PDA

View Full Version : Hugo Chavez - now officially your dictator


SamReeves
16-02-09, 19:58
In a ceremonial move, the megalomaniac known as Hugo Chavez has "removed" term limits from Venuzuealen elections. Quite honestly I don't know how 54% of people went along with this, unless it was a faux election. It makes the Columbians even more nervous with a threat of war between borders and western interests. Get ready to pay even more for gas. Read the article below in the Wall Street Journal:

Venezuelans Approve Chavez's Bid to Scrap Term Limits (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123475026027691469.html)

Mad Tony
16-02-09, 20:02
Stupid isn't it? But then again, what did you expect from a socialist?

Endow
16-02-09, 21:10
The national holiday thing just goes to show how deluded the man really is.

EmeraldFields
16-02-09, 21:38
While I don't agree with them, I'm happy they got what they wanted.:)

rickybazire
16-02-09, 22:13
When you say '54% of people went along with this', don't you think it's actually said by people paid by Hugo Chavez...so that people will think 54% went along with it.

MattTR
16-02-09, 22:17
Well not my dictator, but I heard about this.. one of my friends at college is Venezuelan.

Oh well, I hope it doesn't turn out as bad as everyone seems to make it seem. :(

Mad Tony
16-02-09, 22:37
Apparently Chavez wants to run until 2021. Lol, good luck with that one.

GenyaArikado
16-02-09, 23:25
Apparently Chavez wants to run until 2021. Lol, good luck with that one.

I am Venezuelan and he want to be until he is 96 years old
I blame the ones that didnt vote, they think that they wont be affected
wish me luck

rickybazire
16-02-09, 23:25
Oh well, I hope it doesn't turn out as bad as everyone seems to make it seem. :(

Yeah, just that the world has had some bad dictators. If not all...:(

Encore
16-02-09, 23:42
Right... :rolleyes:

Kittypower
16-02-09, 23:50
I think he cheated. He did loses the last time.

Punaxe
17-02-09, 00:46
Well, at least there still are elections :rolleyes:

I do wonder what happened in between now and the previous time he did the same referendum. Where did the support come from all of a sudden?

spikejones
17-02-09, 03:18
In today's headlines:

"President Barack Obama will be paying $25,000.00 of government money to every household that votes yes to PB789-903. This bill, if passed will pave the way for a new nation. Not only will the money given back in to the hands of the people serve as a way to boost the United States economy, but this bill will also allow for the new president to serve for the remainder of his life. Also, as a foot note on this bill - Obama will have full say over the course that this nation takes. No longer will the House of Representatives or Senate be able to make any checks or balances against his decisions. Obama will be able to govern however he sees fit."

interstellardave
17-02-09, 03:26
In today's headlines:

"President Barack Obama will be paying $25,000.00 of government money to every household that votes yes to PB789-903. This bill, if passed will pave the way for a new nation. Not only will the money given back in to the hands of the people serve as a way to boost the United States economy, but this bill will also allow for the new president to serve for the remainder of his life. Also, as a foot note on this bill - Obama will have full say over the course that this nation takes. No longer will the House of Representatives or Senate be able to make any checks or balances against his decisions. Obama will be able to govern however he sees fit."

LOL... 25 grand is MIGHTY tempting... but not THAT tempting!

digitizedboy
17-02-09, 03:36
TBH I don't know much about dictatorship, but with the American government why can't we call George Bush a dictator? After all he was.. No we prefer to pick on the smaller governments and their leaders instead. damn.

Kittypower
17-02-09, 03:37
TBH I don't know much about dictatorship, but with the American government why can't we call George Bush a dictator? After all he was.. No we prefer to pick on the smaller governments and their leaders instead. damn.

Because he failed to pass most of his agenda thanks to the senate and congress which keeps the president in check. Which they did.

takamotosan
17-02-09, 03:52
i love the irony of the fact that i'm learning about the cold war in history, and all this communism keeps appearing.

curious...

:pi:

digitizedboy
17-02-09, 04:10
Because he failed to pass most of his agenda thanks to the senate and congress which keeps the president in check. Which they did.

again I'm ignorant of American politics. You're right though, I bet Bill Clinton was a puppet, with his sparkly white teeth. But what I don't understand is, who places the hand up their arses? I mean c'mon? George Bush? Is he intelligent enough to run a WHOLE nation? The most powerful nation in the world. sigh.. :S we're doomed.

spikejones
17-02-09, 04:15
well, I agree that Bush is a retarded ass mother ****ing piece of **** that was the worst thing to ever happen to this nation. but don't blame me... I don't vote. anyhow, i think it was a combination of him being descended from a greater Bush and his political party which gained him the presidency. Funny how people put that retard back into the presidency after the first time he ****ed up even.

I watched a bit of the political debate during his first candidacy and he never even answered the questions that were asked of him, but instead embarked on this fantasy tale of something that had nothing at all to do with the question. That should have been the red flag for everyone to say NO!

Ward Dragon
17-02-09, 04:28
LOL... 25 grand is MIGHTY tempting... but not THAT tempting!

It's going to happen anyway, so may as well take the money and run XD

Seriously though, he already took control of the Census which determines how many representatives go to each state in the House, not to mention funding to each district (this was formerly controlled by the Commerce Department). How difficult would it be now for such a partisan census to transfer a few thousand residents from a conservative district and count them towards a nearby liberal district? Talk about major gerrymandering :rolleyes:

Anything that threatens the integrity of the Census has profound implications. Not only is it the basis for congressional redistricting, it provides the raw data by which government spending is allocated on everything from roads to schools. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also uses the Census to prepare the economic data that so much of business relies upon.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

SamReeves
17-02-09, 05:53
again I'm ignorant of American politics. You're right though, I bet Bill Clinton was a puppet, with his sparkly white teeth. But what I don't understand is, who places the hand up their arses? I mean c'mon? George Bush? Is he intelligent enough to run a WHOLE nation? The most powerful nation in the world. sigh.. :S we're doomed.

LOL, then what is Obama? He's out of sight and out of mind ATM. He's letting Nancy Pelosi drive the bus. Otherwise how else could a trillion dollars in non-economic recovery spending be passed?

I'd rather have W any day inspite of his faults. You knew the man was President and acted like it. BO still thinks he's a senator and has failed to govern so far in the first month.

It's going to happen anyway, so may as well take the money and run XD

Seriously though, he already took control of the Census which determines how many representatives go to each state in the House, not to mention funding to each district (this was formerly controlled by the Commerce Department). How difficult would it be now for such a partisan census to transfer a few thousand residents from a conservative district and count them towards a nearby liberal district? Talk about major gerrymandering :rolleyes:



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I did not like the census change either. But when you are busy fleecing the Treasury, why not squeeze more voters in your district? Nobody will notice, that is except the Republicans. It's amazing how dishonest the whole Democrat controlled government has been, and it's only been one month.

Ward Dragon
17-02-09, 06:30
I did not like the census change either. But when you are busy fleecing the Treasury, why not squeeze more voters in your district? Nobody will notice, that is except the Republicans.

It's the fault of the damned Republicans too for not being united against the alleged "stimulus bill" which gives millions of dollars to corrupt and fraudulent organizations like ACORN. The stimulus bill just barely got passed. It needed 60 votes and it got exactly 60. Three of those votes were Republicans. (source (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Business/story?id=6870873&page=1))

It's amazing how dishonest the whole Democrat controlled government has been, and it's only been one month.

What did you expect? Chicago politics at its finest :rolleyes: Several of Obama's cabinet choices have already been caught out on tax fraud. The *******s expect us to pay high taxes and support their socialist policies meanwhile they aren't even paying taxes themselves :hea:

Speaking of which, Daschle is out but last I heard they're still planning to use his national healthcare plan where he basically said that the government will take complete control of all healthcare and the old people will be left to die because it's too expensive to take care of them. I'm really not exaggerating on that either. I heard him speaking on the news and he was talking about cost effectiveness and how a patient's age would factor into whether or not they receive expensive treatment since it would be a waste of money to use expensive treatments on someone who isn't going to live very long anyway. I cannot wait for the AARP to turn on Obama if he actually appoints someone who follows through with this plan XD

Solice
17-02-09, 06:34
Hitler was a socialist, and he gained power much like Chav. Look for Chav to stir up trouble around the world. I imagine he will have his Brown Shirts and secret police out intimidating citizens.

It is amazing how people will actually vote away their rights. History repeats

Kittypower
17-02-09, 06:38
Ward Dragon
You need have a little more hope, most economist believe this bill is the only way to save the us economy. The democrats are also the best at fixing the economy. And remember that you can have 20 years of governing experience and still be awful, the former president knows something about that. (although not 20.)

EmeraldFields
17-02-09, 06:41
Hitler was a socialist, and he gained power much like Chav. Look for Chav to stir up trouble around the world. I imagine he will have his Brown Shirts and secret police out intimidating citizens.

It is amazing how people will actually vote away their rights. History repeats

Actually, Hitler was fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism).:)

Ward Dragon
17-02-09, 06:54
Ward Dragon
You need have a little more hope, most economist believe this bill is the only way to save the us economy. The democrats are also the best at fixing the economy. And remember that you can have 20 years of governing experience and still be awful, the former president knows something about that. (although not 20.)

The recession would end naturally without the stimulus package and the country would be better off for it too. Now with the damned stimulus package, corrupt and incompetent organizations/companies will receive billions of dollars to keep themselves going as long as possible and thereby maintain the recession. It's a vicious cycle and as long as the people in power can keep it going, they have an excuse to pass whatever they want under the guise of solving the economy's problems.

Edit: I was listening to a town meeting where Obama was answering questions from people. They were acting like he's Santa Claus, asking him for everything from a new car to a kitchen sink. As long as people actually believe that Obama is going to buy them a house, car, etc. then he can do whatever he wants and people will just accept it.

Drone
17-02-09, 09:35
every kingpin tries to prolong their power. It's low and cheap. Like they're going to live 15 lives. Get a life :wve:

Mad Tony
17-02-09, 09:50
TBH I don't know much about dictatorship, but with the American government why can't we call George Bush a dictator? After all he was.. No we prefer to pick on the smaller governments and their leaders instead. damn.Err because George Bush wasn't a dictator? He still had to pass things through congress and the senate and he had term limits, just like all the US presidents before him. Well, from Truman onwards anyway. There weren't any term limits before that, that's how FDR was in office for 12 years.

Bush wasn't even dumb anyway, he just wasn't a good speaker. All politicians have their fair shared of gaffes. The great Obama is no exception.

Bobsyeruncle
17-02-09, 12:56
Actually, Hitler was fascist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism).:)

Which must be why his party was called "National SOCIALIST Worker's Party". :) Fascism and socialism are the same thing in effect, if not in name or in exact tone of rhetoric. Fascism is usually more associated with a particular nationality or ethnicity, while Socialism aspires to universalism. Both are forms of collectivism that do not countenance a true diversity of opinion or open debate on matters of public policy among the citizenry who live under them. What was the difference in Nazism, the most extreme form of fascism, and Communism, the most extreme form of socialism? Aside from the colors of the uniforms and symbols, not much. The blood of tens of millions ran just as red if they died by "fascist" or "socialist" means.

Ward Dragon
17-02-09, 13:06
What was the difference in Nazism, the most extreme form of fascism, and Communism, the most extreme form of socialism?

Socialism was worse. Stalin was much more effective at mass murder because he convinced people that he had their best interests in mind even as they were being killed. I really hate Hitler but I've never understood why he's picked out as the worst figure in recent history when Stalin killed so many more. They're both evil and both deserve to be hated. How come most times it seems like Stalin's atrocities get swept under the rug? I really hate that the US and Britain had to ally with one genocidal maniac in order to defeat another. (Rationally there wasn't much choice to be had so it was probably the decision which resulted in the least death overall, but I hate that the situation came to that in the first place)

Bobsyeruncle
17-02-09, 13:20
Socialism was worse. Stalin was much more effective at mass murder because he convinced people that he had their best interests in mind even as they were being killed. I really hate Hitler but I've never understood why he's picked out as the worst figure in recent history when Stalin killed so many more. They're both evil and both deserve to be hated. How come most times it seems like Stalin's atrocities get swept under the rug? I really hate that the US and Britain had to ally with one genocidal maniac in order to defeat another. (Rationally there wasn't much choice to be had so it was probably the decision which resulted in the least death overall, but I hate that the situation came to that in the first place)

I'll go along with that. Both were pegged out on the "evil-o-meter", but the larger number of people died/had blighted lives over time with socialism and its variants, because they had more staying power.

Pietras
17-02-09, 16:22
I would like to congratulate the 54% of Venezuelans for ****ing up the lives of the whole nation. You done it! All by yourself! Yay!

interstellardave
17-02-09, 16:50
Socialism was worse. Stalin was much more effective at mass murder because he convinced people that he had their best interests in mind even as they were being killed. I really hate Hitler but I've never understood why he's picked out as the worst figure in recent history when Stalin killed so many more. They're both evil and both deserve to be hated. How come most times it seems like Stalin's atrocities get swept under the rug? I really hate that the US and Britain had to ally with one genocidal maniac in order to defeat another. (Rationally there wasn't much choice to be had so it was probably the decision which resulted in the least death overall, but I hate that the situation came to that in the first place)

Probably the biggest mistake ever made was backing Stalin... the western allies should have let them fight it out. Hitler had the better trained and better led army and would have likely dealt a fatal blow to the Soviets if they hadn't been bolstered by supplies and materials from the US and England.

The Germans would have occupied a burned wasteland, however, and still would have suffered greatly to try and hold onto it and make use of it's raw materials, as most Soviet factories would have been destroyed in the Soviet retreat (as was their actual practice). The Germans would likely have been weakened enough to defeat after such a battle, IMO, and we wouldn't have had the Soviets to worry about afterwards.

disneyprincess20
17-02-09, 16:56
Socialism was worse. Stalin was much more effective at mass murder because he convinced people that he had their best interests in mind even as they were being killed. I really hate Hitler but I've never understood why he's picked out as the worst figure in recent history when Stalin killed so many more. They're both evil and both deserve to be hated. How come most times it seems like Stalin's atrocities get swept under the rug? I really hate that the US and Britain had to ally with one genocidal maniac in order to defeat another. (Rationally there wasn't much choice to be had so it was probably the decision which resulted in the least death overall, but I hate that the situation came to that in the first place)

I suppose the answer that is that Hitler was trying to conquer unwilling countries to expand is reign, but Stalin wasn't doing that at the time the allies had to ally with him. He was just killing his own rather than conquering, which seems a little more acceptable to world leaders (Lord knows why).

Ward Dragon
17-02-09, 17:14
I'll go along with that. Both were pegged out on the "evil-o-meter", but the larger number of people died/had blighted lives over time with socialism and its variants, because they had more staying power.

Right.

Probably the biggest mistake ever made was backing Stalin... the western allies should have let them fight it out. Hitler had the better trained and better led army and would have likely dealt a fatal blow to the Soviets if they hadn't been bolstered by supplies and materials from the US and England.

The Germans would have occupied a burned wasteland, however, and still would have suffered greatly to try and hold onto it and make use of it's raw materials, as most Soviet factories would have been destroyed in the Soviet retreat (as was their actual practice). The Germans would likely have been weakened enough to defeat after such a battle, IMO, and we wouldn't have had the Soviets to worry about afterwards.

That's an interesting scenario. Granted we can't know how the present day would be different if things had gone that way, but in theory it does sound like a much better strategy for the Allies.

I suppose the answer that is that Hitler was trying to conquer unwilling countries to expand is reign, but Stalin wasn't doing that at the time the allies had to ally with him. He was just killing his own rather than conquering, which seems a little more acceptable to world leaders (Lord knows why).

Alright, I guess that makes sense in a political sort of way (but it's still really messed up).

interstellardave
17-02-09, 17:32
That's an interesting scenario. Granted we can't know how the present day would be different if things had gone that way, but in theory it does sound like a much better strategy for the Allies.

It is in hindsight, however. The Allies were thinking they could bleed Germany by keeping the Soviets in the fight--which worked, and made our fight a bit easier in the long run, since the Russians did most of the dirty work. They obviously miscalculated and Russia came out of the war a lot stronger than I'm sure the West would have liked. Patton saw it, though... he wanted to keep going right into Russia, even going so far as to advocate rearming the defeated Germans to aid in the battle!

Ward Dragon
17-02-09, 17:37
It is in hindsight, however. The Allies were thinking they could bleed Germany by keeping the Soviets in the fight--which worked, and made our fight a bit easier in the long run, since the Russians did most of the dirty work. They obviously miscalculated and Russia came out of the war a lot stronger than I'm sure the West would have liked. Patton saw it, though... he wanted to keep going right into Russia, even going so far as to advocate rearming the defeated Germans to aid in the battle!

I think I remember this from the movie ("Rommel, I read your book, you *******!") :o I really wish my high school history class had covered all of this. We spent only a day or two on both World Wars combined. I've read a bit on it here and there but can't connect everything into a logical chronological order.

Mona Sax
17-02-09, 18:42
Socialism per se is not a dictatorial philosophy - it's just very simple to convince people to hand their power over to you when you tell them you only have their interests at heart (threatening them with a common enemy is usually most effective).

I wish people would go 'ad fontes', try to understand the roots and circumstances of the ideas they demonize. There's plenty of scary and dangerous stuff in Marx' and Engels' works, no argument there, but what people in this thread complain about is a caricature a best (Chavez) and a perversion at worst (Hitler - do you really think the people mattered in his mind?). It's like dismissing democracy because sometimes the people that get elected turn out to be incompetent or even dangerous. It would be a shame to judge philosophies by looking at mere facets, often just masks and pretenses, without even trying to see the whole picture.

Samsdad
17-02-09, 19:21
IMO the major problems with any form of government, democratic, socialistic, or communistic, generally occur when they try to exercise too much centralized control. Since central control is a hallmark of socialism and communism these problems tend to show up more in these forms of government. Democractic forms seem to be more open to balancing central control with a more lese faire attitude. This does not mean that democratic forms of government do not share many of the problems of other forms of government but the scale of expression is less.

Ward Dragon
17-02-09, 19:30
IMO the major problems with any form of government, democratic, socialistic, or communistic, generally occur when they try to exercise too much centralized control. Since central control is a hallmark of socialism and communism these problems tend to show up more in these forms of government. Democractic forms seem to be more open to balancing central control with a more lese faire attitude. This does not mean that democratic forms of government do not share many of the problems of other forms of government but the scale of expression is less.

Precisely :tmb: Democracy isn't perfect either (not by any stretch of the imagination) but democracy and capitalism together tend to break up power over a larger number of people which results in lower likelihood that one person will be able to control everything.

interstellardave
17-02-09, 19:37
I have to jump in with the requisite "the United States is not a democracy" disclaimer... it's a Representative Republic... quite a big difference. In fact no nation on Earth, to my knowledge, is a Democracy. That's why you don't vote on everything; you elect leaders to act on your behalf rather than having that power yourself.

True Democracy would be very hard to imagine in our complex society...

SamReeves
17-02-09, 19:39
I have to jump in with the requisite "the United States is not a democracy" disclaimer... it's a Representative Republic... quite a big difference. In fact no nation on Earth, to my knowledge, is a Democracy. That's why you don't vote on everything; you elect leaders to act on your behalf rather than having that power yourself.

True Democracy would be very hard to imagine in our complex society...

Dave, we ought to vote on how many times a day you can flush!

LOL, a true democracy would be chaotic in principle. :p

Ward Dragon
17-02-09, 19:41
I have to jump in with the requisite "the United States is not a democracy" disclaimer... it's a Representative Republic... quite a big difference. In fact no nation on Earth, to my knowledge, is a Democracy. That's why you don't vote on everything; you elect leaders to act on your behalf rather than having that power yourself.

True Democracy would be very hard to imagine in our complex society...

Good point. I'm usually the one making that argument. I'm tired so I didn't bother this time. Glad someone else said it instead :D But anyway, yeah. My post was meant with "Democratic Republic" in mind, not the technical definition of democracy. Similarly, when I said "Socialism" before I was talking about Stalin and meant it how he practiced it, regardless of how it was originally envisioned.

Dave, we ought to vote on how many times a day you can flush!

LOL, a true democracy would be chaotic in principle. :p

I vote that we bring back the old fashioned high-capacity toilets. These tiny "environmentally friendly" toilets always clog so I end up flushing way more than I would have before and I have to dump gallons of soap down the toilet to unstick the clog which probably isn't too good for the environment either XD

interstellardave
17-02-09, 19:42
Dave, we ought to vote on how many times a day you can flush!

LOL, a true democracy would be chaotic in principle. :p

No-one shall infringe on my inalienable Right to flush when and how many times I choose!!! I shall defend that Right to my last breath!!! :cln:

SamReeves
17-02-09, 19:52
No-one shall infringe on my inalienable Right to flush when and how many times I choose!!! I shall defend that Right to my last breath!!! :cln:

LOL! I'm with you. Let's start a high flow toilet militia. We'll whack back the liberals whom wish to take away our full flow toilets! :mis:

interstellardave
17-02-09, 19:53
FLUSH FOR FREEDOM in '09!

raiderfun
17-02-09, 22:00
All I can say is that I totally hate his policy ! He's even supporting the Front Polisario.

Bobsyeruncle
18-02-09, 00:06
All I can say is that I totally hate his policy ! He's even supporting the Front Polisario.

Indeed, and very recently, too- http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/01/16/africa/AF-Morocco-Venezuela-Embassy-Shut.php

I'm glad I saw your post, I had mistakenly believed Polisario defeated years ago and was a withered-away relic of Soviet influence in the Cold War-era struggle in the Middle East. It does not suprise that Chavez would support them. I also see in some of the stories I looked at that many prominent Polisario leaders have defected away from the movement and back to Morocco, citing a "lack of democracy and an oppressive climate under the leadership of Polisario". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polisario

Tombreaper
18-02-09, 00:41
Better a Socialist dictator, than a Ayatollah.

raiderfun
18-02-09, 12:36
Indeed, and very recently, too- http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2009/01/16/africa/AF-Morocco-Venezuela-Embassy-Shut.php

I'm glad I saw your post, I had mistakenly believed Polisario defeated years ago and was a withered-away relic of Soviet influence in the Cold War-era struggle in the Middle East. It does not suprise that Chavez would support them. I also see in some of the stories I looked at that many prominent Polisario leaders have defected away from the movement and back to Morocco, citing a "lack of democracy and an oppressive climate under the leadership of Polisario". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polisario

Yeah, exactly, that's so sad :(