Would you celebrate an American President for Life? No? Then why do we cheer this guy?????

[Stinky The Clown]

Chávez to propose removing his term limits

CARACAS, Venezuela: President Hugo Chávez will unveil a project to change the Constitution on Wednesday that is expected to allow him to be re-elected indefinitely, a move that would enhance his authority to accelerate a socialist-inspired transformation of Venezuelan society.

The removal of term limits for Chávez, which is at the heart of the proposal, is expected to be accompanied by measures circumscribing the authority of elected governors and mayors, who would be prevented from staying in power indefinitely, according to versions of the project leaked in recent weeks.

Willian Lara, the communications minister, said Chávez would announce the project before the National Assembly, where all 167 lawmakers support the president. Supporters of Chávez, who was re-elected last year with some 60 percent of the vote, also control the Supreme Court, the entire federal bureaucracy, public oil and infrastructure companies and every state government but two.

The aim of the overhaul is "to guarantee to the people the largest amount of happiness possible," Lara said at a news conference on Tuesday.

~~snip~~

I don't know about anyone else, but I find this troubling and disgusting. Just because this guy called Bush the devil in a public forum and was on the opposite side of some CIA bullshit a few years ago is NO reason, in my book, to cheer for him.

How is he not a thug? The fact he is an elected thug means little. A thug is a thug.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Do you celebrate FDR and the New Deal?

Chavez is not rewriting the constitution to make him 'president for life'. He is proposing a change to allow him to run for re-election as often as he wants. Like FDR did. Remember him? Remember when the Democratic Party actually stood for and fought for working men and women?

[SaveElmer]

6. Talk about a very long stretch...

Did FDR change the constitution to allow him to have multiple terms...no!

Did FDR have support of 100% of the Congress...no!

Did FDR have 100% support of the Supreme Court?...no!

Did FDR try to pass laws limiting the power of state and local officials to keep them from being reelected?...no!

Chavez is a dictator in the making...

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Let me know when he is made.

FDR had huge majorities in both house and senate. FDR attempted to pack the supreme court to get around that obstacle to moving his progressive and popular agenda forward.

The only reason Chavez has no major opposition in the legislature is because the major opposition parties boycotted the last legislative election so they could get fools to make statements like yours.

The expansion of federal power under FDR was huge.

[IndianaGreen]

148. Our Constitution had no term limits until GOP put them in. Colombia just got rid of term limits!

May I point out that our pal President Uribe of Colombia just changed the law and removed term limits from the Presidency in order to run for reelection. I don't see anyone accusing Uribe of being a tyrant since he followed the law in changing the law. Why the double-standard with Chavez?

It is disgusting how DLC/conservative Democrats parrot the Republican rightwing. And these are the same "Democrats" that are most opposed to impeaching Bush and Cheney. Their love for "freedom" is as genuine as Clinton's "love" for "that woman, Ms Lewinsky."

[DuaneBidoux]

208. I am not a "DLC" conser ative but you are likely right about the biased coverage.

If Uribe of Columbia is doing it too then I am against it there-and I would simply say there seems to be a new wave of anti-democratic forces sweeping Central and South America. And that is too bad.

[Capn Sunshine]

34. This reminds me of comparing the Iraqi parliament to our founding fathers

That was an over the top clearly propaganda driven bit of flimflammery ( pretty emblematic of the whole clusterfuck over there)

And your attempts to portray Hugo Chavez as the FDR of Latin America are , shall we say, in a similar vein.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Yeah after all it isn't like FDR was president for life

and implemented sweeping social reforms that were considered socialism by many. It wasn't like FDR bent the rules or had a huge majority in the legislature to push his programs through. It wasn't like the political opposition called him a dictator despite the fact that he was re-elected each time in open and fair elections. Yes it is completely off base. Chavez is very much the FDR of Latin America. Get used to the concept.

[frylock]

78. it's not like the ruling class corporatists tried to overthrow FDR in a coup..

keep em coming. Some of these maroons should do a little research on amendment 22. :eyes:

[DuaneBidoux]

209. I have no problem with "socialism" at all--if that's what the people voted for.

The actions he has taken to consolidate power however are actions that have repeatedly in history led to the making of dictators. Even the first communists and first Nazis did some great things in the beginning. But the tools they used (press being shut down, etc.) eventually became political weapons. This will ultimately happen here as well--as it always does, under whatever party you name your dictatorial moves.

[DuaneBidoux]

207. I Would always be nervous for any politician that that tries to extend his term.

FDR was running under the constitution as it was then written with no term limits. It was the Republicans that couldn't stand having him in there for all that time and wanted to prevent another Dem from doing the same thing.

As it now stands, I don't care what party a president were from or how much I like him, I am always nervous when any poliician tries to change laws to extend his or her time in office. It would bother me if Bush tried to do it, it would even bother me if Clinton had tried to do it.

[bluestateguy]

2. All he needs now is the military fatigue and cigar and he can be just like his buddy Castro

nt

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Except for that free fair and open election thing.

Oh, and the vibrant mixed economy.

And the free press.

And opposition parties.

[KittyWampus]

102. "Vibrant" mixed economy? There are food shortages. Chavez is screwing w/the economy & he's no expert

I've asked DU'ere who blindly and unfailingly support everything he does WHO IS HIS PAUL KRUGMAN.

He is screwing around with the economy piecemeal. He makes one change, something goes wrong and he does something else.

For example:

From BBCNews

Venezuelan shoppers face food shortages
By Greg Morsbach
BBC News, Caracas


Coffee and sugar shoppers are met with empty shelves
President Hugo Chavez's policy of keeping a tight control on food retail prices while doubling the price of raw coffee beans back in December may have backfired. For at least a week, there has been no roasted coffee available on the shelves of Venezuelan supermarkets as wholesalers and coffee producers have been withholding their coffee from sale.

Since 2003, President Chavez has maintained a strict price regime on some basic foods like coffee, beans, sugar and powdered milk. But this measure designed to curb inflation has alienated Venezuela's coffee producers who say their profit margins have been reduced to nothing.

Coffee farmers have seen a 100% increase in the state-controlled price of raw coffee. The price of unroasted coffee beans doubled overnight. However, the government has so far been reluctant to increase retail prices to a level acceptable to coffee roasters and traders.

The reaction by coffee companies has been to hoard tens of thousands of tonnes of coffee in warehouses in the hope that the government would eventually announce fair prices. "You can't blame us for keeping the coffee to ourselves for the moment," says Eduardo Bianco, a senior executive at Cafe Madrid, Venezuela's largest coffee producer. "Would you sell your products on the open market if you were sure you were going to make a loss?"

Government minister and coffee executives have been locked in long talks to try to resolve the deadlock.

Some industry insiders say a compromise is imminent, others are more cautious.

snip

Venezuela's leftwing leader has authorised the use of the National Guard to "find every last kilogram of coffee" being stockpiled by coffee roasters.

He even raised the prospect of nationalising the industry as a last resort.

"As far as the law is concerned, we're absolutely within our rights to seize coffee which is deliberately being withheld from sale," insists Samuel Ruh, a government appointed monitor of consumer rights.

"In fact, we have already carried out several successful raids at premises illegally holding thousands of tonnes of coffee."

Yet several food stores in Venezuela's capital city Caracas say the coffee raids are not addressing the fact that shops are also running low on sugar, maize, powdered milk and beans.

Store managers insist they are not being supplied with new stock from wholesalers and importers, who were also complaining that the prices set by the government are too low.

[Warren Stupidity]

107. 10.8 % growth this quarter.

Although the oil sector is a bit less productive and profitable as it shifts over to public control.

But if things are as bad as your disinformation insists then I'm sure the people of Venezuela, tired of suffering under the cruel Ho Chi Chavez regime, will vote his constitutional change down, recall him from office, and put the oligarchs and kleptocrats back into power.

[Bongo Prophet]

123. Touch my coffee and it's COUNTER -REVOLUTION TIME!!!

Who is your Paul Krugman, sir?

What, you don't HAVE one?
Well, you can borrow ours, we're not using him right now - but we may need him back soon!

:hi:


What percentage of supporters are blindly obedient, in your opinion?
What percentage of detractors are blindly dismissive?

If we took both of those out, (not killed, just out of this equation :) ) would there be anyone left to discuss?
Us two excepted, of course :)

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

3. why do people here praise Robert Mugabe?

I am not sure there is a single dictator who doesn't have an offical DU fan club.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Does Mugabe run for re-election in internationally monitored

and sanctioned free and fair elections? Is Mugabe subject to recall by popular referendum at any time?

We have a real constitutional problem right here at home. Chavez running for re-election does not make Huga a dictator, it makes him a candidate for re-election. Get a grip.

[Fridays Child]

9. Internationally-monitored, free, and fair elections...

...I wish we had those here. :(

[LeftCoast]

20. I wanna see a link

I've never seen anyone on DU praising Mugabe.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. He makes a great roasted yam marmalade.

Or so I've heard.

[LeftCoast]

24. praising not braising

LOL

[paulk]

66. here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2563886#2564296

[struggle4progress]

158. The most "positive" thing said about Mugabe in that thread is that he has less blood on his hands ..

.. than Bush, which is certainly accurate after the long rapes of Haiti and Iraq

[LeftCoast]

170. Wow

Thanks for that link. Hope there are no other posts on DU as stupid as that one.

[Frances]

4. Do I approve of changing the constitution?

No. But do I think that Chavez did do some good things? Yes.

[MNDemNY]

8. Are you well versed enough in the Nicaraguan Constitution to have such an opinion? Just askin'.

I know I am not.

[atreides1]

26. What does Nicaragua have to do with this

Chavez is the president of Venezuela!

[Warren Stupidity]

13. We change our constitution. Why can't they change theirs?

Last I looked we've changed it 27 times.

[eridani]

143. So, you are campaigning to get rid of all our amendments to the US Constitution?

Has it escaped your notice that the whole electorate has to VOTE on any constitutional changes to make them effective.

[eridani]

144. So, you are campaigning to get rid of all our amendments to the US Constitution?

Has it escaped your notice that the whole electorate has to VOTE on any constitutional changes to make them effective.

[JDPriestly]

7. The problem is that Chavez wants to change the rules

in mid-stream to allow himself to continue to stay in power. If he wants to change rules, the rules should be effective after he leaves. I'll bet he would not want to see the new rule allowing more repeated terms applied in favor a conservative leader. Beware of leaders who want rules that will benefit them and their faction but that they would not to want to have in place for the benefit of an opposition faction.

Chavez and Bush share a lack of respect for the rule of law. The rule of law has to be more important than the rule of a particular person or faction.

[WCGreen]

12. That's the point...

Changing the rules to fit the ego...

Hugo is playing exactly how the Neo Cons want him to play...

Now they will be given even more latitude by the MSM to continue labeling him Venezuela's Castro...

[MNDemNY]

14. Why meddle in the internal affairs of Nicaragua?

Has this worked out for us in the past? Who are we to tell the Nicaraguans whether to change their constitution or not?

[Warren Stupidity]

18. er uh Nicaragua?

Chavez is president of Venezuela.

[Common Sense Party]

64. Leave the Nicaraguans out of this.

Venezuela and Nicaragua are two different countries.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. If the people of Venezuela don't like his big fat ego

they can turn him out of office at any time. What I fail to understand is why you are so concerned about Chavez getting re-elected or Venezuela changing it's constitution.

[WCGreen]

23. I'm not all that concerned about Chavez....

I am concerned about the the enemy of my enemy is my friend mentality sometime prevails here in DU whenever someone takes a shot at Bush...

Also, if you looked at what I said, it is the perception of him in the MSM that will be justified now and well, he sits on a shit load of oil so yea, I think it is important enough to talk about...

[ProudDad]

44. Don't you DARE

try to define MY reasons for supporting Chavez!!!

Especially if your guesses are so FUCKING WRONG!!!!

"enemy of my enemy is my friend mentality" <== TOTAL BULLSHIT...


On Edit: You knee-jerk anti-Chavistas are so shallow, so simplistic, so ignorant about what's going on down there and what's really going on the the good ole' U.S. of Fucking A. that you make our points for us...

[Stinky The Clown]

62. You know that's over the top ... right?

[frylock]

80. what's over the top is the same propagandist BULLSHIT posted here day after day after FUCKING day..

so no, ProudDad's post wasn't over the top.

[Stinky The Clown]

84. "propagandist BULLSHIT"?

Is that defined as anything that you don't believe in?

Stop it. That's just silly. And even more over the top.

[frylock]

90. where are you getting your info?

go ahead, post your sources. Let's see who's calling Chavez a dictator. Is HRW? Nope. Is it the neoconservative MSM? Yep. You're the one who is over the top. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You're merely parroting RW talking points.

There will be a referendum regarding whether term limits will be repealed. You understand what a referendum is, right? That means the VOTERS will decide if they want to eliminate term limits. Do you have a problem with the citizens of Venezuela determining their own fate? If so, explain why.

[Stinky The Clown]

97. Uh .... look at the top of the page .... the OP?

See there ... in the box? Under the International Herald Tribune logo ..... that story ..... snipped ..... with a link?

That's where I got this.

The entire OP is abut what is stated in that story.

The rest of this is you ...... hyperventilating.

Try this ..... get small paper bag. Bunch up the top. Breathe in and out into the bag. It will help.

Geeeze ....... try sticking to the topic at hand. You're dragging the kitchen and bathroom sinks into this.

[ProudDad]

149. Get a grip

We HAVE BEEN "sticking to the topic at hand."

You started this little flame war. What the fuck you expect!!!

A flame war is exactly what you wanted and expected when you posted this little bit of right-wing spin masquerading as your opinion, right?

"I find this troubling and disgusting. Just because this guy called Bush the devil in a public forum and was on the opposite side of some CIA bullshit a few years ago is NO reason, in my book, to cheer for him.
How is he not a thug? The fact he is an elected thug means little. A thug is a thug."

Fine, this is your (IMHO bullshit) opinion. We got that, bunky...

We've given you ours!

We don't take an obviously biased article in the "International Herald Tribune" as the final word on the Bolivarian Revolution.

We observe. We find out the facts of the Bolivarian process in Venezuela and elsewhere in Free Latin America...what's actually happening on the ground. We're hardly going to accept unquestioned or unanalyzed the word of the corporate capitalist press when commenting on a burgeoning Socialist Process...

[Stinky The Clown]

179. "We"?

You gotta posse?

I'm going it alone.

And I'm a clown.

You need a posse to go against a clown in your invented little flame war?

Address my point (oft stated in this thread, go find it) in a honest way and you get no flame ... again, look through the thread.

Here's the deal ..... you got all pissed off and snarky cuz you couldn't get me to buy your off topic line of discussion. Then you had to sorta use 'we' to imply that it was me against a bunch of you.

Get over it.

And I would quote you back to yourself: "You started this little flame war. What the fuck you expect!!!"

[Warren Stupidity]

187. You are not going it alone and yes "we"

You are regurgitating the standard rightwing screed on Venezuela. You may think you are going it alone, but you appear to have absorbed the bullshit media system's talking points and are replaying them. 'We' are the democratic socialists here on DU. We tend to defend the Bolivarian movement in Latin America, as it presents a viable democratic progressive alternative to the dreary fascist kleptocracy that has otherwise enveloped the planet.

[ProudDad]

195. What he said

:hi:

[ProudDad]

150. Yep

"I find this troubling and disgusting. Just because this guy called Bush the devil in a public forum and was on the opposite side of some CIA bullshit a few years ago is NO reason, in my book, to cheer for him.

How is he not a thug? The fact he is an elected thug means little. A thug is a thug."

Propagandist bullshit is exactly right...

[Stinky The Clown]

180. Actually ..... you're wrong

That 'thug' stuff was my opinion, I made it up all on my own.

You're the one who's making it more than it is. But if you get off feeling brave and big and proud and manly by going mano a mano against a clown on a computer board, hey .... have at it.

"I am the Keyboard Warrior and I will eat your shortz for lunch"

[KaptBunnyPants]

163. It's spot on.

If you had read any of the responses to your inane questions, you would understand our position. But you clearly don't. You, and every other anti-Chavite I've seen always says the same stupid crap. "Oh, you just love him because he hates bush". A way to both trivialize our argument and insult our intelligence. We support him because the changes he is making in Venezuela are for the better. They are bringing a modern way of life to a country which was 80% peasant before he was inaugurated. He, the first native Venezuelan to ever hold the office of president, is undoing a system of racial exploitation which mirrored Apartheid in South Africa. A country 10% white, and look at who was holding all the positions of power. He's making business tough for all the assholes who drive the policies I hate, and rather than using the office to enrich himself like all his predecessors, he's using the profits from the oil revenue to bring things like electricity and modern medicine to indigenous people who have been living in shacks. And he's doing it all within the framework of a legitimate democracy. And you want me to fear him because he wants the chance to run in the next presidential election? Pathetic. I guess you want Venezuela to go back to the way it was, a corrupt colonial state ruled from Washington.

[Stinky The Clown]

182. What's this 'our position' stuff?

You part of some gang? Possee? Cabal? Grade School Field Trip?

Speak in the singular unless you show me your charter.

Chavez wants to change the rules in a way that benefits him. That's not a good thing. Its really that simple.

But if you feel good dragging in race and South Africa and your imaginary peeps, be my guest. Doesn't change the underlying issues or facts of my far more narrow point.

[KaptBunnyPants]

205. If you have facts, I'd like to hear them.

All I've heard from you is bullshit and innuendo. But then that's the best you're capable of, so I guess I should feel sorry for you. Hope you're parents had a child that was worthy of life.

[WCGreen]

103. Ah don't get your panties in a bunch Dude...

I could really care less what your reasons are for supporting Chavez...

[Warren Stupidity]

22. And why is changing a rule a bad thing?

Venezuela has a political process for changing the rules. It is their process, not ours. If they follow their process how is that 'a lack of respect for the rule of law'?

[ProudDad]

43. "wants to change the rules in mid-stream"

Just like FDR did

And FDR DID end up being President for Life...

[WCGreen]

104. Dude, there was no rule about running for more than two terms

until the 50's...

FDR was worm meat by then...

[Warren Stupidity]

108. FDR attempted to pack the supreme court

to get around its constitutional barrier to the economic reforms he was implementing. He didn't need to get around term limits as there weren't any. Yes it is not an exact analogy, but it is a pretty good one. Although FDR's legislative initiative failed, the court suddenly stopped obstructing most of his programs.

[WCGreen]

121. He tried to pack the court by claiming the need for more seats in

order to hear more cases...

There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have to have a certian number of judges sitting on the SC at any given time...

[Warren Stupidity]

126. It was an attempted end run around the constitutional obstacle

presented by an obstructionist court. As I said the analogy it not perfect, but it is not false either.

Despite several attempts to simply dismiss the comparison, the fact is that Chavez and FDR are playing similar roles in the history of their respective countries. It remains to be seen where Chavez will take his mandate, we have the luxury of knowing where FDR's moderately democratic socialist reforms of american capitalism ended up. Your side has already determined that Chavez is Mao/Fidel/Joe/Kim, through some process of divination that remains obscure to the others of us here, and that is that. I see a huge amount of really good progressive change going on in Venezuela, and so far, despite all the rightwing rhetoric, Venezuela remains more of a democracy than we ever were and far more than we are today. They at least get to directly elect their president, we don't. They get internationally monitored free and fair elections, we get a pathetic corrupt farce. Our system is a corrupt institutionalized kleptocratic duopoly, oddly so was Venezuela's system until Chavez was swept into power. They can recall, by popular referendum, their president at any time, we can't even get our opposition party to actually oppose, even when we put them back into power.

[WCGreen]

141. Don't claim it's my side....

All I said was Hugo, by doing his end around, is never going to shake the rep Bush has put on him in the MSM...

That is all I said...

[KaptBunnyPants]

164. That's retarded.

When did the American media suddenly get to decide anything important? Our country is ruled by elites, who tell the media what to tell us. Well, American elites are justly hated across the world, so fuck their opinion.

[WCGreen]

172. In case you hadn't noticed....

Perception is everything in a media driven society...

And like I said, it makes no real difference to me what Chavez says or does...

I just made a statement based on past behavior of the MSM...

If you choose to read into that, well, it's a free country...

You can think what ever you wish...

[Dhalgren]

16. This is the only reason I will give.

The peasants in Venezuela have been ground under the foot of the American backed slave masters for generations. The peasantry is 80% of the Venezuelan population. In order for these horribly mistreated people to gain any form of freedom, justice, and their fair share of their country's wealth, they must make sure that the US backed slave masters do not retake their country. Chavez is and has been fighting for these people his whole life and the peasants love him and protect him. In a just world where poor people are not treated like cattle by the rich, a Chavez would not be needed and would not be tolerated; but in this world, where "freedom" and "democracy" mean something only to the rich, well-connected, or powerful and to the peasants mean nothing, at all, then perhaps a Chavez is a godsend. We Americans look down our noses at the poor peasants of countries where our tax dollars have been spent to oppress them and say, "Let them eat cake!" And when they take matters into their own hands, and break the chains of their bondage we say, "Oh how terrible! They aren't 'democratic'! *Sniff*!" I have no sympathy for the slave owners and their ilk. If later on, after the Venezuelan people decide that they want a change and they elect a different President, then it will be their choice. Remember, Chavez isn't saying that he will remain President, only that he can run again. And our own Jimmy Carter has stated that Venezuela's elections are honest and legitimate and more representative than those in the US. That's it for me...

[ronnykmarshall]

17. Oh dear ...

:hide:

[noamnety]

19. Do you really think that's why people respect him?

"Just because this guy called Bush the devil in a public forum and was on the opposite side of some CIA bullshit a few years ago is NO reason, in my book, to cheer for him."

I dunno, seems like an awful lot of Venezuelans turning out to see him. You think there's maybe some other reason besides rhetoric about Bush or the CIA that all those folks turned out to see him?



Rather than being disingenuous about the reasons people respect him, why not actually talk about what he's done?

"What Chavez has done is to harness the wealth of the state, principally the oil money, and channel it from the kleptocracy to the poor, through a series of "Missions" that circumvent the state bureaucracies. For example, the literacy campaign has rendered the country "illiteracy-free" (UNESCO declaration)."

http://davelippman.com/venezuela.html

[Stinky The Clown]

25. Balh blah blah blah

NOTHING is an offset to changing the rules to suit one's self interest .... and then face the possible eventuality that the opposition will benefit from those rules and the country, in the end, has no say in things.

THAT is the issue. You can defend him for some of his better actions all you like but there are simply NO GOOD REASONS for him to do what he's doing.

Does this sound like a (small D) democrat: "to guarantee to the people the largest amount of happiness possible," ...... or a dictator? That quote would be believable if it were uttered by this guy:



Give me a break ......

[Warren Stupidity]

27. Kim really is a dictator.

Meanwhile FDR Chavez isn't. Too bad we don't have anyone on our side with the vision and strength of leadership that FDR had. Lots of Republicans viewed him as a dictator. And oddly, he was in fact president for life.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. The fundamental difference is .... ***FDR didn't change the rules***

Chavez is doing exactly that. To suit his own ends.

Please don't make yourself look foolish by comparing Chavez to FDR.

Chavez is, indeed, democratically elected now. His behavior indicates he intends to hold onto power. While it is true that he would likely be reelected in one or several subsequent elections, who knows what he might do to consolidate that power to the point of stranglehold.

I don't trust people who do things in public office that benefit only themselves. You're asking me to do that.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Eye of the beholder.

FDR bent lots of rules and tried to pack the court. However your post was massively foolish: changing the constitution to end term limits does not make Chavez 'president for life'. That was total bullshit and you should know better.

Meanwhile the programs and policies that the Bolivarian movement lead by Chavez are putting into place are making life better for working men and women in Venezuela and ending the stranglehold the kleptocracy has had on that country and its oil wealth for decades. Oh the horrors!

Meanwhile our constitution has been fairly well scrapped with no due process at all. We don't get to vote on what is going on here even when we go through the motions of voting on it.

[Stinky The Clown]

37. FDR tried ...... but failed

The constitution and the opposition stopped him.

Changing Venezuela's constitution does not, as you point out, actually make him president for life. But you're being disingenuous if you try to say that's not where he appears to be headed.

Sure he's done some good stuff down there. Many dictators start that way. Not all, but many. And not everyone who does good is a dictator.

But it sure seems like your guy Hugo is headed that way.

[ProudDad]

52. Yep, the opposition stopped him

the same opposition that supported Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

"While the First New Deal of 1933 had broad support from most sectors, the Second New Deal challenged the business community. Conservative Democrats, led by Al Smith, fought back with the American Liberty League, savagely attacking Roosevelt and equating him with Marx and Lenin.<20> But Smith overplayed his hand, and his boisterous rhetoric let Roosevelt isolate his opponents and identify them with the wealthy vested interests that opposed the New Deal"

You're allying yourself with the corporate capitalist masters???

[Stinky The Clown]

83. "You're allying yourself with the corporate capitalist masters???"

J'accuse, monsieur!

Nice ....... very right wing of you.

By the way ... that chip on your shoulder ..... have you named that thing yet?

[ProudDad]

151. Yep

a desire for truth and an aversion to bullshit...

[KaptBunnyPants]

167. In other words, yes.

Thank you for exposing you're lack of morals.

[Stinky The Clown]

177. Oh .... so captian bunny pants calls me immoral .......

.... based on what, exactly?

Lack of morals? Man oh man are you out there fishin' without bait.

[KaptBunnyPants]

206. You hate Democracy and want to force Venezuelans to live in poverty for your conviencence.

Sounds pretty evil to me. Not to mention disgusting.

[Bongo Prophet]

41. Of course FDR didn't change rules to run for extra terms

Since there was no rule AGAINST it.
And since he RAN 4 times, he was "President for Life!"

Should he have not run the last 2 times, for the sake of democracy?
Some called him a dictator.
Tried to force a coup on him, too. FDR that is.

But a simple "Don't compare him to FDR" is silly. Some things may be apt, some not.
Some compare him to Castro. Some comparisons are apt, some not.
We are adults here, right? Not fools, right?
No insults needed, right?


I for one don't ask you to trust him. Just discuss.
In the end, it is not about any one personality.
I just hope the GOOD changes he -and the parliament and courts make - outlast HIM.
My concern is for the future of the people who have been downtrodden for decades, and that a free society comes out of that process.
Before Chavez, it was not good at all. Now they have hope. It could go either way, and if we meddle too much, it will be worse for the people.

I have a thread asking which president is most likely to invade and/or destabilize.
Few reads. People like to trash/defend/fight, but no response to the question so far.

I guess people would rather hurl insults.
Maybe we are fools.

Seems like the Clinton camp is most likely, followed by Obama - but that is just the followers themselves.

[Chulanowa]

136. Reading comprehension seems to be a forgotten art on DU...

He's making a proposal.
This proposal will be voted on.
It may fail, in which case, tough luck.
or it may pass, in which case, presidents of Venezuela can run for the presidency as many times as they want.

Now perhaps posters here are just so damn used to our president automatically declaring laws into existence via "signing statements" that we may have forgotten what, exactly, a "vote" is, much less an "election". This certainly seems to be the case with you, and so many others right here, who are laboring under the illusion that Chavez is becoming "president for life" or is "changing the rules"

He's not, on either count.
With regards to the former, he could be - presuming he gets elected that many times. if you really want to see "president for life", look towards some of our allies such as Saudi Arabia and Turkestan where there are no elections held after someone takes office.
Regarding the latter, he's not. You know why? He lacks the power. he can ask for it to come to a vote, but he can't just go "this is how it is"

[eridani]

145. It isn't possible for Chavez to change the rules unilaterally

Any proposed change will have to be voted on.

You haven't explained how Chavez is benefitting--do you have a URL pointing to his Swiss bank accounts or something?

[ProudDad]

152. I don't give a sh*t what you do

"I don't trust people who do things in public office that benefit only themselves. You're asking me to do that."

No, we Cavistas really don't give a crap what you do.

When it comes to this subject, we've already discovered that your mind is tightly closed...

Who cares :shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

183. Man .... that vein on yoour forehead .......

..... it ***really*** throbbing.

I bet that smarts.

By the way, I love it how you suddenly see yourself part of some big ol' group ("we Cavistas") battling the evil, devious clown. That's really precious.

Too funny.

[KaptBunnyPants]

166. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

nm

[noamnety]

39. I wonder how you became so loyal

to the Venezuelan constitution, and why you are so opposed to that being changed? Who was one of the biggest proponents of that constitution? ;)

It's very easy for us to sit over here in relative privilege saying it's more important to limit Chavez to X number of terms in office, than it is to ensure everyone in the country can read, and has access to medical care. The lives of those people aren't as important as our principles of democracy, I guess.

That's the great thing about coming from a history of colonialism, we are quite confident that we are always in a better position to make decisions of behalf of those brown people about what's best for them.

We aren't in a position to preach to other countries what democracy is, or isn't. We have done more to screw up Venezuela than Chavez ever did.

That's the reality.

[Stinky The Clown]

45. Lemme give you a little reality based anecdote

.... this a small story about a small group of people. but the action makes a pretty good model ..... or maybe a morality play.

I served a term as president of my professional association. It is an international organization that was founded in 1938. From 1938 to 1994, every president, every officer, every volunteer at all levels paid their own expenses to participate (to clarify, **all** positions were voluntary ... the difference is that officers were elected and committee people were appointed volunteers). This got a bit heavy for some and prevented others from serving at all. You see, there are no big companies in my business. The largest is less than 40 people and most are sole proprietors or two-zie, four-zie sized companies. So in the end, the money to participate came out of one's pocket, even if 'paid' by one's company.

In 1994, it was decided to have the organization pay the expenses of the officers and all other volunteers. As president (elected after 1994), my travel budget was in excess of $12,000 a year and covered my travel around the world. Of course, the time I spent was never recompensed - so in effect I lost three months (aggregate time given to the organization) of income.

Anyway, we decided that it would also be appropriate to double the presidential term from one to two years. The hue and cry from the membership was that we (the board) and I (the president) were more interested in 'free junkets' paid for by 'their dues' than in any real benefit to the organization.

Now the fact this wasn't true, mattered little. And the fact that lost income due to organization work was still a heavy burden (literally, 25% of one's income). It was about appearances.

So here's what we did: We changed the rule but in such a way that it didn't take effect until my term and the terms of **everyone** on the board expired. In other words, no one who voted on the change could be accused of 'benefiting' from it.

In hindsight, the change to two years has come to be seen by the members as the right thing. They see the benefit of the continuity to a time sufficient to actually **do** something and they see programs developed an implemented at a far higher and more successful rate than ever in the organization's history.

And no one was seen to have personally benefited from the change.

Your guy is trying to change the rules in a way that HE benefits from it.

[noamnety]

75. Don't compare yourself to Chavez

it makes you look silly.

And don't go around acting like you know better than those poor backwards brown folks that you know better than them who they should or should not be able to elect to represent their own interests, especially when the person they are electing is fighting against neoliberalism and providing health care and land to the poor. It makes you look worse than silly.

[Stinky The Clown]

85. Nice try

First off, how dare you imply what I do or don't do or think or don't think about 'brown people'. You don't know me and therefore are simply making that up to try to gain some credence. Sorry. To say NOTHING that race has nothing to do with this. You pull out the ol' race card when you got nothing else. You .... have nothing.

Your drivel about neoliberalism is also just rhetorical crap. I'm not even talking about that. And again, you don't know me so stop making up shit.

Here is the ESSENTIAL point of all this.

Your guy is trying to change the rules in a way that benefits HIM.

That's real simple. My real life example simply shows another way to accomplish the same thing. You may want to try to address that.

You and I have tangled before. No doubt we will again. I mention that simply to point out that you're going bankrupt in this thread trying to 'get me'.

Good luck with that.

Now, once again ..... at least **try** address the fundamental issue of the OP, as stated above.

[noamnety]

89. Fundamental issue in the OP

Another American deciding they know best how another country should create democracy.

[Stinky The Clown]

93. That's a drive by .... bereft of content

You disappoint me. You usually at least **try**. That reply was way below your standards.

How is my example wrong or bad? It accomplishes change in a way that the incumbent can NOT be seen to benefit from the change. (This is a serious question for which I'd like to see your answer. It is also central to my point in my OP. If you can't answer this, then you are, indeed, bankrupt in this argument.)

Would you tolerate - indeed, applaud - Hugo's actions in Bush? (This is a serious question for which I'd like to see your answer. It is also central to my point in my OP. If you can't answer this, then you are, indeed, bankrupt in this argument.)

[gulfcoastliberal]

"Your guy is trying to change the rules in a way that benefits HIM."- reminds me of the wiretap vote

The dems changing the rules, subverting the constitution, etc to further benefit bush. I think we have more than enough fires in our own "democracy" to worry about, let alone Venezuela. And how about all those brutal dictatorships around the world we prop up to benefit a few wealthy people/companies? Lets acknowledge one simple thing: the people of Venezuela are free to vote out Chavez or even recall him. They are in way better shape than we are.

[Bongo Prophet]

98. So, using this as a morality play...

Maybe we can clarify some moral choices.

Your story starts with a long tradition of doing things.
Then changes in 94. Then you come in to power.
You are partially compensated for going around the world (travel, not time) ...

I could go with this set up as analogy to pre-chavez tradition, but I think the crux is from here on, if I understand.
Am I right on this?
Anyway...
1. So then, "We" (pres and board?) decides to double the term, met with "hue and cry"
2. Members assumed nasty motives that may or not be x% true, (indeed, how to prove/disprove motive?) - and it "matters little" - "it was about appearances."
3. Solution = Change a rule to Delay implementation until everyone on board or pres is not affected by the change.
4. In time, members see the change as a good thing. They see benefit to longer term of continuity.

I would say you did a very good job of crafting a policy that worked!
I don't know the process of changing that extra rule there, but still good -and necessary to make it work.


Now, look at the core OP issue.
1. Chavez brings resolution to his "board" to consider and vote upon.
2.They do so and maybe pass it.
3.It goes to the people for direct referendum. Members get to vote directly on the issue.
4.If it passes, terms are 7 years instead of 6. Unlimited amount of terms. There is still recall process.

No extra rule added, but I am not sure whether this makes Chavez CURRENT term to lengthen, or AFTER he faces the next election.
If AFTER, it is less of a problem than current.
He PROBABLY does not have an option to delay till the terms of **everyone** on his parliament to expire. Would that be the key here?
Should he change the constitution an extra time for a little rule so that he can delay it till then? That may be years, not sure.

In some ways the second method sounds better to me, in theory. Say if it were local govt.

Now, you had a good solution under the rules of your organization. I don't know if you have any referenda process in that org or not, but the way you handled it worked out well.
Chavez may not have your wisdom or morality, exactly. Or fashion sense, probably. :)
But the process of each of these, stripped bare of personality is what should be judged on, and not other distracting issues.
Am I understanding you correctly?

Maybe there are more options than one.
Maybe the morality is not the issue - as long as there are direct democratic processes in place, people have power in that process.
A direct referendum is more directly democratic than board and pres changing rules, even for a WISE decision, no?

[Stinky The Clown]

114. That seems a pretty fair reading and interpretation ......

...... both of my little morality play and of the larger, meaningful issues.

To answer your question about my anecdote ... the change in terms did, indeed, require the vote of the membership. It passed with greater than an 80% plurality.

Chavez, it seems to me, would be better served, if he cared more about his country than himself, to make the change effective after he leaves office. Hell, if he were a leader, maybe he'd even say he wouldn't run for a term and then subject himself again to the will of the people.

I see not problem with this except in a case where the rule change benefits HIM. It really IS that simple ... the overheated rhetoric by some in this thread notwithstanding.

[Bongo Prophet]

122. Thanks for being clear, I broke it down to make sure I was getting it right

These Venezuela threads get too heated for light to shine through. Any opportunity to think some things through really is encouraging.

I think if Chavez had some savvy PR and ethics advice (can PR and ethics be in the same room?) then he could walk the tightrope better.
I agree that if he continued to the end of his term in 2012, it would look better. At least the people have 2 chances to stop it if they want.
That's more than OUR OWN system allows, sometimes. (not talking US constitutional amendments, HARD to pass)

If the Chavez eases up, or the opposing party would become less elite fascist, maybe it could get less polarized.
Would that make it better? I really don't know.
Here we are in the US, and look how limited our political options are!

But he is what he is, a man of the people - and not a sophisticate or from elite family. How American, right?
Weird thing about having to please his base, then cut deals around the world, while keeping a step ahead of enemies both overt and covert - with tact like you showed it might go down easier.
Well, his enemies would still attack him anyway, I think.

I would prefer that the good changes will outweigh the bad, and live longer than any particular leaders - and wish that for all people, really.
I hope there can be some peace and justice flourishing in the Americas.
Too much blood for too long, and we all have a window of time to all get our collective shit together.
It's gonna be a bumpy century.

[ProudDad]

50. Which do you have a problem with?

The fact that the People of Venezuela are getting a substantial piece of the pie and the power and we DON'T get that in the good ole' U.S. of fucking A.?

The fact that Chavez is a Socialist?

The fact that many of us here on DU are Socialists?

The fact that you can't find any real facts to support your slanders?

The fact that you have to resort to mickey mouse unsupportable red herrings like the picture you posted?

------------------

"to guarantee to the people the largest amount of happiness possible" is the mark of a dictator???



How about this statement: "We hold this truth to be self-evident—that the test of a representative government is its ability to promote the safety and happiness of the people."

Or this Dictator's Statement: "We have increased the worker's pay and shortened his hours"

Or the ravings of this Socialist Totalitarian: "Monopolies and the concentration of economic power continue to be the master of the producer, the exploiter of the consumer, and the enemy of the independent operator. This is a problem challenging the unceasing effort of untrammeled public officials in every branch of the Government...We propose by law to restore their efficacy in stamping out monopolistic practices and the concentration of economic power."

Or this dictator's message: "<the opposition> proposes to meet many pressing national problems solely by action of the separate States. We know that drought, dust storms, floods, minimum wages, maximum hours, child labor, and working conditions in industry, monopolistic and unfair business practices cannot be adequately handled exclusively by <separate governers>. Transactions and activities which inevitably overflow State boundaries call for both State and Federal treatment.

"We have sought and will continue to seek to meet these problems through legislation within the Constitution.

"If these problems cannot be effectively solved by legislation within the Constitution, we shall seek such clarifying amendment as will assure to the <government> the power to enact those laws <which the government> shall find necessary, in order adequately to regulate commerce, protect public health and safety and safeguard economic security. Thus we propose to maintain the letter and spirit of the Constitution."


Oh YEAH...the mark of a dictator.

And to the republicans of 1936, FDR WAS a dictator... These quotes are all from the DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM of 1936...


Welcome to the republican party of 1936, Husb2Sparkly...

[Stinky The Clown]

53. You're wingin' it ..... and projecting ......

My 'issue' is that so many here cheer the guy, even as he attempts to change his country's constitution in a way the COULD ACCRUE BENEFIT DIRECTLY TO HIM.

That's my concern.

I didn't read the rest of your post.

[ProudDad]

57. I'm not surprised

"I didn't read the rest of your post"

Don't want to be burdened by those nasty old facts...

[Stinky The Clown]

59. Your facts were off topic

Why read them?

I told you what my 'issue' was. Your facts didn't even go near my issue. They were simply a soap box for you to speechify. The fact that you missed (or chose to ignore) my point just didn't stop you.

[ProudDad]

147. It's called English

and I guess reading it is too hard for you...

I addressed your flame bait post directly;

You're saying that Chavez is a thug and will become (if he isn't already) a dictator and that we are fools to root for him and for the Bolivarian Revolution in Latin America...

Have I got your alleged "point" correctly. If not, then what IS your freakin' "issue"???

[lojasmo]

28. REEEEE.....POOOOOST

[Stinky The Clown]

30. SAAAAAAAAAAAY WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

Do you have anything to say or do you just like doing drive-bys.

If the latter, try, instead a drive buh-bye. :hi:

[ProudDad]

58. Talk about "drive-bys"

Check out the Original Post!!!

Classic Flame Bait!!!

[Stinky The Clown]

63. Sez you

The OP is legit as a topic and I've been here the whole time engaging in it.

Sorry it doesn't meet your standards.

Put me on ignore. You'll feel better.

[ProudDad]

65. Ignore is the refuge of the coward

Never use it...

[Stinky The Clown]

68. Man, you better calm down

You're acting as if I punched you in the nose ..... or invaded your country.

Coward? Its a fucking computer discussion board. You and I are the Pajamahadeen.

Coward?

Hahahahahahahaha

whew .....

[ProudDad]

156. "Ignore" is the refuge of the coward

I don't use it on anyone...

I'm not afraid of bullshit flame bait posts...

[lojasmo]

198. Carter foundation says venezuela's elections better than U.S.

The people of V. obviously prefer Chavez. He has improved the status of the citizenry greatly.

I'm sick of all the centrist merkins bashing him.

Especially when there are other, perfectly good threads in which to doso.

Re-posting rightwing bullshit like this is simple self-aggrandizement. There are better places to do so.

Try stormfront.

[IndianaJones]

32. This is truth. nt.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. "The fact he is an elected thug means little"

It means that the people of Venezuela do not appear to share your assesment of his thuggery, and that consequently it really is none of your business.

[Stinky The Clown]

38. Hey ... why dontcha move there?

See my post above. Many thugs and dictators start off as champions of the poor and the underclass.

Why is that?

CUZ THOSE MASSIVE NUMBERS GET YOU ELECTED.

The poorer the country, the easier for a thug to take over. Play to the masses, get elected, change the rules .... rinse and repeat. Voila. Dictatorship.

[noamnety]

40. "Why doncha move there"???

Is that really the level of debate you want on DU?

If you love it so much, why don't you move there???

[Stinky The Clown]

46. Stop being a scold. Are you his alter ego?

[noamnety]

77. I just recognize a pattern of discourse

[Stinky The Clown]

86. Okay .....

.... and what's that pattern? That I often disagree with you?

Very perceptive.

I hereby award you a Masters of the Obvious.

Congratulations. Your photocopied certificate, filled in with a genuine Sharpie, will be mailed to you within 21 days.

[noamnety]

88. Excellent.

Will it be signed by the CIA's alter ego?

[Stinky The Clown]

94. The CIA?

Adjust that tinfoil there, would ya?

WHOA ..... D U C K

Black Helicopter .... incoming.


(hehehehehe)

[noamnety]

96. My mistake.

You accused me of being Chavez's alter ego. You seem to be on the CIA's side when it comes to Chavez. It follows, by your logic, that you are assuming their alter-ego. Goose, gander, you know.

[Stinky The Clown]

99. No. I asked (not accused) you of being another poster's alter ego. Not Hugo's

Geeze ... you can't even get pissed off right.

Reread that 'alter ego' post. You'll see. Its right there .... in living pixels.

So ..... no goosie, no gander .......

Hey, isn't goose and gander a gender thing? You really should avoid that stuff ... yanno?

Goose and gander. :)

[Warren Stupidity]

112. "Stop being a scold"?

project much?

Everyone is free to post here as they see fit. It is an open forum. Your love it or leave bluster is pathetic. Really, sometimes your posts are great, and then sometimes you go right out into the koolaide delusional weeds. What is going on in Venezuela is called Democratic Socialism, they are building a mixed economy with strong DEMOCRATIC institutions, they are diverting their nation's vast oil wealth from the pockets of the kleptocracy that runs our pathetic charade of a 'constitutional republic' for their personal benefit, into social programs that are improving the lives of all the people of Venezuela. Did you know that part of the reforms include a huge cooperative industry movement? Did you know that Venezuela is on the path to eliminating illiteracy? providing decent housing, jobs, healthcare to all of its people? Why are you so threatened by that?

[Stinky The Clown]

116. My dear Mr. Stupidity

The poster to whom I applied that term is one thing.

Scold is as scold does.

I am not projecting and I don't think you're understanding my point at all.

My point is laughably simple:

Why is a man who appears to be moving his political power to dictatorship so revered by so many DUers?

I said nothing about what he's accomplished. I said nothing about his aims or goals. I see him as a thug for his political heavy handedness, but not his policies (as a broad statement).

I would scream if Bush tried what he's trying. Wouldn't you?

Why can I not scream about him doing it?

Again ..... this is about why he's revered for what he does but his political thuggery is overlooked?

[Warren Stupidity]

118. This entire thread is littered with your scolds and admonitions.

The fact that a clown like you doesn't even recognize the irony in your 'don't be a scold post' is demeaning to clowns and idiots everywhere. We bozos have standards. Now go put your clown shoes on the right feet, woodja?

[Stinky The Clown]

127. Nerve senstivity?

Look objectively at what I wrote throughout this thread. Anyone who engaged on the OP's very simple and very narrow point got a serious reply or no reply at all. Honest, objective discussion gets met with the same. Overheated rhetoric that assumes facts never stated in the OP and that assumes a position I neither stated nor hold gets treated like the (contextual) nonsense it is. This was my thread and I stayed with it ..... and I dare say, stayed consistent. That may not square with someone else's view of things, but its pretty much right there in the posts.

Again, to see this requires an objective re-read.

[noamnety]

181. disingenuous (again)

"Why is a man who appears to be moving his political power to dictatorship so revered by so many DUers? I said nothing about what he's accomplished."

People respect him BECAUSE of what he's accomplished. (even if YOU didn't say anything about that.)

Also, not everyone is falling for the rightwing propaganda of "he's a dictator/becoming a dictator" - because 1) he's doing everything ACCORDING to his constitution, despite attempts to portray that differently, 2) removing term limits doesn't make one a dictator (if it were, many of our senators would be considered dictators), 3) putting things up for a national referendum doesn't make one a dictator, and 4) their elections are MORE fair and honest than ours.

Is that really so hard to comprehend?

[Forkboy]

42. And the poor get screwed both ways.

The vote for someone who offers change and they get screwed.If they vote for someone who doesn't offer change then they're already screwed.

Now there's something to look forward to! :banghead:

[frylock]

87. america: love it or leave it

[Stinky The Clown]

101. Awwwk .... booby prize

The post's title was an obvious nonsequitor. The meat was in the body of the post. But if you wish to respond to the absurd, be my guest.

Y'ever see anyone go out with a fork when its raining soup? I'm just asking ..... apros pos of nothing. Nonsequitorially, if you will.

[Warren Stupidity]

106. Why don't you?

Actually I've considered moving south in general and Venezuela is on the list.

You are mighty concerned that Hugo might get re-elected in fair open internationally monitored elections, perhaps you should consider moving there, getting citizenship, and voting against Joe 'Stalin' Chavez. After all at least in Venezuela your vote will actually get counted and they don't have some bullshit electoral college system making sure tumbleweeds are better represented than actual people.

Was it an equal act of thuggery when Mao Tse Chavez reformed the constitution in 1998-99 putting in place the term limits he would now like the people of Venezuela to remove?

[Stinky The Clown]

111. I'll stay here, thanks

But you're free to go ... have a nice trip. :hi:

[KaptBunnyPants]

168. When someone declares elections don't matter, aren't they automatically autocrats?

God I wish FDR was back. Then the wingnuts would be all over him, and we could start leaving other peoples' governments alone.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. If the Venezuelans want to get rid of him, they have a proven ability to take to the streets

In the meantime, it's none of our beeswax.

[Stinky The Clown]

48. You're right. It IS none of our business

But we hear so much praise for the guy, it merits comment from time to time.

My post wasn't about what we should do or not do ..... but asked why we celebrate the guy here?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. In the context of Venezuelan history, he's a breath of fresh air

That's why.

[ProudDad]

55. Because in the context of WORLD HISTORY

he's a breath of fresh air.

Capitalism does not and can not work. It's a system based on an infinite pool of available resources on a finite Earth. It's bullshit...

Socialism can work on a finite Earth. Previous tries have mixed results but that's no good reason not to try again.

Chavez and the PEOPLE OF VENEZUELA are trying again.

I support that attempt...

You and your conservative corporate friends don't have to "celebrate the guy here". We Do request that if you're going to question his motives or our motives you have some kind of FACTS to back it up rather than right-wing spin based on bullshit...

[Stinky The Clown]

128. "conservative corporate friends"

Hey genius, how do you jump to that conclusion?

Man oh man, you're pretty deft at throwing out unsubstantiated nonsense.

So I can't 'question your motives'?

What motives are you talking about? You sound like some idealist with his thumb in his navel and his head up his ass. But I'm not saying you are .... cuz I don't know you. But it seems that way .... to me ... sorta.

Do me a favor ..... argue facts and statements as made by the person with whom you want to engage. It serves your purposes poorly to just make shit up out of whole cloth.

K? :hi:

[ProudDad]

157. You can't handle the Truth

You ignore anyone who directly addresses your alleged "point"...

You're exposed as the closed mind you are...

[Stinky The Clown]

178. I sure haven't ignored you .......

By the way ..... that chip on your shoulder ...... It'd look great in polka dots.

[Hippo_Tron]

51. I have to first question what the alternative to Chavez in Venezuela is before I find it troubling

As I've stated before, I'm a critic of Chavez's economic policy. He does not seem to be making much of an attempt to diversify the country's economy for the long term which, IMO, will ultimately be his downfall unless he changes that policy.

That being said, if the only alternative is a US puppet regime like the one that was in place before Chavez, then I'm not ready to call him a thug.

The United States has been meddling in Latin American affairs, for almost two centuries now and in most instances the people there have been worse off for it. Electing an anti-US left wing President is a natural reaction to the actions that the United States has taken.

[Stinky The Clown]

60. You get no argument from me at all

My issue is that he appears headed for full blown dictatorship and yet so many on our side seem to hold him in a place of esteem.

He did good things

His policies are flawed

He's using the power of his office to consolidate power, much like our own unitary executive

And yet he's cheered on by the left in the US.

I don't get that last part. :shrug:

[noamnety]

76. We're looking at the bigger picture.

Every 4 years we elect a new person to increase the gap between the rich and the poor. And those who push for a third party are told to STFU. Don't kid yourself, power in this country is consolidated just as much as theirs.

Would you like coke? or pepsi?

[Stinky The Clown]

100. See .... heres' thjat alter ego thing again. Are yu also this poster's?

Or don't you trust people to be able to answer (or not) for themselves as they see fit?

You must be a gas in a group therapy session.

Did Sister Mary Augustus Of Perpetual Guilt scold you a lot in school?

[Warren Stupidity]

113. lwfern is my authorized representative in this flame fest.

there. OK. Happy now?

[Stinky The Clown]

129. I'm so glad for the two of you

Shall we alert the media to this tantalizing news?

[billyoc]

54. A lot of countries don't have term limits, do they have presidents for life too? n/t

[ProudDad]

56. Like Great Britain

Tony (bush's "poodle") Blair just did 10+ years... Thatcher 11+ (woe unto the British public)...

Prime Ministers for Life...


Big difference, Venezuela has a recall -- those "great democracies" of the Caucasian west don't...

[welshTerrier2]

61. mixed feelings about this

Chavez has brought about huge and beneficial changes for the people of Venezuela. Also, he has stood up to the imperialists in Washington.

One might reasonably ask should any degree of un-democratic policy be appropriate given the threat from the US? For example, would shutting down one or more news outlets be appropriate if the US and US financed groups were using those outlets to topple the government? What should the limits of presidential authority be in the face of a real and credible threat from abroad?

So, we are left without absolute black and white answers to some of the things Chavez has done. Take these actions a step further: is it ever appropriate to declare marshal law? While pure civil libertarians might say no, perhaps some would accept the loss of civil liberties under the most severe circumstances.

And then we have the current issue of abolishing term limits. Is the action wrong on its own merits or is it wrong in context or is it not wrong at all? Are term limits "good" or "bad"? Are they, by definition, un-democratic because the people should have a right to choose any leader they prefer? Or, is the objection to what Chavez has done based on the fact that he, himself, could be the beneficiary of the change? Would it make a difference if this were put before the Venezuelan people in a nationwide referendum?

I've never liked term limits for most offices. On the other hand, I certainly would NOT approve if bush tried to change the law in the US so that he could continue to occupy the WH. Nor do I think it healthy to put another Clinton back in office. All this begatting has gotten a bit too incestuous. This is the stuff that monarchies are made of. Perhaps the distinction I would make would be between the "top" office and all other offices. I'm not really all too clear about that.

So, no absolutes for me on the Chavez thing. Sorry to be so vague. Perhaps someone can make a convincing case to help me decide.

[ProudDad]

67. He's asking the People of Venezuela

to remove the term limit on President...He's not doing it by edict.

He's also placing Venezuela among the majority of nations. The U.S. is relatively unique in term limit for President...

They still would have the power to re-elect him or not.

They also have the power to remove him by recall.

Wish we had THAT here!!! :hi:

=========================

Someone else made the point in another thread about the "founding fathers'" view on term limits...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3451413#3453330

[welshTerrier2]

70. that's much more reasonable but ...

I think it's a little bit dangerous to allow the law to take effect immediately. I don't direct this comment to what Chavez is doing but rather to the general idea of eliminating term limits.

So, for example, if we had a republican president with a strong republican majority in the Congress, I would like to see any repeal of term limits on presidents not take effect for, say, ten years. I think it's a dangerous step, even with majority support from the people, to allow changes of that magnitude to benefit the party or person currently in power.

In the Chavez case specifically, it's very hard to ignore US history in the region. How many other leaders of South American and Latin American countries have been killed by the CIA? US actions contribute to a loss of democracy. If we are to label what Chavez is doing as "consolidating his power", we should not judge his doing so in a vacuum. Perhaps strengthening his hand is the only defense against the "world's only superpower."

[Stinky The Clown]

72. "I think it's a little bit dangerous to allow the law to take effect immediately."

THAT's the detail everyone seems to be missing. I attempted to make the same point, here, upthread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3456036&mesg_id=3456327

[welshTerrier2]

74. i agree with how your board handled the situation

changes that could immediately benefit those in power should be held up to the greatest scrutiny and, wherever practicable, should have their implementation delayed for some period of time or until some event or condition occurs.

the only "gotcha" with the Chavez situation is the US. Consider this: Would you have objected to Castro claiming absolute power when he came to power in 1959?n Should he have agreed to "step down" after two four-year terms? At some point, given the realities of the opposition, in this case the US, absolute power may be needed to protect the nation's sovereignty. Perhaps you see that as a "two wrongs don't make a right" situation; it's not clear, however, whether any practical alternative exists.

[Stinky The Clown]

81. When Castro took power, there were binary superpowers

So yeah ..... he should have stepped down.

Castro is an interesting comparison to Chavez. I have avoided making it throughout this thread, for obvious reasons. But his regime is an example of a more or less good guy (at the start) keeping his country from moving forward by his own grasp on power. Cuba, today, by most fair standards and assessments, is in pretty bad economic shape. That didn't have to be the case. Castro, if he was right, could still have been a strong Latin American influence by somehow being involved in the region after serving his term in Cuba. Instead, he pretty much stayed isolated, even when his patrons folded. I wonder if he had Cuba's or Castro's best interests at heart.

[ProudDad]

154. "Cuba, today, by most fair standards and assessments, is in pretty bad economic shape"

Thanks to Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, nixon, ford, Carter, ray-gun, bush I, Clinton, bush II...

and the thousands of Miami-cubans who seem to have had these "gentleman" by the balls...

I think they've done pretty god damn well considering.

[ProudDad]

153. That's really up to the People of Venezuela

isn't it? :shrug:

[Stinky The Clown]

73. Yanno ..... no one is arguing term limits

All **I'm** arguing is that, overall, his political behavior points toward a consolidation of power that **could** lead to dictatorship.

I don't trust Bush not to try to go there and i don't trust Chavez not to try to go there.

If I won't tolerate a specific behavior in Bush, why would I tolerate it elsewhere?

If he wants to change the term limits, change it for the NEXT guy .... or a guy someplace down the road. It is the making it benefit HIM that is troubling.

Don't you see that??

[Warren Stupidity]

119. Massive restatement.

"Would you celebrate an American President for Life? No? Then why do we cheer this guy?????"

Recall that sentence? Look familiar. Chavez is not 'president for life'. Now suddenly you seem to be beating a retreat to Chavez could be doing things that might lead to dictatorship.

Perhaps you misspoke?

[Stinky The Clown]

130. No misstatement.

He wants to change the rules midstream so he can be elected forever.

That's not fair and counter to a bottom up democracy.

At least that's what I always thought was the sense of what I learned in civics class.

[Stinky The Clown]

69. That's the problem ..... there IS no black and white to this.

And yet, it seems, that there is a black or white support for him. Much like our candidate wars or the whole Sheehan thing ...... there is, to all too many, only black and white. The world, on the other hand, is gray.

In my view, if I would not tolerate something in the US, neither can I tolerate it elsewhere.

As you said, if Bush were to propose the elimination of term limits I'd be among the torch and pitchfork brigade. And you'd be lighting my torch as I lit yours.

That seems a reasonable standard.

Has Chavez done good for his country? Mostly, yeah. But he also is using the oil to consolidate power. Sure, some of the money gets back to the people, but what happens when the oil runs dry? Where are the long term policies? Instead we see an attempt to consolidate and strengthen his own personal power. Can it be argued it is all fair and democratic? Sure. That can be argued. I'm less sure it can be won in an honest, detailed debate.

So, in the end, we're left with impressions and past actions. The record is spotty and open to broad interpretation.

It simply **isn't** black and white. And my OP was not so much about Hugo as it was about the reverence in which he is held by so many around here.

Why is it you always seem to get what I'm saying, even though we don't always agree?

[welshTerrier2]

71. actually ...

i never get what you're saying but I always agree with you :hi:

well, either that or vice versa ... or maybe even neither or both ...

i think that clarifies things nicely ... well, or not ...

A sports journalist once asked Don Zimmer about a 4 wins and 4 losses road trip his team had just completed.

Zimmer responded: "Well, this thing just as easily could have gone the other way."

[beachmom]

79. Actually, Welsh, the stuff Chavez has been pulling all over Latin America

may make you decide. My friend was in Nicaragua, and he saw how Chavez was trying to manipulate the election by "winning over" local officials by bribing them with cheap oil. It worked. Ortega (of Sandinista fame) is now president of Nicaragua. Now say what you will about the CIA and the Contras, the Sandinistas were really bad, too. There was a moderate choice in that election, but he lost to the thuggery. Chavez is doing this all over Latin America to get leaders of his liking in who will support him in some kind of rivalry with the U.S. Now I don't like the Bush Admin. and think they have been up to no good. But say somebody decent comes into the WH in '09 -- you think Chavez is suddenly going to make nice with the USA when he has this entire network set up based on anti-Americanism? The other thing I have heard is that the only reason he hasn't bankrupt his country is due to the high oil prices. If they crash (which in an odd alliance with Dick Cheney & co. they've been making sure they've stayed high), Venezuela may be in a major financial crisis.

[welshTerrier2]

91. "somebody decent comes into the WH in '09"

how likely is that? what role did JFK play in the Bay of Pigs?

and ask yourself this: of those currently running, who has spoken out against the Iraqi Oil Law?

truthfully, I don't have sufficient knowledge to judge Chavez. I have plenty of knowledge about US imperialism and the corporate machinery that funds both political parties. it's interesting that you would criticize Chavez but seemingly would make the assumption that the puppets of imperialism might be turned away from power in the US. Some have argued that corporatism and imperialism are based solely in the republican party; i'm sorry to say I just don't believe that's true.

and those Democrats who fight against the machinery of wealth and greed appear to lack the means to get elected to key positions.

[noamnety]

109. Well said.

It's not likely that any democrat we elect is going to be looking out for the Venezuelan peasants' interests. Kind of silly to pretend otherwise.

[Warren Stupidity]

115. Filed under: no shit.

Has the OP not paid attention to this miserable session of Congress?

[welshTerrier2]

117. my post was not a response to the OP

i do, however, believe that we cannot view the Chavez government in a vacuum. to measure what Chavez does without full consciousness about what the US government's history has been would be foolish to say the least.

[Stinky The Clown]

132. Dear Mr. Stupidity

Why don't you ask the OP directly?

When did it become our job to watch out for the poor of Valenzuela?

We were told we're watching out for the poor of Iraq. How's that doing for ya? I think it sucks.

[ProudDad]

155. Not likely

I don't expect much from ObamClintWards...

[eridani]

160. Your friend presumably has no problem with the US manipulating countries in our hemisphere, though?

I mean by that providing most of the funding for the opposition to the Sandinistas, and before that waging a proxy terrorist war against them, the main elements of which were slaughtering civilians and burning schools and hospitals? Chavez's manipulation stacks up quite well compared to that.

[LanternWaste]

82. I'm supposed to worry about removal of term limits?

I'm supposed to worry about removal of term limits?

Aren't 'real' term limits what and who the voters want anyway?

[Stinky The Clown]

95. You can worry about whatever you want to worry about

What's your point?

[noamnety]

92. Hugo Chavez Right-Wing Falsehood Debunking Thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=311462#320583

Good stuff here for those who want to move beyond "he's a thug" or "he's a dictator."

[dailykoff]

105. If he does it legally I'm all for it.

Not because it's legal, which doesn't mean much, but because he'd likely be replaced by a NeoCon stooge, and those are the real thugs.

[Stinky The Clown]

110. Let's talk about that .........

As I see it, he got where he is by speaking to the masses. They heard what he said and they liked it. So they voted for him. And he won. Deservedly so. No surprise, really. The masses outnumber the elite by a significant margin. Get them on your side and then to the ballot boxes and you win. Huey Long did it. Fidel did it. Saddam did it. Hitler did it. And on and on and on. Some who do this are good guys; most who do this are not.

If he had been grooming a successor or two, then there would be continuity and no hint of dictatorship. But he hasn't really groomed any successor. (In fact, the evidence seems to be that he keeps the pot stirred so no one below him has a chance to gain recognition, support, or power .... another troubling thing, if you think about it.)

But anyway .... that's a bit of a digression. If he's done his job for his country, and they want a similar set of policies, they'll vote for the next guy like him, not the right wingers.

Why does he need to consolidate power? Who benefits by that? The people? Please. Every one of us can be replaced ..... national leaders included. Indeed, national leaders **should** be replaced.

So it comes back to the basic question ..... who benefits from this?

And what about the pattern he's established? Who seems to be marching toward dictatorship? I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

[noamnety]

124. "Hitler did it"

too funny.

[Stinky The Clown]

133. You're desperately pulling crap out of context.

But at least you're following along.

Nice. :thumbsup:

[dailykoff]

131. Are term limits essential to democracy?

I'm not so sure. In fact I'm not even sure they're desirable. Weren't US presidential term limits installed to prevent another FDR from governing too long? And wasn't the congressional term limit "movement" of the 1980s ginned up by Howard Jarvis-type "government off our backs" think tanks and weren't Dems as usual tricked into supporting it?

And would another couple terms of a Clinton (Bill) presidency have been such a bad thing, in retrospect?

[Stinky The Clown]

134. Not arguing term limits

The argument made in my OP is that he wants to change the rules in the middle of his term in office in a way that stands to benefit HIM.

That's a very different thing than term limits.

As far as terms limits, per se ..... I'm conflicted. I see a GWB in office, I want term limits. I think of ... I dunno .... an FDR or an Al Gore .... or better yet, a Mario Cuomo and I do NOT want term limits. I suppose, on balance, I want them. But I'm not sure.

[dailykoff]

137. That seems more a matter of political decorum.

Yes, it would look better if there was another Hugo waiting in the wings to take over, but there doesn't seem to be, so unless their constitution specifically disallows it, it doesn't trouble me greatly.

[Stinky The Clown]

138. I don't care if they change it either. Hell, they can vote in a dictator if they want .....

..... my sole objection is to changing the rules, midstream, to the benefit of the one changing the rules. That's a pretty simple, narrow topic. And really, the essential point of this entire overheated thread.

[Warren Stupidity]

139. That indeed would be a pretty simple narrow topic.

"Would you celebrate an American President for Life? No? Then why do we cheer this guy?????"

vs.

"..... my sole objection is to changing the rules, midstream, to the benefit of the one changing the rules. That's a pretty simple, narrow topic."

That would be a pretty simple narrow topic, but it really was not where your OP started, literally. You have just attempted to reformat your argument to something actually supported by facts, rather than by stupid rightwing bluster talking points. Too late for that. The clown is already out of the mini-car.

[Stinky The Clown]

140. Oh noooooo .... not my minicar ...... can i have my seltzer bottle back?

Sorry ..... that's not how it went down.

But you can keep the minicar.

It needs a new battery. It uses the new Dewalt XRP jobbies .... 90 bux each.



Ignore the windup key ..... Its a fake.

[Selatius]

173. Ultimately, the argument will be settled by Venezuelan voters, who likely support him.

Your argument holds quite a bit of merit on its own, but ultimately the will of the people must be respected down there despite your argument. If you believe in democracy, you must accept the inherent risks with it as well. There will be presidents-for-life in history without the notion of term limits. There's no doubt about it. We already had one in America. The only salvation for the people is the people. Eventually, even the most powerful must die. FDR is dead, and Chavez will end up the same way eventually. It is a paradox of democracy.

If you don't like Hugo Chavez, that's fine. Most Venezuelans could care less that you don't. For them, the only question as far as this issue goes is should presidents have no term limits. If they do remove term limits in the national referendum, that's not tantamount to also giving up the power to recall sitting presidents either through popular referendum according to their constitution. I suspect eventually even they would grow tired of Hugo and want more change and not a return to the old order. I doubt they want what Cuba has.

Like us, they have a right to abolish and institute new government if they feel the government no longer serves their interests. Not even Hugo can escape that, and he knows how potent people power is when people are organized. Yes, your argument holds merit, but ultimately, it's out of our ball court and in theirs.

[Mutineer]

120. He's revealing himself to be the dicatator that many of us have known

all along he is. It will take a lot for some here apparently to see him as he really and truly is, if ever. But with each passing day and with each move like this, for those of us who do seem him as he really is, it just confirms what we already knew or suspected about him: he's a dictator.

[eridani]

161. If Venezuelans want to re-elect him, whythehell is is any business of yours? n/t

[DutchLiberal]

125. Because he will not be president for life. He will just be able to be re-elected more than two terms

Like FDR.

This is the ONLY right answer, based on the FACTS.

Any questions? No? Okay, lock this thread, people, let's move on.

Seriously, why do you wanted to be duped by Western media into believing Chávez is a dictator? Don't you see that is exactly what the MSM wants? The same MSM that smears Democrats and is cheerleading for Bush and the Iraq War?

[Stinky The Clown]

135. Whoa, Hoss .... you're pullin' from lotsa places there .....

You have an actual point? Maybe one related to the OP?

[ima_sinnic]

171. let me spell it out, nice and slow, so you can get it:

removing term limits (which the people will have the ultimate say in, by referendum) simply means that whoever is the incumbent gets to run again and again--whether or not he is re-elected is up to the voters.
he won't be "president for life" unless he is re-elected up until he dies.
sheesh.
the poster is also asking whether you go through life without questioning anything you are told by obvious liars. astounding that people are still able to miss the clue train.

[DutchLiberal]

189. Er... yes.. I stated your point about Chávez 'ruling for life' is false. What about that?

[Sparkly]

142. The Moral of This Thread....

Never try to flame a Clown. It wastes your time, and amuses the Clown.

[IndianaGreen]

192. You have my sincerests sympathies, Sparkly

Everytime I see Hadassah Lieberman, a woman I admire greatly, I feel a great deal of sympathy for her because she has to sleep with that Holy Joe clown she is married to.

:-(

[IndianaGreen]

146. The ignorance displayed in the OP is mind boggling! Why am I not surprised?

Your comments are based on the limited, incomplete, and distorted information you are being fed by the same corporate media that tells you that Democrats want Al-Qaeda to win in Iraq.

Bush rules by decree, and he ignores the Constitution!

Chavez is going through a constitutional amendment process to remove term limits from the Presidency. For Chavez proposal to become law, it has to be approved by the General Assembly, and then it has to be ratified by the voters in a national referendum. Since when it is considered dictatorship to follow the Constitution, including the amendment process?

There is a thread in LBN that has a lot of information on this topic which, if you bother to read it, will change your point of view about Chavez and Venezuela.

May I point out that our pal President Uribe of Colombia just changed the law and removed term limits from the Presidency in order to run for reelection. I don't see anyone accusing Uribe of being a tyrant since he followed the law in changing the law. Why the double-standard with Chavez?

It is disgusting how DLC/conservative Democrats parrot the Republican rightwing. And these are the same "Democrats" that are most opposed to impeaching Bush and Cheney. Their love for "freedom" is as genuine as Clinton's "love" for "that woman, Ms Lewinsky."

Colombia re-election ban lifted
10/20/2005 - Le Monde, Edicom, AP, BBC Mundo, BBC News

Colombia's Constitutional Court has ruled that President Alvaro Uribe can stand for re-election next year, overturning a single-term limit.
Opinion polls currently make the right-wing Mr Uribe a clear favourite.

Mr Uribe had argued for a change in the law, saying he needs four more years to implement his tough policies against Colombia's left-wing guerrilla groups.

Opponents of the move said allowing re-election in Colombia would give presidents too much power.

Mr Uribe is one of Washington's strongest allies in South America, where many governments have recently shifted to the left.

Judges took almost a month to reach the decision, after examining 18 challenges to the amendment.

"The court decided to declare as reasonable within the Constitution the legislative act allowing the re-election of the president of the republic," Constitutional Court President Manuel Jose Cepeda said.

http://www.educweb.org/webnews/ColNews-Oct05/English/Articles/Reelectionautoriseepourle.html

[Stinky The Clown]

174. May I point out one simple little fact .....

My OP was about one main point and a few throw-aways.

The essential point is that Chavez is trying to change the rules in a way that can benefit HIM.

Does that trouble you?

[IndianaGreen]

191. The main beneficiary is the Venezuelan people that will get to vote for the government they want

as many times as they want. The only people upset are the Venezuelan elites, that will have to find a candidate to compete with Chavez for votes, unless they get a Republican or Democratic American President to invade Venezuela to bring more of that "freedom and democracy" we brought to Iraq.

I don't hear you complaining about Uribe eliminating term limits in Colombia. I oppose Uribe, but I didn't criticized him for that because it was not by decree. Like Chavez, Uribe followed the prescribed constitutional procedure to get rid of term limits (Colombia limited Presidents to one term).

I can only surmise that your contrived outrage about Chavez, and your wailing about him being a "President for Life" has more to do with your objections to the Bolivarian Revolution reordering of priorites putting people ahead of profits, and funneling oil profits to social programs rather than the pockets of investors in Venezuela and America.

BTW, since a Republican Congress changed he Constitution to prevent Democratic Presidents, like FDR, from serving more than twice, will you now start a crusade to abolish Presidential term limits in our own country? We want to remain consistent, don't we?

[Ravachol]

159. Well. Canada has no term limits either...

And we don't even vote directly for our Prime Minister. Do we qualify for a dictatorship? Or a "thug nation", at the very least?

Just askin', eh!

P.S: Lots of nations have no term limits. But unless they also don't have free and open elections, they're no dictatorships. Thanks.

[Stinky The Clown]

175. You're arguing a point I didn't make

My point is real simple ..... Hugo wants to change the rules in a way that benefits HIM.

Do YOU condone that?

I never argued term limits. I don't care about Venezuelan term limits.

By the way .... welcome to DU and thanks for playing "Jump on the Bandwagon"

[Ravachol]

190. It benefits HIM only if he gets reelected...

It benefits HIM (and his people...) only if he gets reelected is my point. Last time I checked, Venezuela still had free and open elections and anybody above 18 could run. If the Venezuelans don't like this modification, they have the freedom and power to vote him out. If they reelect him, that means they like him and his proposals more than any other candidate, no? Then it would be a shame if he was the best man to serve his people and he didn't get the opportunity to run again, don't you think? That's how I was told democracy works.

You argued that his proposal (removing term limits for the office of President) makes him a thug. Those are your words. And I happen to disagree.

Thanks for the... warm... welcome, though.

[ProudDad]

197. Welcome to DU

As you've no doubt noticed, some like to post right-wing spin just to get a flame war started...

Don't take it personally, just consider the source...

:hi:

[Progressive Friend]

162. The authors of the Federalist Papers opposed term limits for the office of presidency

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay would not oppose Hugo Chavez's desire to be elected more than twice.

The current US regime supports/props up many regimes abroad that do not even hold elections, such as Saudi Arabia. Yet we do not hear the US media bashing the King of Saudi Arabia. That is because his country is a US satellite.

The current government of Venezuela, on the other hand, does not bow to Washington. That is the real reason why Chavez is bashed in the US corporate media (and also by various US chauvinists, extreme nationalists, militarists, empire builders, etc).

And would I like to see a great, progressive leader elected more than twice in the US? Absolutely.

[IndianaGreen]

165. Sadly, many DUers don't care about the Constitution, else they would be demanding impeachment

They also rely on the corporate media to shape their views about Chavez and the Venezuelan Revolution. Interesting how the same DUers that believed the bullshit about Iraq having WMDs, only to realize they were lied to, are now believing the same bullshit about Iran. It shouldn't come as a surprise, therefore, that they parrot the same crap about Chavez that they hear from the corporate media. There is lack of curiousity about facts!

[Stinky The Clown]

184. Impeachment

Off topic in this thread .... but near and dear to my heart.

(Read the clown's sig line)

[1932]

169. Because he's an excellent progressive leader doing the right thing for his country.

[Stinky The Clown]

176. How is changing the rules in a way that benefits the rule changer ......

..... 'doing the right thing for his country'?

[1932]

186. When the US constitution is amended according to totally analogous process

would you characterize it the same way you're characterizing this?

If Venezuela wants to use a democratic process to give its democratically elected leader more time to make a permanent break with a past that produced two moribund parties changing hands at regular intervals so that it can further devolve democrat power and economic opportunity to the people, then where is the crisis in democracy?

[1932]

188. IOW, when the "rule changer" has exactly the same interests as the people, then YES

Do you see how your formulation is a bullet to the head of progressive change?

Any change by a ruler who represents the people is suspect because when he makes it he's benefiting himself?

And, by the way, you do realize that this isn't a change that Chavez makes unilaterally? In fact, I don't think he can even get the ball rolling. There has to be a referendum to even get it on the table. I'm not sure that there is a single stage of the constitutional amendment procedure where the president has any control over whether the proposal becomes law.

[Stinky The Clown]

185. Okay .... the clown's moving on .......

.... play among yourselves.

[ProudDad]

196. Ah, start a flame war

and then chicken out...

How clownly of you...

[McCamy Taylor]

193. Bill Clinton for life would have been ok by me

[ljm2002]

194. I'm not that fond of term limits myself...

...keeping in mind that presidential term limits were introduced in this country as a reaction to FDR's four terms. I also happen to believe that politics, like other endeavors, often benefits from people of experience, not just tyros who are easily manipulated by various forces including lobbyists and political ideologues. I certainly think we'd be a lot better off if Bill Clinton had run and been elected to a third term.

In any case, Chavez is going through the legal steps required in order to try and remove term limits. Why is it any of our concern, if he adheres to the law of the land, which includes a vote of the people?

[dugggy]

199. Why not allow US Presidents to run as often as they wish also?

Abolish ALL term limits. Then Bush can be president for
life :sarcasm:

[1932]

200. I'd like the opportunity to elect a US president like Chavez just once.

[dugggy]

201. You can have Chavez for life! Just move to Venezuela!!

Chavez is transforming Vz into a heaven on earth!
You can be happy NOW!!

[1932]

204. I'm not so worried about Venezuela. I'm really worried about the US.

[Forkboy]

210. I heard an awful lot of Dems say they wanted to vote for Bill a third time.

[bamacrat]

202. I have continually asked that question.

Chavez while good for being anti-bush seems to be more bushlike than many world leaders. He is just "lucky" enough to rule a country where the people have little say, or is that us? Mirror.

[harun]

203. The CIA trying to kill and over throw Chavez and Fidel is the

reason they are taking the action they are to stay in power. Not saying it is right, but it is the reason they do this.

They feel they are justified in doing this to protect their people from the exploitation that would be caused by outside influences with out their best interest at heart.

[Thothmes]

211. Pres for life

I do not support the concept in this country. IMO FDR was physically and mentally incapable of to last a forth term as president. The stress was to great. I think we should look at the XXII amendment. Allowing a third term should be considered. I expect that President Clinton could have won a third term. Unfortuately, I also think the President Reagan could have also one a third term. That is the risk that we all would have to take if we allowed a President to run for a third term. IMO that the Presidency of the United States is the most stressful political position in the world. I do not see how a person could hold the job for more than 12 years without destroying themselves.