Who cares? You thought pre-Chavez Venezuela was some sort of golden era of stable, representative democracy. A claim that is even further from the truth, and more profoundly historically wrong than anything Darla may have said about 1992.
The Southern White Man's Party
- Thread starter Cancel7
- Start date
Who cares? You thought pre-Chavez Venezuela was some sort of golden era of stable, representative democracy. A claim that is even further from the truth, and more profoundly historically wrong than anything Darla may have said about 1992.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I don't think he's talking about being president for life, Cypress. Maybe I confused you.
It's just the same reaction I'd give if, say, Bush wanted to abolish his term limits. Of course, Bush wouldn't WIN, but that's beyond the point...
I have said in the past, he might, might being the key word here, have authoritarian impulses and I wouldn't vote for him here, but that's the same reason I never voted for bush! Or one of them anyway. So basically my feeling is, is he torturing and murdering and disappearing people? Is there a genocide going on? Because if not, bigger fish to fry man.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, I did not. I stated that he was the one that initiated a coup against the democratically elected Perez. Which was true. I never said that he came to power due to a coup. But nice try.
Ok, then that was a typo, sorry.
Battleborne
Terminator
It was being implied in your post, in my opinion. That is how I read it, and I wanted it to be clear that he never came to power in anything other than a free and fair election.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I was talking about Friedman, who was conscripted to give advice to the regime in Chile sometimes before mass killings started taking place. He never meant for it to happen but it's always been a black mark on his record since then.
You're talking about the IMF and the CIA, though, I guess.
I know what their outrage is about.
I am emotional on this issue. I won't apologize for it. It is my opinion that if you can't get emotional about your tax dollars being used to torture children for God sakes, then there is nothing you have any right to get emotional about. And the ignorance on this subject in the American people, is stunning.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
While I certainly agree that there are far bigger issues to worry about, my problem with the above is this....
IF Chavez is controlling the media... just how much do you think we will know about what is going on? That is why the suppression of the media is a big warning sign. Again, it does not mean that he will set himself up as a dictator... just that it is a big first step along the path.
The chavez hatred started way before he denied the television station a liscence renewel, and way before there was any talk of amending their constitution.
It started even before the Iraq war. the Bush admin supported the 2002 coup against Chavez. I don't think that is in much doubt. Why? Becasue Chavez was renogtiating oil contracts, to take away some of the interest of foreign oil investors. He's never said he's going to kick out foreign investors, or completely nationalize all the oil.
So really, the hatred was against him for economic reasons. The fact that foreign investors were going to lose part of their stake in venezuelan resources. That seems like a trivial reason to hate for you or me, but not for George Bush and corporate america.
It was exactly at this time, that Fox News and the WSJ started ginning up the hatred of Chavez (who, conicidentally got along pretty well with bill clinton). Dittoheads, like some we see on this board, took the bait from Fox News and ran with it. Never knowing a thing about venezuelan history, or that previous governments were as bad - or actually worse - than chavez on human rights
No he didn't care if it happened.
I know a little bit about Friedman and my understanding is, that he never even made a pretense about caring about the effects of his policy on the poor and less fortunate. He knew there were human casualties to all of his policies. Unlike his later day worshippers who pretend that their policies and the free market magic will cure these ills, he never made any such pretense. He was up front about who he was.
It is his followers who are in denial.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
The very fact that you ASSUME you are the only one that understands the history of Latin America or that your viewpoints should be the only accepted viewpoints on the subject, shows both igorance and a closed mind. Which is obviously not a good combo.
If he ever starts torturing anyone, you'll find out. It is the interest of the money people that you find out. In fact, I wouldn't doubt that you'll find about it even if he isn't doing it.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Thank you... that was what led to my confusion. So, now we can get back to arguing the rest.
It's not my viewpoints. It is historical fact. Now accepted by even mainstream historians.
So stupid about what Top?
Explain. Go into details. What are you talking about? Oh I'll bet you'd love to replace Chavez with a nice Pinochet type wouldn't you? As long as the oil companies make out ok.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Certain events are certainly fact. But you seem to blame the US for the majority of problems that occured. Others do not share that viewpoint. While the US certainly has a responsibility in many cases, it is not the great evil you are appearing to portray it as. Your viewpoint seems to be coming directly from Chavez himself.
