'm not going to take the time to make long posts in this thread anymore.. as you keeping it up with current events... dude has legislation that may pass next month to suspend term limits.....
There is a big different between "talking limits" and taking the steps to suspend your country's constitution so that you can remain in office indefinitely...come on Makk..be serious man... you act like this dude is your wife man... you see no wrong in any of his actions...
Castro, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, etc... all make the same point..you seem to think just because he was initially voted in by his people that he has no bounds on what he can do to retain his power indefinitely...
Makk,
It's not like you to avoid facts. Why are you so in denial about this dude? Look at what he is doing systematically. I'm not going to take the time to make long posts in this thread anymore.. as you keeping it up with current events... dude has legislation that may pass next month to suspend term limits.....
There is a big different between "talking limits" and taking the steps to suspend your country's constitution so that you can remain in office indefinitely...come on Makk..be serious man... you act like this dude is your wife man... you see no wrong in any of his actions...
Castro, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, etc... all make the same point..you seem to think just because he was initially voted in by his people that he has no bounds on what he can do to retain his power indefinitely...
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
MAKK...
I dont even want to argue this shit with you... but it is clear as day what dude is trying to do in terms of aggregating absolute power into his own hands.... but anyways...back to regurlarly scheduled programming...
MAKK...
I dont even want to argue this shit with you... but it is clear as day what dude is trying to do in terms of aggregating absolute power into his own hands.... but anyways...back to regurlarly scheduled programming...
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
wow - wife? 
you just brought up Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and Castro erroneously for the most part and are beating a dead horse with the term limits shit,resort to name calling with the wife remark and tell me its not like me to avoid facts?
Seriously bruh analyze yourself on that last point. Did he make a power grab militarily to be president for life even though he could easily? No.
Your casting of him as the murderous dictator as of right now is bullshit. Time will tell if he goes ballistic and turns into a Stalin type character. If anything a better leader to compare him to is Khaddafi - he actually shares a whole lot of similarities with him.
You act like he's gonna have you writing the people's software in a hot minute
wow - wife? you just brought up Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and Castro erroneously for the most part and are beating a dead horse with the term limits shit,resort to name calling with the wife remark and tell me its not like me to avoid facts?
Seriously bruh analyze yourself on that last point. Did he make a power grab militarily to be president for life even though he could easily? No.
Your casting of him as the murderous dictator as of right now is bullshit. Time will tell if he goes ballistic and turns into a Stalin type character. If anything a better leader to compare him to is Khaddafi - he actually shares a whole lot of similarities with him.
You act like he's gonna have you writing the people's software in a hot minute
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
How was it erroneous? You said he was "democratically elected"? The others on the list were elected by their people as well..nothing erroneous about the comparison at all. The point you made about him initially being elected is a moot point.
The point is about this thirst for absolute power and reshaping his country's laws in order to accomplish that goal. In that capacity, he is equal to everyone on that list in his aspirations.
I'm not beating a dead horse. I don't even discuss the shit anymore. However, it doesn't even take very little intelligence to see the trend in his decision-making...i told you a long time ago what he was going to do...and every few months someone posts an article that is right along with what I said... nationalizing resources, suspending the constitution, killing term limits..... etc. He is taking a chop one leg off at a time approach to complete control over the country in all aspects
And the comment about "you act like dude is your wife" was not calling you a name in that sense...my bad if it came out wrong... it was meant to be illustrate how you always come to dude's rescue....you always have an excuse for everything with this dude as if he can do no wrong....
How was it erroneous? You said he was "democratically elected"? The others on the list were elected by their people as well..nothing erroneous about the comparison at all. The point you made about him initially being elected is a moot point.
The point is about this thirst for absolute power and reshaping his country's laws in order to accomplish that goal. In that capacity, he is equal to everyone on that list in his aspirations.
I'm not beating a dead horse. I don't even discuss the shit anymore. However, it doesn't even take very little intelligence to see the trend in his decision-making...i told you a long time ago what he was going to do...and every few months someone posts an article that is right along with what I said... nationalizing resources, suspending the constitution, killing term limits..... etc. He is taking a chop one leg off at a time approach to complete control over the country in all aspects
And the comment about "you act like dude is your wife" was not calling you a name in that sense...my bad if it came out wrong... it was meant to be illustrate how you always come to dude's rescue....you always have an excuse for everything with this dude as if he can do no wrong....
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
because chavez was democratically elected and he didn't need a contrived catastrophe like 9-11 or the reichstag fire to consolidate power. other than castro, none of those other leaders had cia attempts to destablize their country and overthrow them. that's basically what solidified chavez's grip on power. people should worry more about musharraf and stop bitching about chavez.
because chavez was democratically elected and he didn't need a contrived catastrophe like 9-11 or the reichstag fire to consolidate power. other than castro, none of those other leaders had cia attempts to destablize their country and overthrow them. that's basically what solidified chavez's grip on power. people should worry more about musharraf and stop bitching about chavez.
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
Know your history man. So was Hitler.... they were all ELECTED....then consolidated power through other means AFTER they got elected by the people...they didn't come into power after a COUP. When don't need to talk about "false flag" etc. It is irrelevant. We are discussing this particular leader and how he is attempting to become an "absolute leader". I've already thoroughly discussed the neo-conservative power grabs in the U.S. in other threads... but none of that shit takes anything away from what Chavez is attempting to pull in Venezuela
Know your history man. So was Hitler.... they were all ELECTED....then consolidated power through other means AFTER they got elected by the people...they didn't come into power after a COUP. When don't need to talk about "false flag" etc. It is irrelevant. We are discussing this particular leader and how he is attempting to become an "absolute leader". I've already thoroughly discussed the neo-conservative power grabs in the U.S. in other threads... but none of that shit takes anything away from what Chavez is attempting to pull in Venezuela
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
as far as them being elected, i acknowledged as much and addressed the rest here:
he didn't need a contrived catastrophe like 9-11 or the reichstag fire to consolidate power
if that was true, then you could have cut the comparisons to hitler now couldn't you? the fear factor is precisely how he got the peoples' consent. that makes it far from irrelevant.
chavez's body count isn't anywhere close to stalin, lenin, or hitler. it was a bad and premature comparison. period. if chavez wanted to murder the opposition, he could have been done that after the first coup attempt and what or who could have stopped him? there is dissent in venezuela and opposition media exists there.
as far as them being elected, i acknowledged as much and addressed the rest here:
he didn't need a contrived catastrophe like 9-11 or the reichstag fire to consolidate power
if that was true, then you could have cut the comparisons to hitler now couldn't you? the fear factor is precisely how he got the peoples' consent. that makes it far from irrelevant.
chavez's body count isn't anywhere close to stalin, lenin, or hitler. it was a bad and premature comparison. period. if chavez wanted to murder the opposition, he could have been done that after the first coup attempt and what or who could have stopped him? there is dissent in venezuela and opposition media exists there.
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
He doesn't even need to do that. He just ratifies the constitution WITHOUT the "false flag". See how easy that was
It doesn't matter what is contrived in order to secure absolute power..whether it's done through false flags or claiming to be a deity like in ancient times. The FACTS of the matter is that Chavez is consistently pushing policy so that he can rule indefinitely with absolute power.
Maybe you are having a problem of disassociation. The issue is that ..just like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin...etc... he is making a very calculated run on absolute power. A majority of dictators BEGIN as elected leaders and slowly eliminate policies that could even remotely eradicate their power. In that sense, Chavez is in the same league with the road he is taking.
Again..you are clearly struggling with reading comprehension and this response is a misdirection at best. Who in this thread mentioned anything about "body count". The debate was on ONE point: being "elected". As if being elected means that a leader can absolve a system of checks and balances for his own gain. I am talking about the thirst of absolute power and eradicated the constitution and any policies that allow for checks and balances so that you can be a dictator indefinitely. Whether you kill 1 person or 1 million people to do it in irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Chavez, and his latest "no term limit" policy, is doing anything within his power so ensure that he can rule Venezuela indefinitely...even if he has to bypass the constitution to do so.
He doesn't even need to do that. He just ratifies the constitution WITHOUT the "false flag". See how easy that was
It doesn't matter what is contrived in order to secure absolute power..whether it's done through false flags or claiming to be a deity like in ancient times. The FACTS of the matter is that Chavez is consistently pushing policy so that he can rule indefinitely with absolute power.
Maybe you are having a problem of disassociation. The issue is that ..just like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin...etc... he is making a very calculated run on absolute power. A majority of dictators BEGIN as elected leaders and slowly eliminate policies that could even remotely eradicate their power. In that sense, Chavez is in the same league with the road he is taking.
Again..you are clearly struggling with reading comprehension and this response is a misdirection at best. Who in this thread mentioned anything about "body count". The debate was on ONE point: being "elected". As if being elected means that a leader can absolve a system of checks and balances for his own gain. I am talking about the thirst of absolute power and eradicated the constitution and any policies that allow for checks and balances so that you can be a dictator indefinitely. Whether you kill 1 person or 1 million people to do it in irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Chavez, and his latest "no term limit" policy, is doing anything within his power so ensure that he can rule Venezuela indefinitely...even if he has to bypass the constitution to do so.
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
wrong. the people vote on it.
there are checks and balances there. he is proposing changes to the constitution that have to be approved. so unless you can prove that he is holding a gun to the heads of the other elected representatives, it is a moot point.
no, my problem is the errant association of chavez with said leaders and, also, your contention that MOST dictators begin as elected leaders is also flawed. some does not equal most.
from wikipedia:
Modern dictators have usually come to power in times of emergency. Frequently they have seized power by coup d'état, but some, most notably Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany achieved office as head of government by legal means (election or appointment), and once in office gained additional extraordinary powers. Mainly Latin American, Asian and African nations, especially developing nations, have known many dictatorships, usually by military leaders at the head of a junta, either claiming to constitute a revolution or to reestablish order and stability.
that is a bad assumption. it is up to the people of venezuela to judge his intent and then decide to agree or disagree to the proposed changes. if the venezuelan people believe that dissolving "checks and balances," as you put it, would help expedite positive reforms within their own country, so be it.
wrong. it matters to the people of venezuela who vote on it. they are more concerned with whether or not chavez is a tyrant.
you just said "within his power" and it is "within his power" to propose and have the people of that country define the extent of that power. if the constitution is changed by the power of the people to allow him to rule indefinitely then who are you, especially a non-resident of venezuela, to say he by-passed the constitution? are we to say the constitution was by-passed to allow women and blacks the right to vote? no. it has been changed 27 times by the will and for the benefit of the people.
He doesn't even need to do that. He just ratifies the constitution WITHOUT the "false flag". See how easy that was
wrong. the people vote on it.
there are checks and balances there. he is proposing changes to the constitution that have to be approved. so unless you can prove that he is holding a gun to the heads of the other elected representatives, it is a moot point.
no, my problem is the errant association of chavez with said leaders and, also, your contention that MOST dictators begin as elected leaders is also flawed. some does not equal most.
from wikipedia:
Modern dictators have usually come to power in times of emergency. Frequently they have seized power by coup d'état, but some, most notably Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany achieved office as head of government by legal means (election or appointment), and once in office gained additional extraordinary powers. Mainly Latin American, Asian and African nations, especially developing nations, have known many dictatorships, usually by military leaders at the head of a junta, either claiming to constitute a revolution or to reestablish order and stability.
that is a bad assumption. it is up to the people of venezuela to judge his intent and then decide to agree or disagree to the proposed changes. if the venezuelan people believe that dissolving "checks and balances," as you put it, would help expedite positive reforms within their own country, so be it.
wrong. it matters to the people of venezuela who vote on it. they are more concerned with whether or not chavez is a tyrant.
you just said "within his power" and it is "within his power" to propose and have the people of that country define the extent of that power. if the constitution is changed by the power of the people to allow him to rule indefinitely then who are you, especially a non-resident of venezuela, to say he by-passed the constitution? are we to say the constitution was by-passed to allow women and blacks the right to vote? no. it has been changed 27 times by the will and for the benefit of the people.
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
Exactly. Are you getting the point.... the Germans voted for all those ratifications that Hitler made until they unknowingly surrendered their country over to a dictator.
This is the sentiment of an "apologist".. did Hitler hold a gun to the head of the germans...the guns didn't come out until after they surrendered their power.
There are checks and balances there NOW...however, if his legislations continues to pass...the checks and balances will not continue to exist...he is now pushing beyond nationalization of industry and now looking to directly control the central banks...and now he is attempting to eliminate term limits so that he can rule indefinitely. The painting is on the wall whether you admit to it being there or not.
Do you understand what makes a point "moot"? There is a logical framework used to justify the use of that term. Your reply didn't comply.
The associate is not fallacious. Chavez, as well as the others I mentioned, were all elected heads of states..who then later went on to claim absolute power.
Chavez is also an elected head of state...who is showing through his legislation that he wants indefinite and absolute power over his country. The means used are irrelevant. The end-game is the same...absolutism.
Most dictators in modern times come to power as elected officials....even more so now during the last several decades.
The elimination of checks and balances is not something in the real of "relativism". If you have even a rudimentary understanding of philosophy, I don't need to explain that. That is judged by the policy. The policy he is promoting speaks for itself. It doesn't matter if one person or 1 billion people think it qualifies as so. There is no relativism or dependency of "large numbers" that has any effect on the fact of whether a policy eliminates checks and balances. If a policy is proposed that in effect thwarts a system that previously relied on several layers of recourse to determine what is lawful or not, it is working against checks and balances...
You can't be that dense..you can't be. We are taking about semantics...The semantics of absolute power...why do you keep running to relativistic theory to support your argument when we are speaking on objective reality. What someone does with that power is another argument all together.
Whether you kill people or not does not determine whether or not you are a dictator. It may be a quality of "some dictators", but by definition, you do not need to be a "killer" to qualify. Do you understand what a dictator is by definition? Then tell whether the murder count matters?
He is attempting to eradicate checks and balances within the system for his own political gain. Is the constitution being modified to "help the people"? A damn 2 year old knows the only reason this is being proposed for modification is to further Chavez' power play in Venezuela..otherwise..what is the point of it?
The modification is not the problem... the reason for the modification is the problem and the result of the modification is an even further problem...
Exactly. Are you getting the point.... the Germans voted for all those ratifications that Hitler made until they unknowingly surrendered their country over to a dictator.
This is the sentiment of an "apologist".. did Hitler hold a gun to the head of the germans...the guns didn't come out until after they surrendered their power.
There are checks and balances there NOW...however, if his legislations continues to pass...the checks and balances will not continue to exist...he is now pushing beyond nationalization of industry and now looking to directly control the central banks...and now he is attempting to eliminate term limits so that he can rule indefinitely. The painting is on the wall whether you admit to it being there or not.
Do you understand what makes a point "moot"? There is a logical framework used to justify the use of that term. Your reply didn't comply.
The associate is not fallacious. Chavez, as well as the others I mentioned, were all elected heads of states..who then later went on to claim absolute power.
Chavez is also an elected head of state...who is showing through his legislation that he wants indefinite and absolute power over his country. The means used are irrelevant. The end-game is the same...absolutism.
Most dictators in modern times come to power as elected officials....even more so now during the last several decades.
The elimination of checks and balances is not something in the real of "relativism". If you have even a rudimentary understanding of philosophy, I don't need to explain that. That is judged by the policy. The policy he is promoting speaks for itself. It doesn't matter if one person or 1 billion people think it qualifies as so. There is no relativism or dependency of "large numbers" that has any effect on the fact of whether a policy eliminates checks and balances. If a policy is proposed that in effect thwarts a system that previously relied on several layers of recourse to determine what is lawful or not, it is working against checks and balances...
You can't be that dense..you can't be. We are taking about semantics...The semantics of absolute power...why do you keep running to relativistic theory to support your argument when we are speaking on objective reality. What someone does with that power is another argument all together.
Whether you kill people or not does not determine whether or not you are a dictator. It may be a quality of "some dictators", but by definition, you do not need to be a "killer" to qualify. Do you understand what a dictator is by definition? Then tell whether the murder count matters?
He is attempting to eradicate checks and balances within the system for his own political gain. Is the constitution being modified to "help the people"? A damn 2 year old knows the only reason this is being proposed for modification is to further Chavez' power play in Venezuela..otherwise..what is the point of it?
The modification is not the problem... the reason for the modification is the problem and the result of the modification is an even further problem...
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
When was Castro elected? Like I said bruh - ERRONEOUS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/1/newsid_2479000/2479867.stm
Castro didn't come to power via any election. He came to power via armed struggle and stayed there. He said he'd have elections at first but always pushed it back. Clearly Chavez has not duplicated any of the actions of the persons you posted and that list is pretty incindiary considering some of those guys killed millions of people.
Initially? The only reason he is in power is because of his being democratically elected in fair elections right? How can you claim he is a dictator/war criminal to be if he isn't doing anything undemocratic? Hardly a moot point since elections aren't abolished, he hasn't blown up parliament or had a kristallnacht or setup a congress of soviets.
wtf? Terrible leap. What nations do not reshape their laws to suit themselves? I'm not familiar with such static systems. What evidence do you have to backup your claims about his Hitleresque thirst for power? Youre wylin out. Break it down if you have proof otherwise how can anyone take shit like that seriously? You sure you arent talking about Pol Pot instead of Hugo Chavez?
When did Chavez suspend the constitution???????????? That's a newsflash I surely missed.
You have some links for that? Google draws a blank. How did he slip that one by?
Hold up. If he suspended the constitution why would he pursue changing laws democratically? Doesn't make sense. In his buckwild thirst for power wouldnt he just do what he wants since his Hitler like dictator mentality would pretty much control him right?
Like I said Khaddaffi. He's not the first indigenous leader to nationalize resources after the removal of colonial rulers or their descendants.
Im not saying he can do no wrong. I dont like Khadaffi and he literally is the South American Khadaffi down the line except he didnt come to power in a coup because he failed in that attempt.
Im sure he does plenty of shit I couldnt stomach morally. It goes with the job. He's attempting to rebuild his nation after centuries of colonial oppression- thats a dirty fucked up job. He's a better leader than anyone I see in office in my country so maybe thats why my standards are lower
He may be all the things you say, but you merely saying it is so does not make it so. I could easily see him grabbing all power if he was confronted militarily by the US or faced with some other great threat so I dont think youre nuts in your analysis. I just dont see the majority of his nation worse off under his bullshit oppression(if it manifests itself) than I do under the old style.
When was Castro elected? Like I said bruh - ERRONEOUS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/1/newsid_2479000/2479867.stm
Castro didn't come to power via any election. He came to power via armed struggle and stayed there. He said he'd have elections at first but always pushed it back. Clearly Chavez has not duplicated any of the actions of the persons you posted and that list is pretty incindiary considering some of those guys killed millions of people.
Initially? The only reason he is in power is because of his being democratically elected in fair elections right? How can you claim he is a dictator/war criminal to be if he isn't doing anything undemocratic? Hardly a moot point since elections aren't abolished, he hasn't blown up parliament or had a kristallnacht or setup a congress of soviets.
wtf? Terrible leap. What nations do not reshape their laws to suit themselves? I'm not familiar with such static systems. What evidence do you have to backup your claims about his Hitleresque thirst for power? Youre wylin out. Break it down if you have proof otherwise how can anyone take shit like that seriously?
You sure you arent talking about Pol Pot instead of Hugo Chavez? You are beating a dead horse imo because you are still discussing it and you aren't the first person to forward this argument about a power grab. Your friend(sarcasm) GW and his folks often say the same shit about him.
When did Chavez suspend the constitution???????????? That's a newsflash I surely missed.
You have some links for that? Google draws a blank. How did he slip that one by?
Hold up. If he suspended the constitution why would he pursue changing laws democratically? Doesn't make sense. In his buckwild thirst for power wouldnt he just do what he wants since his Hitler like dictator mentality would pretty much control him right?
Like I said Khaddaffi. He's not the first indigenous leader to nationalize resources after the removal of colonial rulers or their descendants.
Im not saying he can do no wrong. I dont like Khadaffi and he literally is the South American Khadaffi down the line except he didnt come to power in a coup because he failed in that attempt.
Im sure he does plenty of shit I couldnt stomach morally. It goes with the job. He's attempting to rebuild his nation after centuries of colonial oppression- thats a dirty fucked up job. He's a better leader than anyone I see in office in my country so maybe thats why my standards are lower
He may be all the things you say, but you merely saying it is so does not make it so. I could easily see him grabbing all power if he was confronted militarily by the US or faced with some other great threat so I dont think youre nuts in your analysis. I just dont see the majority of his nation worse off under his bullshit oppression(if it manifests itself) than I do under the old style.
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
these dudes are publicly saying its cool to torture people. If that aint the wrong writing on the wall I dont know what is.
Have a good safe trip. Be on point shit gets blown up a few times a year round there.
id do what im already planning on doing regardless of what bush does. why does he need to be in power? only two families have led this nation* since 1988. Im already doing what I'd be doing if Bush changed term limits because shit is already that bad here.
these dudes are publicly saying its cool to torture people. If that aint the wrong writing on the wall I dont know what is.
Have a good safe trip. Be on point shit gets blown up a few times a year round there.
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
That question wasn't for you... it was for the other dude because of something he wrote in another person
That question wasn't for you... it was for the other dude because of something he wrote in another person
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
no jackass. the fucking reichstag was blown up (a la wtc) to create the environment that facilitated that. you keep leaving this part out. one second you say "false flag doesn't matter because we are talking about one particular leader" as if these events unfold in some vacuum, the next second you compare him to hitler whose unchecked power was directly tied to a false flag event. fear and paranoia was the gun pointed at the german peoples' head. do you think the german people voted on storm troopers? hitler was able to silence the opposition from the reichstag fires. do you get it now?
so one second a majority vote for an elected official is not necessarily the best option because it can yield an oppressive leader, but checks and balances from elected officials influenced by outside interests are any less oppressive? you are talking in circles and don't even realize it. think dude. you are taking an imaginary set of ideals and imposing them on the reality of another people. you are not fooling anyone.
let me be clear, democracy works until the elected officials become influenced by money. then democracy becomes a guise for an oligarchy or nepotism. in that instance, it is debatable whether democracy is best for the people. a dictator, whether you want to include monarchy or not, just might be the best solution for a state until it disintegrates into nepotism.
it is a reason for the venezuelan people to be skeptical, yes. that is why they must use their judgement to determine if the usefulness of the checks and balances in expediting the change to better their lives. if they determine it is a hindrance, then so be it.
somewhere along the line you lost context.
the last part is correct, but go back and read, no they haven't. there have been more dictators from coups in latin america, africa, and asia. the cia has put more dictators in power than dictators that achieved power through elections.
which is why the venezuelan people without a gun to their head just might approve it?
the objective reality is that when i go to vote in america, i am voting for a leader whom i believe to to do what is right for the benefit of my country. what someone in turkey, argentina, brazil, germany, or laos thinks about my vote is irrelevant. would i vote for bush to be given that kind of power? fuck no. if a leader came along who epitomized my ideals and showed and proved as much but whose executive power was hindered by unnecessary legislative checks and balances then fuck checks and balances. in that case, i just might.
now you go back to semantics. fine. i could post the definition of dictators, but you need to understand that it is just a word whose meaning and context have evolved the mean something negative. do you understand that there are dictators who are considered benevolent? there are no benevolent tyrants. that is the point. would you rather choose your own dictator or allow another country to choose your tyrant?
again, you've made the same bad assumption over and over again. the phrase "for his own political gain" rings a bell here.
you mentioned the point of it in the form of a question in the first sentence. how does he benefit? does he get more bitches? more money? is he planning on invading other countries? qualify this statement. any 2 year old can namecall and make erroneous assumptions without justifying them.
brilliant! thats the most on-point thing you've said and that's precisely my point. you just made my fucking day. the reality is that ultimately it is up to the venezuelan people to decide on the merits of said modification by weighing the example and effectiveness of their leader with respect to history.
peace.
no jackass. the fucking reichstag was blown up (a la wtc) to create the environment that facilitated that. you keep leaving this part out. one second you say "false flag doesn't matter because we are talking about one particular leader" as if these events unfold in some vacuum, the next second you compare him to hitler whose unchecked power was directly tied to a false flag event. fear and paranoia was the gun pointed at the german peoples' head. do you think the german people voted on storm troopers? hitler was able to silence the opposition from the reichstag fires. do you get it now?
so one second a majority vote for an elected official is not necessarily the best option because it can yield an oppressive leader, but checks and balances from elected officials influenced by outside interests are any less oppressive? you are talking in circles and don't even realize it. think dude. you are taking an imaginary set of ideals and imposing them on the reality of another people. you are not fooling anyone.
let me be clear, democracy works until the elected officials become influenced by money. then democracy becomes a guise for an oligarchy or nepotism. in that instance, it is debatable whether democracy is best for the people. a dictator, whether you want to include monarchy or not, just might be the best solution for a state until it disintegrates into nepotism.
it is a reason for the venezuelan people to be skeptical, yes. that is why they must use their judgement to determine if the usefulness of the checks and balances in expediting the change to better their lives. if they determine it is a hindrance, then so be it.
somewhere along the line you lost context.
the last part is correct, but go back and read, no they haven't. there have been more dictators from coups in latin america, africa, and asia. the cia has put more dictators in power than dictators that achieved power through elections.
which is why the venezuelan people without a gun to their head just might approve it?
the objective reality is that when i go to vote in america, i am voting for a leader whom i believe to to do what is right for the benefit of my country. what someone in turkey, argentina, brazil, germany, or laos thinks about my vote is irrelevant. would i vote for bush to be given that kind of power? fuck no. if a leader came along who epitomized my ideals and showed and proved as much but whose executive power was hindered by unnecessary legislative checks and balances then fuck checks and balances. in that case, i just might.
Whether you kill people or not does not determine whether or not you are a dictator. It may be a quality of "some dictators", but by definition, you do not need to be a "killer" to qualify. Do you understand what a dictator is by definition? Then tell whether the murder count matters?
now you go back to semantics. fine. i could post the definition of dictators, but you need to understand that it is just a word whose meaning and context have evolved the mean something negative. do you understand that there are dictators who are considered benevolent? there are no benevolent tyrants. that is the point. would you rather choose your own dictator or allow another country to choose your tyrant?
again, you've made the same bad assumption over and over again. the phrase "for his own political gain" rings a bell here.
you mentioned the point of it in the form of a question in the first sentence. how does he benefit? does he get more bitches? more money? is he planning on invading other countries? qualify this statement. any 2 year old can namecall and make erroneous assumptions without justifying them.
brilliant! thats the most on-point thing you've said and that's precisely my point. you just made my fucking day. the reality is that ultimately it is up to the venezuelan people to decide on the merits of said modification by weighing the example and effectiveness of their leader with respect to history.
peace.
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
Slow up and do a search on my username brah. I have probably forgotten more than you know. Makk is on your side in this post....ask him about the last person that got out of line in an argument with me.... Stick to your point.
You started your entire argument on a fallacious point: The Ad Hominen attack
Do a search on a post called "The Real Reason why we are in Iraq". I wrote it here years ago. I was in Baghdad in October 2003. I'm not in the military. You can't tell me anything about that situation and the neo-conservatives that I haven't seen first hand or already proposed on this very board. Slow down brah. Don't take a debate and then get yourself in way over your head. I don't respond kindly to insults. I'm on vacation which means I will give you a pass this time.
Maybe you need to take a lesson in argumentation.
If you are not clear.
Was Hitler or was he not elected by his people and then systemically promoted policy in order to become an absolute ruler.
The Why, If, etc. is irrelevant champ. Whether they were duped or not under a false flag is irrelevant. It does not change the fact that HE WAS VOTED into power.
All that other bullshit rambling is a smokescreen..it does not change the fact of what we are debating. Nice try... but that type of shit does not work on me. I don't let people cloud the argument with baseless suppositions.
What the hell are you talking about?
What imaginary set of ideas. Do you want to argue Democracy vs. any form of statism? Do a search.. I've already done that argument several times. I don't have the inclination to have it anymore on this board and it was not the argument here.
You clearly suffer with clarify.
To get back to the point.
Is Chavez or is he not promoting policy that directly helps him become the ruler of Venezuela for indefinite amount of time. Is he or is he not promoting policy that promotes the aggregation of more power into his hands?
Answer that. Keep the relativism talk for a philosophy message board.
The irony if you using the constitution and slavery argument and then arguing for relativism is not only a huge contradiction but laughable. You can't have your cake and eat it to in an objective world.
Why is concentrated power in the hands of one individual who has the power to deny people individual rights ever the best solution? please answer that
The first question, with the response, was all that needed to be said.
See post above. You lost context. I've been extremely clear on my point. In an emotional tirade to defend Chavez, you've leaned on relativism.
Please see my post about the CIA...their involvement in the Afghan Wars and my long post about about the book: "Ghost Wars" It does not change the fact that Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, etc were elected officials and those were the ones I gave. We can start an entirely new thread on all the fuckery that the CIA has been behind..but that is not the point of this thread.
Do you know the irony of many of our CIA implants..they were often "elected"...
Be serious man..be serious... The Venezuelan people are much less educated than americans. Now, go to your average American and ask them what was in the Patriot Act? Even our Senate passed it without feeling examining it. Do you think Chavez has a bill in placed called the " I can rule until I die" bill in front of the people... However..the photos that Que posted show to you that there are many Venezuelans that see what is going on and will oppose this power play by Chavez.
I don't care of a damn angel opened the sky and said this particular person would be the best president of all time.. I would never vote to give one person absolute power.
You do realize that an absolute ruler has just that.power of your life... individual rights cease to exist...you become a property of the state...and when the state is controlled by one individual..that person literally has a mortgage on your life as all natural and individual rights cease to exist...literally...
See point above. I don't believe in absolutism PERIOD. I just came from Egypt...two weeks ago (going to make a long post about...you also mentioned Brasil (check my Brasil 303 post) but getting back to Egypt...many Egyptian rulers,specifically Rhamsees II, were considered benevolent...and even to this day Egyptians consider him the greatest Egypt that ever lived... HOWEVER, I still don't agree at all...on any principle..with absolutism...or statism.. I don't believe there is ever a warrant for giving a person or institution absolute control over your being ..and when you have a dictator...you have absolutely that.
My argument is not about intentions. My argument is about absolutism: period. I don't care what the ruler does with the power when he has it.... he should never have the power to begin with. I've already typed pages on that argument..don't care to retype it..do a search on my username or "statism" to reread the shit if you want to know my position on it.
Before you say I went off point...YOu mentioned this...I didn't start it..I just expounded on your point.
For what other reason is there to suspend term limits
There is only one result when using logical deduction on that.... unless you want to offer an alternative
First of all...no one namedcalled in this thread but you.
However, how does any ruler benefit from consolidating more power into this hands... he wants to prolong his fucking rule...that's the most important benefit..fuck out of here dumbing this argument down talking about "will he get more bitches"
@ you thinking that statement helped you
Slow up and do a search on my username brah. I have probably forgotten more than you know. Makk is on your side in this post....ask him about the last person that got out of line in an argument with me.... Stick to your point.
You started your entire argument on a fallacious point: The Ad Hominen attack
Do a search on a post called "The Real Reason why we are in Iraq". I wrote it here years ago. I was in Baghdad in October 2003. I'm not in the military. You can't tell me anything about that situation and the neo-conservatives that I haven't seen first hand or already proposed on this very board. Slow down brah. Don't take a debate and then get yourself in way over your head. I don't respond kindly to insults. I'm on vacation which means I will give you a pass this time.
Maybe you need to take a lesson in argumentation.
If you are not clear.
Was Hitler or was he not elected by his people and then systemically promoted policy in order to become an absolute ruler.
The Why, If, etc. is irrelevant champ. Whether they were duped or not under a false flag is irrelevant. It does not change the fact that HE WAS VOTED into power.
All that other bullshit rambling is a smokescreen..it does not change the fact of what we are debating. Nice try... but that type of shit does not work on me. I don't let people cloud the argument with baseless suppositions.
What the hell are you talking about?
What imaginary set of ideas. Do you want to argue Democracy vs. any form of statism? Do a search.. I've already done that argument several times. I don't have the inclination to have it anymore on this board and it was not the argument here.
You clearly suffer with clarify.
To get back to the point.
Is Chavez or is he not promoting policy that directly helps him become the ruler of Venezuela for indefinite amount of time. Is he or is he not promoting policy that promotes the aggregation of more power into his hands?
Answer that. Keep the relativism talk for a philosophy message board.
The irony if you using the constitution and slavery argument and then arguing for relativism is not only a huge contradiction but laughable. You can't have your cake and eat it to in an objective world.
Why is concentrated power in the hands of one individual who has the power to deny people individual rights ever the best solution? please answer that
The first question, with the response, was all that needed to be said.
See post above. You lost context. I've been extremely clear on my point. In an emotional tirade to defend Chavez, you've leaned on relativism.
Please see my post about the CIA...their involvement in the Afghan Wars and my long post about about the book: "Ghost Wars" It does not change the fact that Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, etc were elected officials and those were the ones I gave. We can start an entirely new thread on all the fuckery that the CIA has been behind..but that is not the point of this thread.
Do you know the irony of many of our CIA implants..they were often "elected"...
Be serious man..be serious... The Venezuelan people are much less educated than americans. Now, go to your average American and ask them what was in the Patriot Act? Even our Senate passed it without feeling examining it. Do you think Chavez has a bill in placed called the " I can rule until I die" bill in front of the people... However..the photos that Que posted show to you that there are many Venezuelans that see what is going on and will oppose this power play by Chavez.
I don't care of a damn angel opened the sky and said this particular person would be the best president of all time.. I would never vote to give one person absolute power.
You do realize that an absolute ruler has just that.power of your life... individual rights cease to exist...you become a property of the state...and when the state is controlled by one individual..that person literally has a mortgage on your life as all natural and individual rights cease to exist...literally...
See point above. I don't believe in absolutism PERIOD. I just came from Egypt...two weeks ago (going to make a long post about...you also mentioned Brasil (check my Brasil 303 post) but getting back to Egypt...many Egyptian rulers,specifically Rhamsees II, were considered benevolent...and even to this day Egyptians consider him the greatest Egypt that ever lived... HOWEVER, I still don't agree at all...on any principle..with absolutism...or statism.. I don't believe there is ever a warrant for giving a person or institution absolute control over your being ..and when you have a dictator...you have absolutely that.
My argument is not about intentions. My argument is about absolutism: period. I don't care what the ruler does with the power when he has it.... he should never have the power to begin with. I've already typed pages on that argument..don't care to retype it..do a search on my username or "statism" to reread the shit if you want to know my position on it.
Before you say I went off point...YOu mentioned this...I didn't start it..I just expounded on your point.
For what other reason is there to suspend term limits
There is only one result when using logical deduction on that.... unless you want to offer an alternative
First of all...no one namedcalled in this thread but you.
However, how does any ruler benefit from consolidating more power into this hands... he wants to prolong his fucking rule...that's the most important benefit..fuck out of here dumbing this argument down talking about "will he get more bitches"
@ you thinking that statement helped you
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
The rest of your response wasn't even necessary if you agree with that.
And @ you thinking you can give me a lesson on U.S. foreign policy.
The reason for the mention of the post was to even make the reference to the false flag meaningful. Read that post if you want to know the reason reason WHY we had that false flag (WTC). It should be all so clear NOW but no one made the connection when I made the post years ago. You, as well, are probably referring to a false flag (wtc) and there is a good chance that you don't even know the real reason why it occurred and what was really meant to be eroded in the process.
You obviously didn't read my posts I pointed you to brah.
"interesting, so you are in principle an absolutist anti-absolutist? "
In an attempt to be clever, your contradiction in terms fails. However, I don't have time to put them into a logical framework and explain why as this applies to metaphysics. This is metaphysics as applied in philosophy and fundamentally involves political systems. Does believing an axiom make you an absolutist?
I try to stay away from this long-winded shit on BGOL now..... you can chat for days and everyone walks away with the same opinion they came to the discussion with..regardless of that is said.
The reality of the matter is that you don't disagree with my reply to Que's post. The rest of it is all supposition and really all unnecessary. You and I could go back and forth like this for years...
You wrote:
"thus, with just one example (or 27 depending on your perspective), my implication was that, in and of itself, a change in the constitution is not necessarily bad with the condition that the people willingly agree to it. how relativism seeps into the discussion bewilders me."
Because you don't know what I mean by relativism.
"Relativism, the philosophical view that the meaning and value of human beliefs and behaviors have no absolute reference"
Your entire argument (If Venezuelans agree to it, then it is ok) is based on a relativistic premise. If Venezuelans also agree to give Chavez the authority to commit genecide, is it ok because they have agreed to it as a majority? If Americans vote and agree to give Bush the authority to invade Iran, it is Ok because "it works for Americans". See how easy it is to break that. But again, that is an entire new argument about moral relativism....
I'm done with this thread.
but I will at least answer your questions
You wrote
"he is under the microscope already. wouldn't you agree that it would be exponentially easier for chavez to be deposed if he becomes absolute ruler and doesn't live up to his part of the bargain? aren't the powers that be salivating at any excuse to invade venezuela and take control of their oil by proxy? in a world of limited natural resources, thats the check and balance right there."
I don't think so personally. I wouldn't agree with that. The invasion on Iraq has been an abysmal failure and has only furthered the pressure on the U.S. dollar. The reality of the matter is that although much of our "representatives" and our citizens were duped supporting the war in Iraq, there is no room to duping the American population into another war. "Pre-emptive" theory is not going to cut it either. And there is nothing (as even outrageously flawed as linking Saddam and Bin Laden (enemies) that the New American Century could link him to that could even stir up as much paranoia as the entire 9/11 situation. That type of "toppling" of a dictator through military means is not going to happen in the near future under similar circumstances. I don't think that Chavez really fears a military invasion. I'm sure he know that there are individuals and organizations that would like to see him dead... but it would not be through a military invasion...although I love how he talks about fighting Bush on the battlefield man to man to whip up the emotions of Venezuelans..
So I think his main concern (in terms of losing power) would be from within. However, through nationalization of the industry..further restrictions on media outlets (making negative comments about his forbidden), killing term limits, tightening his grip on the central banks, etc, etc... he is focusing on the most important issue: controlling Venezuela from within.
The U.S. is not going to invade to take over the oil...even the invasion of Iraq was only partially about Oil... oil was a means to an end...we wanted to use the oil to attempt to kill one organization and supplant the momentum of an entity that is our greatest enemy..the real weapon of mass destruction..the only thing that can topple the deck of cards and supplant the hedgestone that holds us up: our status as the world's reserve currency..and that enemy, my friend, is the Euro.
The rest of your response wasn't even necessary if you agree with that.
And
@ you thinking you can give me a lesson on U.S. foreign policy. The reason for the mention of the post was to even make the reference to the false flag meaningful. Read that post if you want to know the reason reason WHY we had that false flag (WTC). It should be all so clear NOW but no one made the connection when I made the post years ago. You, as well, are probably referring to a false flag (wtc) and there is a good chance that you don't even know the real reason why it occurred and what was really meant to be eroded in the process.
You obviously didn't read my posts I pointed you to brah.
"interesting, so you are in principle an absolutist anti-absolutist? "
In an attempt to be clever, your contradiction in terms fails. However, I don't have time to put them into a logical framework and explain why as this applies to metaphysics. This is metaphysics as applied in philosophy and fundamentally involves political systems. Does believing an axiom make you an absolutist?
I try to stay away from this long-winded shit on BGOL now..... you can chat for days and everyone walks away with the same opinion they came to the discussion with..regardless of that is said.
The reality of the matter is that you don't disagree with my reply to Que's post. The rest of it is all supposition and really all unnecessary. You and I could go back and forth like this for years...
You wrote:
"thus, with just one example (or 27 depending on your perspective), my implication was that, in and of itself, a change in the constitution is not necessarily bad with the condition that the people willingly agree to it. how relativism seeps into the discussion bewilders me."
Because you don't know what I mean by relativism.
"Relativism, the philosophical view that the meaning and value of human beliefs and behaviors have no absolute reference"
Your entire argument (If Venezuelans agree to it, then it is ok) is based on a relativistic premise. If Venezuelans also agree to give Chavez the authority to commit genecide, is it ok because they have agreed to it as a majority? If Americans vote and agree to give Bush the authority to invade Iran, it is Ok because "it works for Americans". See how easy it is to break that. But again, that is an entire new argument about moral relativism....
I'm done with this thread.
but I will at least answer your questions
You wrote
"he is under the microscope already. wouldn't you agree that it would be exponentially easier for chavez to be deposed if he becomes absolute ruler and doesn't live up to his part of the bargain? aren't the powers that be salivating at any excuse to invade venezuela and take control of their oil by proxy? in a world of limited natural resources, thats the check and balance right there."
I don't think so personally. I wouldn't agree with that. The invasion on Iraq has been an abysmal failure and has only furthered the pressure on the U.S. dollar. The reality of the matter is that although much of our "representatives" and our citizens were duped supporting the war in Iraq, there is no room to duping the American population into another war. "Pre-emptive" theory is not going to cut it either. And there is nothing (as even outrageously flawed as linking Saddam and Bin Laden (enemies) that the New American Century could link him to that could even stir up as much paranoia as the entire 9/11 situation. That type of "toppling" of a dictator through military means is not going to happen in the near future under similar circumstances. I don't think that Chavez really fears a military invasion. I'm sure he know that there are individuals and organizations that would like to see him dead... but it would not be through a military invasion...although I love how he talks about fighting Bush on the battlefield man to man to whip up the emotions of Venezuelans..
So I think his main concern (in terms of losing power) would be from within. However, through nationalization of the industry..further restrictions on media outlets (making negative comments about his forbidden), killing term limits, tightening his grip on the central banks, etc, etc... he is focusing on the most important issue: controlling Venezuela from within.
The U.S. is not going to invade to take over the oil...even the invasion of Iraq was only partially about Oil... oil was a means to an end...we wanted to use the oil to attempt to kill one organization and supplant the momentum of an entity that is our greatest enemy..the real weapon of mass destruction..the only thing that can topple the deck of cards and supplant the hedgestone that holds us up: our status as the world's reserve currency..and that enemy, my friend, is the Euro.
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
If Bush and the neo-conservatives could pull that same shit...no term limits, they would. But even as gullible as Americans can be, they would be too much of a red flag. However, the invisible hand will just attempt to put a new figurehead in place to continue the march to their long-term goals.. and one of those goals..the decline of the U.S...has come a lot faster than I anticipated.....but as with many of the fallen empires... just follow the "FIAT"
If Bush and the neo-conservatives could pull that same shit...no term limits, they would. But even as gullible as Americans can be, they would be too much of a red flag. However, the invisible hand will just attempt to put a new figurehead in place to continue the march to their long-term goals.. and one of those goals..the decline of the U.S...has come a lot faster than I anticipated.....but as with many of the fallen empires... just follow the "FIAT"
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
You know what bugged me out a lil? I compared John Edwards to Bobby Kennedy a little in his style and wondered if he'd get bodied if he beat Obama and Billary
yeah that's why the name on the presidency doesnt really matter - im sure the Bush and Clinton families enjoy the throne but the invisible hand can use others to accomplish the same tasksIf Bush and the neo-conservatives could pull that same shit...no term limits, they would. But even as gullible as Americans can be, they would be too much of a red flag. However, the invisible hand will just attempt to put a new figurehead in place to continue the march to their long-term goals.. and one of those goals..the decline of the U.S...has come a lot faster than I anticipated.....but as with many of the fallen empires... just follow the "FIAT"
You know what bugged me out a lil? I compared John Edwards to Bobby Kennedy a little in his style and wondered if he'd get bodied if he beat Obama and Billary
Re: Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement
just a few corrections.
to these questions i answered true, but i did a poor job of explaining the position.
from Constitutional Reforms in Venezuela:
"Article 230 of the 1999 Constitution establishes that the presidential term limit will be of six years and that any president can be re-elected once. Under the proposed reform, the presidential term would be extended to seven years and any sitting president would be allowed to seek another consecutive term."
"While this reform has been criticized as being undemocratic, it is important to note that various mechanisms will remain in place to ensure that the country’s president is legitimately elected and held to account by the Venezuelan people. The president will still face re-election, and the recall referendum – an innovative democratic tool that allows voters to cut short an elected officials’ term – will remain in the constitution. It’s worth noting that the recall referendum was successfully activated by members of the opposition in August 2004, when 60 percent of the Venezuelan people voted to allow President Chávez to finish his first full term in office."
so term limits dont exist provided the sitting president is re-elected. and checks and balances do remain including the recall referendum allowing voters to cut short an elected officials term.
but ima post the entire document which also expands on the central bank reform, the suspension of individual rights during emergencies, as well as other reforms.
just a few corrections.
to these questions i answered true, but i did a poor job of explaining the position.
from Constitutional Reforms in Venezuela:
"Article 230 of the 1999 Constitution establishes that the presidential term limit will be of six years and that any president can be re-elected once. Under the proposed reform, the presidential term would be extended to seven years and any sitting president would be allowed to seek another consecutive term."
"While this reform has been criticized as being undemocratic, it is important to note that various mechanisms will remain in place to ensure that the country’s president is legitimately elected and held to account by the Venezuelan people. The president will still face re-election, and the recall referendum – an innovative democratic tool that allows voters to cut short an elected officials’ term – will remain in the constitution. It’s worth noting that the recall referendum was successfully activated by members of the opposition in August 2004, when 60 percent of the Venezuelan people voted to allow President Chávez to finish his first full term in office."
so term limits dont exist provided the sitting president is re-elected. and checks and balances do remain including the recall referendum allowing voters to cut short an elected officials term.
but ima post the entire document which also expands on the central bank reform, the suspension of individual rights during emergencies, as well as other reforms.
Similar threads
