Hugo Chávez - A Great Loss to the Poor

[Guest]

Or that you raised talisyn and as such you might have some common ways of thinking.

[annewandering]

Or that you raised talisyn and as such you might have some common ways of thinking.

Eowyn, go on facebook and friend Alex Pelton. He is my youngest son. I bet a lot of you would just love him. Talisyn and I are liberal but we do not think alike. She is much more liberal than I am.

Truth is that I prefer to be critiqued on what I say not what someone thinks I said due to his own misconceptions.

[Dravin]

Truth is that I prefer to be critiqued on what I say not what someone thinks I said due to his own misconceptions.

I suspect JAG feels the exact same way.

[Guest]

I suspect JAG feels the exact same way.

I dare say we all feel that way.

[Guest]

I just realized I didn't complete my thought. My parents and I part ways on a lot of issues. They are much more right-wing than I am and probably see me as a commie pinko compared to them in some ways. :) But we still tend to have similar thought processes and ways of seeing things, even if we arrive at different conclusions.

[annewandering]

I suspect JAG feels the exact same way.

I just bet we all do

[talisyn]

I suspect JAG feels the exact same way.

Me, too!!! I have a small mouth and I can't even pronounce some of the words that I've been accused of saying (not necessarily on this site ).

[Just_A_Guy]

Just_A_Guy, considering I never discussed this thread at all with Talisyn and we both had the same problem seeing how you got what you got from my post I can only assume that either you conservatives have keywords you respond to that us liberals dont know, or we are stupid, or hmmmm what else could it be? I really dont know but am curious.

It's getting hard for me to follow our exchange here because of the sheer length of the thread. For convenience, below are direct links to our mutual exchanges leading up to our misunderstanding. I can only hope that, in a little more of a focused context, perhaps our meanings might become more clear to each other.

Your initial post

My response

You

Me.

As for "keywords you respond to that us liberals dont know": I won't presume to speak for anyone but myself. But some of my own hot-button words and phrases are "bribery with the public purse", "tyranny of the majority", "vote buying", "influence peddling", "redistribution", "permanent non-taxpaying majority", etc.

If those terms have been reduced to mere conservative "dog whistles", then I can only join Vort's lament.

[annewandering]

This is an interesting argument. I understand the philosophical basis behind it, but it begs the question: Is there such a thing as an immoral use of public funds, provided they are administered by duly elected officials?

I venture to guess you thought the no-bid contracts awarded to KBR and Halliburton, completely abhorrent. But given the argument you present above, what's the problem with a little graft by public officials?

Ok going back to your statements.

Of course there is such a thing as immoral use of public funds even by those we elect. Which is why we have the options of replacing corrupt officials by voting others in, booting them out of office, bringing charges against them.

I am not fond of no bid contracts no matter who they are for.

As I stated elsewhere graft is illegal. If an elected official deals in graft then fire them and toss them in jail along with their cohorts.

[Just_A_Guy]

Ok going back to your statements.

Of course there is such a thing as immoral use of public funds even by those we elect. Which is why we have the options of replacing corrupt officials by voting others in, booting them out of office, bringing charges against them.

I am not fond of no bid contracts no matter who they are for.

As I stated elsewhere graft is illegal. If an elected official deals in graft then fire them and toss them in jail along with their cohorts.

Anne, I appreciate your clarification.

I guess my question, then, is: If the public does not muster the political will to replace corrupt officials--either because of disinformation perpetuated by the officials themselves; or because the electorate makes a cynical decision that they'll put up with a certain amount of corruption so long as the freebies keep coming--to what extent does that impute, to the minority, some kind of civic duty to stop their complaining?

Or does it?

And how do you persuade the minority to keep up the good fight in the arena of public opinion, when goons who subscribe to the majority's standpoint show up at polling places (which happened in 2012) and evict the minority's poll watchers (which also happened in 2012) and the majority's lackeys on the internet openly boast about having voted two, three, or even six times for the party in power (which also happened in 2012)?

Edited March 12, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[annewandering]

Anne, I appreciate your clarification.

I guess my question, then, is: If the public does not muster the political will to replace corrupt officials--either because of disinformation perpetuated by the officials themselves; or because the electorate makes a cynical decision that they'll put up with a certain amount of corruption so long as the freebies keep coming--to what extent does that impute, to the minority, some kind of civic duty to stop their complaining?

Or does it?

And how do you persuade the minority to keep up the good fight in the arena of public opinion, when goons who subscribe to the majority's standpoint show up at polling places (which happened in 2012) and evict the minority's poll watchers (which also happened in 2012) and the majority's lackeys on the internet openly boast about having voted two, three, or even six times for the party in power (which also happened in 2012)?

Illegal is illegal. If we want a free society we can not turn our backs on illegal actions.

Are we cowards? If so we deserve to lose what we have. The only way 'goons' will stop is to stand up to them. I would want to verify those were happening though. Braggarts on the internet are not exactly a valid source. We can certainly get into voters rights but it is already pretty far off the original topic.

[talisyn]

I was responding specifically to the "hit parade" of sneering innuendo coming from those who want to lionize Chavez and demonize his critics without providing any sort of substance to back up their presumption of moral superiority.

If some of you took that as attacks on your persons rather than your ideology, I apologize.

Have you actually read this thread???????????

[Mahone]

I'm a little late replying to this, unfortunately I'm still very jet lagged after leaving Florida - the DST change really didn't help, either.

Venezuela | Freedom House

Venezuela - Committee to Protect Journalists

Freedom of expression "under attack" in Venezuela | Radio Netherlands Worldwide

Press freedom under attack in Venezuela - National South America Headlines | Examiner.com

Okay, so there is still plenty of media critical of chavez[1], social media is relatively unencumbered by government restrictions[2] and popular broadcaster Globovision is still actively broadcasting anti-chavez rhetoric across the airwaves, 11 years after they supported the opposition who attempted to overthrow him in an attempted coup, regardless of Chavez having the technical ability to stop all of this instantly if he wanted to. This still doesn't sound like your description of him:

it's amazing the "mixed messages" you can generate when you close, burn, and destroy presses that criticize you, disenfranchise everyone who disagrees with you, jail anyone who speaks out against you, and torture, rape and murder the families of anyone who dares criticize you...

Venezuelan judge is jailed after ruling angers President Hugo Chávez

Venezuela's Chavez Tightens Grip On Judiciary : NPR

Here is an opposing point of view:

A Few Facts about the Case of Judge Aï¬uni | venezuelanalysis.com

I'm still waiting for evidence of the following:

torture, rape and murder the families of anyone who dares criticize you...

But you weren't "plugging a gap"- you were offering an opinion- and by your own admission, you didn't even bother to make it an informed opinion.

I'm guessing this is the opinion you claim is non-informed:

I do think that there are other leaders in this world that are far more worthy of my dislike, though.

I think this opinion is more than vague enough to be correct - heck, I could likely find dozens of people with a quick google search that are far more deserving of my dislike. Please clarify your issue here.

In the post to which I responded, you stated that the negative opinions and criticisms were limited to "a few Americans" on this board- insinuating that criticism of Chavez is some sort of latent Americano-centrism or moldy American imperialism.

Incorrect. My actual words were:

Of course that also has the side effect of sustaining a dislike of him from those within the US, which is demonstrable from the small group of Americans on this board.

You'll notice I didn't use the word "limited" anywhere. My point was that this board is not a good place to determine global opinion of Chavez, not just because of the small sample size here. Most of this boards population is American, and as Chavez was so anti-American, it follows that it encourages many Americans to have similar views of him by default. I stand by this.

You attempted to dismiss Chavez' critics as a small, isolated, and marginal group- without providing any justification for that dismissal.

Please feel free to show where.

By your own admission, that opinion was not fueled by any genuine knowledge of Chavez, his history, or tactics.

Incorrect. I claimed that I didn't believe I knew enough about the man to have a valid opinion. No-where did I say that I didn't have any genuine knowledge of Chavez, his history, or tactics. These are your words, not mine.

Nor did I particularly care for the implication YOU were making.

I'm sure you didn't, seeing as you clearly didn't read my post properly.

Funny, isn't it, how sour people get when their own tactics are turned against them?

I wouldn't know.

In the absence of specific knowledge, I can only assume that this was a blanket request rather than a finger on only one side of the scale. I was responding specifically to the "hit parade" of sneering innuendo coming from those who want to lionize Chavez and demonize his critics without providing any sort of substance to back up their presumption of moral superiority.

I'm not really sure why you were responding to me, then? I don't see anywhere that I've attempted to "lionize" Chavez, neither have I had any desire to do so.

In any case, this will be my final post of the topic. I am invoking Hamblin's rule #1 and walking away.

Apologies if I offended you.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Mahone

[talisyn]

This is officially my favorite thread about dead socialist leaders

[bytebear]

You know, you can reduce unemployment by simply killing all the people who have no jobs, but I don't think the end justifies the means.

[Guest]

Really guys? Americans praising Hugo Chavez???

[pam]

Really guys? Americans praising Hugo Chavez???

Definitely not me. :)

[HoosierGuy]

You know, you can reduce unemployment by simply killing all the people who have no jobs, but I don't think the end justifies the means.

No need to kill. Just throw in prison all the business people who outsourced jobs. Then make outsourcing illegal. That would greatly reduce unemployment. But of course anybody supporting that would be branded a devil like so many have branded Hugo Chavez. Attack the very people who want to help you the most.

[Mahone]

Really guys? Americans praising Hugo Chavez???

I hope I wasn't included in this statement as I'm not American and neither have I praised Chavez

The reason I've played devils advocate in this thread is because it reminded me of a not too dissimilar thread on this forum about another not so popular world leader, at least from the perspective of the western world. Whilst most people were discussing what a dispicable human being this man was, a lone person claiming to live in the country he represented said something along the lines of much of the information here not being true, and that he wasn't the person many people thought he was.

From memory, the response this person received was along the lines of what Selek said earlier, we know we are right, and you are wrong, plus lots of strong emotive words to back up this statement, but not as much in actual evidence. Yet as far as I'm aware this person was the only one on the forum that had lived under the rule of the leader in question, and they were dismissed so quickly.

To my knowledge, everything we knew was essentially based on what the media in our respective countries had reported (not known for their complete accuracy), or from people who potentially had a vested interest in being negative about the country and it's leader. Of course this doesn't mean what they are saying is false, but I'm not so easily going to dismiss an opposing opinion because of what I think I already know. What I've been trying to do on this thead is establish how people know what they "know". This also helps me build on my lack of knowledge about him, and what sources are available to determine how much of this knowledge is verifiable.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Mahone

[prisonchaplain]

Hugo Chavez was not on my top-10 list of favorite dictators--though he would have beaten out Kim Jong Un. On the other hand, he did do some good for some poor. As I read through this string I thought that most people had their facts fairly straight. It was in the interpretation that positions scattered. I found a fairly objective article suggesting that Chavez did help some poor people tremendously--especially with healthcare. However, he also failed to achieve some important goals, and did preside over a government with serious corruption issues. And, of course, he relied on petro-money, garnered by nationalizing the industry.

See: Hugo Chávez and the Future of Venezuela

Long story short, I'm sure that President Obama now, and Bush before, could have done wonders for the poor if they nationalized the oil industry and gained a windfall of $$$ to spend on the public good. In the long run, such a move probably would not have been healthy for the country though.

[selek]

Really guys? Americans praising Hugo Chavez???

What surprises me, Anatess, is that you would be surprised.

From about 1910 to about 1939, there was a surprising amount of political energy expended in celebrating the wonderful new ideas and social theories coming out of places like Russia, Italy, and Germany (and Margaret Sanger's head).

Members of this movement- from Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh to the Kennedy clan and Franklin Roosevelt were lavish in their fulsome praise of the ideas being tried out in Berlin, Tokyo, Leningrad, and Rome.

Even into 1942 and '43, there were major American players who insisted that we were fighting the wrong people.

That having been established, I cannot help but wonder why you feel the ideological heirs of Henry Ford, Joseph Kennedy, and Roosevelt might not make the same mistake as regards to Castro, Guevara, Chavez, and Ahminejad.

The times change- but the rhetoric and the dance of moths to the flame remains the same.

Edited March 25, 2013 by selek

[bytebear]

No need to kill. Just throw in prison all the business people who outsourced jobs. Then make outsourcing illegal. That would greatly reduce unemployment. But of course anybody supporting that would be branded a devil like so many have branded Hugo Chavez. Attack the very people who want to help you the most.

You really have no clue as to how the global economy works.

[john doe]

No need to kill. Just throw in prison all the business people who outsourced jobs. Then make outsourcing illegal. That would greatly reduce unemployment. But of course anybody supporting that would be branded a devil like so many have branded Hugo Chavez. Attack the very people who want to help you the most.

Let me get this straight. You want to imprison people who have not broken any laws, and THEN make a law declaring that what they did was illegal? Yep, you'd be a perfect fit under a dictatorship.

Who decides who is outsourcing jobs and who is just expanding into developing markets? You? And why would you imprison the very same people whom you want to encourage to employ people in your country? Rhetorical question: do you get better results with a carrot or a stick?

[Vort]

You really have no clue as to how the global economy works.

I really think those last seven words were totally unnecessary.

[Guest]

What surprises me, Anatess, is that you would be surprised.

From about 1910 to about 1939, there was a surprising amount of political energy expended in celebrating the wonderful new ideas and social theories coming out of places like Russia, Italy, and Germany (and Margaret Sanger's head).

Members of this movement- from Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh to the Kennedy clan and Franklin Roosevelt were lavish in their fulsome praise of the ideas being tried out in Berlin, Tokyo, Leningrad, and Rome.

Even into 1942 and '43, there were major American players who insisted that we were fighting the wrong people.

That having been established, I cannot help but wonder why you feel the ideological heirs of Henry Ford, Joseph Kennedy, and Roosevelt might not make the same mistake as regards to Castro, Guevara, Chavez, and Ahminejad.

The times change- but the rhetoric and the dance of moths to the flame remains the same.

I'm not surprised. Just... disappointed.

I guess there will always be those who pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and then praise those who would want to see that flag taken down.