Chavez wins elections, we are screwed!

[nicoenarg]

I guess the fact that Venezuelan media is overwhelmingly in private hands is a little troubling when you're trying to claim that Chavez owns the airwaves. Pesky facts like that get in the way of a perfectly good fantasy.



Solid argument. She probably just made up the fact that she attended the Venezuelan election as an independent monitor. After all, she did make comments on British race relations. Guess that CNN article was fair and balanced after all.

No jp, you simple minded individual. I just don't give a shit about what she did since she is clearly a biased and a bigoted individual.

EDIT: Oh and I would love for you to quote me where I said Chevez owned the airwaves. Or do you and your kind (aka PhilinBsAs) not know how to tell individuals apart?

 

[nicoenarg]

Technically speaking, I was genuinely curious about govt control of media, in terms of manipulation. The article in the Independent states that private media enjoy a 90% audience share. I would like to examine this further. Are the private media controlled somehow, or barred from political reporting? Are they limited to soap operas, sit-coms, etc? I understand that Venezuela is neither a Paradise or something out of Dante's vision of Hell.

Like Argentina, (though apparently much worse) rising crime and corruption are very real, immediate problems that will eventually sink any kind of Bolivaran revolution, if they are not somehow brought under control. The poor and disenfranchised will eventually become equally horrified by it, en masse. Popular sentiment can shift on a dime when the majority start to feel that the dangers outweigh the benefits. Both Chavez and Kirchner have their work cut out for them.

Further to what I said before:

Personally I have never been to Venezuela so I couldn't tell you whether the TV stations are only limited to soap operas or not. I doubt that since they wouldn't be characterized as opposition if they were (or would they?). Also it wasn't me who made the comment about Venezuelan media so maybe they know more than I on this subject.


That Chavez's administration decides not to renew licenses of TV stations that they deem improper and or they fine them, is known but whether that counts as dictatorship is up for debate. There are people who consider the K administration as dictatorship too. And there are others who think its ridiculous. People object to the word dictatorship used for government that seem to have been elected democratically.


But is democratic election a complete opposite of a dictatorship? I hate to bring this up, but wasn't Hitler elected fair and square? Now before people start blowing their heads off in anger, I am not stating at all that Hitler and Chavez are alike (because they are not) or Naziism and Bolivarianism are the same (they are not). All I am referring to is that dictatorships can exist in different forms.


I have lived all my life in countries run by dictators. These are established dictatorships where any dissent is met with imprisonment or death. You are not allowed to question anything the leader has decreed. You are not allowed to say anything the leader deems offensive. Everything is monitored. Everyone is monitored (not literally of course).


Judging by what goes on in those countries, are Venezuela and Argentina a dictatorship? No, they are not. But again, the countries that I am judging by are Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The former is a Kingdom, and the latter is a Sheikhdom. Its a bad comparison. But it stands to show that the way a lot of people understand dictatorships...in that way, Argentina and Venezuela do not qualify as dictatorships. They are far from it.

On the other hand, and now I will only talk about Argentina since I have not ever been to Venezuela, the way decrees are passed here by Cristina in things she wants happened, in the way she wants them happened, are exactly the same as the decrees passed in the dictatorships that I just mentioned. The only difference is that the government of Cristina seems to be on crack compared to Saudi Arabia or the UAE. The reason for that might be because these governments have been running the same way for a long time (Saudi Arabia for over 80 years and the UAE for over 40).

Whereas the government of Argentina is just getting started in its mission.

I am not making a case favoring either argument. All I am saying is that the case can be made for the way these governments run here for them to be dictatorships. If you're looking for hardcore proof that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that these governments are dictatorial, then I am afraid you will have to lay down what constitutes proof in that respect. Everyone has their own consideration as to what makes a dictatorship. I know Egyptians that considered Mubarak to be a better leader than the mess of leadership they have in place now. It is also a fact that they had more freedoms under Mubarak than under the Islamist leadership led by Morsi now (which was democratically elected).


Again the question is what we consider to be dictatorships. Or rather, what is it that we consider to be bad government. Funny story, I went to Libya and actually found people who were fond of Gaddafi.


Now in my opinion, Gaddafi was an idiot and Mubarak was a tyrant, but its a different discussion whether those governments were good or bad for the people of their respective countries. I can make a case for Mubarak in Egypt. I couldn't make a case for Gaddafi as I only visited it once.

 

[Matt84]

Bravo, excellent post.

But is democratic election a complete opposite of a dictatorship? I hate to bring this up, but wasn't Hitler elected fair and square? Now before people start blowing their heads off in anger, I am not stating at all that Hitler and Chavez are alike (because they are not) or Naziism and Bolivarianism are the same (they are not). All I am referring to is that dictatorships can exist in different forms.

Oh but they are Nico, the ideologies are, not their implementation. They share the same thing: Nativism, back to the tribe, be it Germanic or Aymara or Zulu. Shunning anything foreign, but pretending to profit from their advances.
.

I have lived all my life in countries run by dictators. These are established dictatorships where any dissent is met with imprisonment or death. You are not allowed to question anything the leader has decreed. You are not allowed to say anything the leader deems offensive. Everything is monitored. Everyone is monitored (not literally of course).


Judging by what goes on in those countries, are Venezuela and Argentina a dictatorship? No, they are not.

Yeah that should give you perspective of what actually constitutes dictatorship. A government can be really bad, or good, but it becomes a dictatorship when freedom of expression is limited to a point where everyone is controlled, where the government is the only one expressing itself (when the flow is reversed). Argentina and Venezuela are not there (yet or again) but they are in different stages too. Foreigners are a lot more monitored in Venezuela than in Argentina, and the 'selective renewal of licenses' and 'leydemedios' obviously are steps toward censorship.

Now in my opinion, Gaddafi was an idiot and Mubarak was a tyrant, but its a different discussion whether those governments were good or bad for the people of their respective countries. I can make a case for Mubarak in Egypt. I couldn't make a case for Gaddafi as I only visited it once.

If you measure it by how many people wanna go live there, against how many people wanna get the hell outta there, then we have proof that Libya was better off under Gaddafi. Haven't been to its beautiful Mediterranean shores in person though...

 

[PhilinBSAS]

Definitely no cycling in the Belgian Congo, those natives had to carry the ivory by foot or either lose their right hand.

1.Sure but democracy only works under a strict Republic with separate powers (I grant, a foreign concept to you) not the unlimited will of 'the people' as represented by a leader or a party or clique, and not Guatemala style either with one landed family controlling everything. I don't defend that either just in case

2. Didn't Fulgencio Batista maintain an impeccable semblance of constitutional legality? Top notch appearances and still that great thinker of the Argentine landed aristocracy, and social reformer (is that a euphemism, as in I'm gonna reform the shape out of you?) went up in arms, made war and rounded up people. And after that, of course Democracy in Cuba never again consisted of elections where the ignorant masses could be manipulated by competing interests. Now they would be manipulated by just one.

You're only betraying the fact that I often rant off topic. My respects to your father and grand father. Perhaps they saved some of my distant relatives while killing other equally distant relatives.
Maybe the fact that all nations in the world were gangpressed into a war against three, or technically five small countries, leaving almost no room for Neutrality, should have betrayed the identity of the real aggressor(s) in all that mess. (I'll give you a hint, even though it was the UK that technically started the war in Europe, it was neither the UK or Germany who were standing to profit the most of it).
Or if you compared Britain's standing in 1914 and 1950 (in a map!) you might see maybe Britain and the USA were not on the same side for the long run (just as the USSR and the USA weren't)
But that's besides the point, which is that I'm a chum because I think that a huge war against the unholy union of Nationalism and Socialism, was just what it was needed to marry the concepts at home.. to 'legitimize' them if you will and implement 'Social Democracy' as you accurately described it happened. And yes, I see it as a paradox, and for some reason I believe it's natural, not orchestrated.

Let's see, how have they worked in the past ten years?
Cristina doesn't have a full tank of crude to finance her constant struggle against reality.

I love tall buildings, thank you for the links, and Ryugyong hotel to you! too far? Ok let's see you recommending the Bauen over any other accommodation arrangement in Buenos Aires.

@Quantum re Venezuela GDP, Chavez is simply using Venezuela's oil reserves, how hard is it to understand? America's doing it on a vaster scale but with more efficiency. Venezuela should have profited from that in the way Canada and Mexico have.
When Argentina last spent its gold reserves during the first or second Peron presidency, Argentina's economy also experienced a boost, it's like receiving a one time gift, or a first shot of amphetamine. After the high, and despite all the billions funneled to education (propaganda) programs, the population becomes more stupid: having only learned how to deal with gov bureaucracy to feed themselves they are not prepared for the inevitable low; and thanks to the improved healthcare programs, maybe they are in disproportionate bigger numbers unprepared to deal with an existence that's not subsidized by a natural resource.

Yes I agree - you have gone off on a rant. It's taken me a little time to try to analyse it and to provide a summary. Let me know if you think unfairly.

1. Only a republic like the USA can be a democracy?

2. Belgium are the only or worst colonialists who have ever carried out barbaric acts in the land they have occupied?

3. The USA saved Venezuela from becoming a colony and gave them civilisation in the form of Coca-cola and baseball yet incredibly Chavez and the people who voted him in are "ungrateful"?

3. Che Guavara can be identified as "going in arms, making war and rounding up people" but presumably the ilk of Henry Kissenger not?

4. nationalism and socialism somehow "married" by natural law into the social democratic parties in Europe?

5. Cristina has a reality problem and no tank of oil?
​

You stopped numbering your paragraphs after 2 - I guess in your enthusiasm to provide convincing argument or just to get it all set out.

Out of a score of five I'm sorry to say I can only give you a one.

N.B Point of information: The Bauen Hotel is not low cost social housing unless you know something that I dont.

 

[Matt84]

I was not numbering my paragraphs I was replying to your quoting of Che Guevara, the great thinker, which you marked as 1. and 2. probably in honor of what that man did all over the richest island in the Caribbean.

When did I ever defend Kissinger in this forum? Are you comparing him with Che Guevara? Shouldn't you compare Kissinger with some high brow Soviet official history doesn't know about because there was no free press in the USSR but a lot in the USA?

 

[Matt84]

1. Only a republic like the USA can be a democracy?
​

A kingdom with parliament is fine too, but I wouldn't call it democracy. The USA is not meant to be a Democracy, it's meant to be a Republic, as trite as that phrase may sound try and grasp its meaning.
​

 

[ElQueso]

A kingdom with parliament is fine too, but I wouldn't call it democracy. The USA is not meant to be a Democracy, it's meant to be a Republic, as trite as that phrase may sound try and grasp its meaning.
​

Argentina is supposed to be a Republic as well (it's even in the title of how they name their nation) but at the current moment, the separation of powers doesn't seem to be very well adhered to and in my opinion is only republican in name.

People throw the term democracy around quite a bit (particularly "Americans" who I often wonder if really understand the concept) in a misinformed way.

For example, we have democratic elections in the US to elect congress and the president, but you're right, that doesn't make us a democracy. the people themselves don't vote on the laws that are created by the people who they put into office. A Republic is not a Democracy even though it uses democratic concepts.

A lot of people can make a lot of intelligent-seeming arguments that are based either on a simple misunderstanding of concepts, or an ignoring of those concepts because it doesn't seem (to them) to make any difference.

In my opinion, Argentina is becoming a dictatorship simply because one chamber of their Republican government is more powerful than others and it is ignoring the balance of powers. Whether what they are doing (or at least where their hearts are) is "good for the people" is a distinct argument and doesn't bear on whether or not they are a dictatorship. As well Chavez in Venezuela.

As I've mentioned at times here, I believe the US is a tyranny, not only against its own people, but against many peoples of the world. It is an example of a non-dictatorship (amongst its own people) who nonetheless imposes a tyranny "for the good of the people" but seems to export, to a certain extent, an international dictatorship.

Even those who say that the US government is doing things for altruistic reasons (which, personally, I consider to be a load of crap - as a whole, maybe the mentality is that way, but most of the individual lawmakers are not in office for altruistic reasons).

The government has become so big and monolithic that it doesn't seem to be able to be stopped by "democratic elections" or by "republican control concepts."

Hell, as an American citizen, I can't even open a bank account in Uruguay because the US has taken such major control of the world's banking system, through intimidation - for the "good of its own people" in this case, to prevent people from having money the government doesn't know about. And that's just a small example of how the US tyrannizes the rest of the world. There are, of course, many other nefarious methods.

Having said all that, I think I would rather have the US's influence around the world touch me than if Chavez or Cristina were of significantly more influence around the world than they are today.

 

[jp]

No jp, you simple minded individual. I just don't give a shit about what she did since she is clearly a biased and a bigoted individual.

You don't give a shit because if you accept that she attended the election as an independent monitor, you'd have to question whether the article you posted up was full of bullshit. And since you don't want to do that, you've scanned her wikipedia page looking for reasons to ignore her.

I've no doubt you are worried about what the recent election result means for Argentina. But unfortunately a lot of the commentary on the election result, Chavez and Venezuela in general is hysterical and detached from reality.

 

[nicoenarg]

You don't give a shit because if you accept that she attended the election as an independent monitor, you'd have to question whether the article you posted up was full of bullshit. And since you don't want to do that, you've scanned her wikipedia page looking for reasons to ignore her.

I've no doubt you are worried about what the recent election result means for Argentina. But unfortunately a lot of the commentary on the election result, Chavez and Venezuela in general is hysterical and detached from reality.

Jp, I am just amazed at how much you know me. At how much you can speak for me and know my behavior and practices.

At the same time I am amazed, and would really like to know how you come up with your arguments. So far all I have noticed from you is you confusing people. Thinking I made an argument where I didn't make a single one and accusing me of doing things you have no idea whether I have done them or not.

Its beautiful. I am clapping here.

Lastly, if everything all the posters said about Chavez and Venezuela is detached from reality, why don't you enlighten us all with facts rather than using racist bigots to further your cause (was I wrong about what I said about Abbott? Or are you so low that you'd use just about anyone to further your argument?)

As for me not giving a shit. No, I am sure she was present in Venezuela. I am not surprised in one bit. I just don't give a shit about her being there like I didn't give a shit about Mussolini's meetings

 

[Iznogud]

I was not numbering my paragraphs I was replying to your quoting of Che Guevara, the great thinker, which you marked as 1. and 2. probably in honor of what that man did all over the richest island in the Caribbean.

No, no, wrong dude! Ernesto Guavara etc, etc, etc, and Che Guevara are clearly different people.
Guavara was apparently a great visionary thinker and the later was a murderous bastard.

Confusion is quite understandable until you look at the facts, that is.