The hypocrisy of DLC Democrats on Chavez and term limits. Colombia did the same thing!

[IndianaGreen]

Many Americans opinions on Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution are based on the limited, incomplete, and distorted information they are being fed by the same corporate media that tells them that Democrats want Al-Qaeda to win in Iraq, Saddam was involved in 9-11, and Iran is a threat to America.

Bush rules by decree, and he ignores the Constitution, yet he is not called a tyrant by the corporate media.

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 one bothers to read it, it will change one's point of view about Chavez and Venezuela.

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 siding with the Venezuelan elites against the people of Venezuela. Consider that these are the same "Democrats" that are most opposed to impeaching Bush and Cheney. Their love for "freedom and democracy" is as genuine as Bush and Cheney's "liberation" of Iraq.

Just as their like-minded corporatists in the GOP, DLC/conservative Democrats demonize any government that helps the poor, the workers, and the indigenous people at the expense of the wealthy. They loved Pinochet, and they hated Allende!

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

[SaveElmer]

1. He's a junior Fidel Castro...

Out with the old, in with the new...

Soon he'll grow a beard and start smoking cigars...

[IndianaGreen]

2. DLC neoliberals are the flip side of AEI neocons!

You views are in harmony with those of Condi Rice's State Department.

How's that DLC Dump Kucinich party coming along? You could barely control your exhuberance on that thread you posted on that woman that is challenging Kucinich. I haven't seen you that excited since you extolled the sainthood of Harold Ford!

[SaveElmer]

3. Yeah I just posted another...

Hope she knocks him off...!

[IndianaGreen]

5. Unlike your "girl" Hillary, Kucinich is opposed to keeping occupation troops in Iraq

The reason why Hillary only criticizes the management of the war, rather than the war itself, is because she shares the same imperialist goals as Dick Cheney and the rest of the neocon gang.

It should not come as a surprise then that Hillary also supports the Venezuelan elites against the people of Venezuela. Nothing like being an agent for the ruling classes and the corporations!

[SaveElmer]

6. Your "boy" could care less if the war ends...

As long as he's got an issue...makes common cause with Republicans on setting a withdrawl date...

[IndianaGreen]

8. Kucinich is my man, not my "boy." Hillary referred to herself as "girl."

I supposed she did that to pander to the patriarchal tendencies of some men.

[SaveElmer]

10. Ooohhh...well you got me there!!!

:rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3457770

[ima_sinnic]

21. oh, that's just brilliant

I can tell you've spent hours and hours researching his policies and studying the situation, that your very deep insights are based on solid knowledge. :sarcasm:
(I had to add the sarcasm smiley. For just about anybody else it wouldn't be necessary--but when dealing with those "without a clue," it's best not to assume too much in the intelligence department.)
Considering the source, I'm hardly surprised.

[SaveElmer]

32. I have...

Indiana Green is not a serious person so I do not treat her seriously...as you aren't, judging by your cowardly attacks on Jim Webb's character...

[ima_sinnic]

47. my "cowardly attacks"--pfft

what kind of "character" votes for totalitarianism? eavesdropping on We The People without a warrant, at will, is that, and that only, and your big brave hero just handed it to busholini on a platter--gee, that took a lot of guts. while he's blubbering and cringing about "terraists coming to get us" unless we let Bush spy on us, some who have guts are actually opposing Bush and his handy little coup d'etat.

give me a break with the uber patriotism. the guy was a f**king trojan horse in 2006, and now is "going along to get along," wondering how often and how fast he can *'s kiss @$$. he "fought for our rights" then, so he can coast on that glory forever as he does away with our rights now?
anybody who can defend that sh*t just ain't right in the head.

[Bongo Prophet]

74. Why insult someone as "not serious"? What would make you say that?

Is is some disagreement on issues, or the style in which they discuss issues?
I can see someone being not serious when they post just for jokes all the time or insults with no substance at all to the post.

Like the one about Chavez growing a beard and smoking cigars.
Kind of Junior High school level.
Is that what you mean?

If so, I can see your point - at least if they had a record of doing so.
In my experience, Indiana Green has been a serious poster for YEARS, whether or not I have agreed 100% or not.
i guess we will have to disagree on that, and this thread shows IG to at least be here for debate.

It reminds me of the way people who don't support the Iraq war get thrown at them the accusation "Oh, so you think they're better off with Saddam?"
It is a BS way of cutting off any POSSIBILITY of discussion.
I hate that shit.
Is that what you mean by "SERIOUS"?

[Warren Stupidity]

43. How devoid of substance can an argument be?

You seem to have set a new standard here. But please elaborate. Provides some details on exactly how Hugo Chavez's presidency parallels Castro's reigh. Be specific.

[TankLV]

55. It's savelmer - he crops up like a weed after a rainstorm on these posts...

and is REFUTED every fucking time...

[IndianaGreen]

58. I am sure that Al From and Marshall Whittman share our friend's enthusiasm

for neoliberal imperialism abroad, and defense of corporatist status quo at home.

[Progressive Friend]

4. Excellent post!

[illinoisprogressive]

7. DLCers are simply awful. they are not real democrats.

[IndianaGreen]

11. They are corporatists. They say they are for the common people, yet they take the side

of Big Pharma, Big Banks, Big Insurance, Big Oil, outsourcing, neoliberal policies, and the ruling elites in other countries that support American corporate interests.

This is why the leading DLC Presidential candidate opposes Chavez and the goals of the Bolivarian Revolution, just as much as she wants to keep troops in Iraq to protect our oil interests, and wants to attack Iran, to take their oil.

[rudeboy666]

9. Progressive liberal here.........and I still think Chavez is very 'illiberal'

The guy seems more interested in power and forcing his revolution.

I'm anti-authoritarian___left or right.

[IndianaGreen]

13. You fault Chavez's proposal to end term limits, but not Uribe's. Why the double standard?

Unlike Uribe, Chavez didn't run death squads when he was younger. Chavez has scrupulously followed the Constitution, something we can't say about Bush or his Democratic "impeachment is off the table" enablers.

As another DUer said on the LBN thread on this topic, the Federalist papers opposed term limits for the Presidency because they were undemocratic. Until the GOP imposed term limits in the late 1940s, American Presidents could run for President as many times as they wanted to.

Chavez's proposal has to be approved by the National Assembly, the Venezuelan Congress, and then it has to be ratified by a national referendum.

I see nothing but Constitution and democratic elections, how could you possibly characterize that as "illiberal." I don't see FDR's many Presidential terms as evidence of his being "interested in power and forcing his (New Deal) revolution." I see Chavez as a Venezuelan version of the New Deal!

[1932]

29. And what has US gotten from term limits? Two mediocre parties that trade power every couple years

not unlike Accion Democratica and COPEI.

And from the Republican Party, we've got second terms where they're unafraid to unleash hell on the US because they know the next Republican can run against the sitting duck Republican. We're seeing that right now with the credit crisis. This government new that was going to happen, but it doesn't matter, so long as it happens in the second term, because Guiliani can separate himself from it, even if he represents a continuation of Bush's policies.

[ima_sinnic]

22. "forcing his revolution" gee, I always hate being "forced" to vote in referendums

If we didn't have goddam term limits, as in a real democracy, Bill Clinton would undoubtedly still be president--despite the charade of "impeachment" strutted around by the repukes.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. I wish we could have a referendum on Bush.

But I guess that would make us a stalinist nightmare like Venezuela.

[NativeTexan]

12. Chavez supports international terrorism....

.....and just because Bush is, in so many ways, WORSE than Chavez, that doesn't make Chavez ACCEPTABLE!

And when dealing with our own Village Idiot, remember this, he is WILDLY WRONG 99% of the time....moderately wrong .5% of the time, and for the rest? Even a broken clock is right twice a day......

On the other hand, you can't trust any of them...Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Miliki, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, and George W. Bush! They are ALL from the same mold that requires quelling the masses thru fear, intimidation along with lies and deceit....

[IndianaGreen]

14. Yeah, and Osama (Usama for Faux viewers) bin Laden was spotted driving a taxi in Caracas

and Cuba is developing WMDs. Are you channeling John Bolton or what?

[justinaforjustice]

15. Bush and Cheney are the World's Worst Terrorists

You offer no facts whatever to support your assertion that Chavez "supports international terrorism". Where is your documentation for this charge.

It is clear that the Bush administration, by refusing to extradite the convicted terrorist, Corriles, is openly protecting a terrorist who, among other acts of violence, blew up a passenger airline, killing many innocent people.

Chavez has not been accused of blowing up any airplanes and there is no evidence whatsoever that he has given financial support to any terrorist group. The U.S. government, on the other hand, has been funding and training the P.K.K., a group on its own terrorist list, to infiltrate Iran in hopes of creating havoc in that country.

Chavez has not conducted any wars, legal or illegal, against any other country. The same cannot be said for Bush and Chaney. Chavez is giving cheap oil to countries and people who need it, buying up debt to save other Latin American countries from the horrendously reactionary lending policies of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and attempting to unite the countries of Latin American so they can improve economically without dancing to the tune of the Bush-Chaney cabal.

Our country is responsible for kidnapping and torturing hundreds of so-called "enemy combatants", without allowing them fair trials on the issue of whether they are even enemies. The U.S. has set up secret prisons around the world so it can carry on its illegal activities outside the purview of American courts. They are conducting illegal surveillance of American citizens.

The Bush-Chaney State Department distributes false propaganda against the Chavez government, accusing it of suppressing free speech. This from an administration which bombed the headquarters of Al Jazeera News Network in Afghanistan, fired rockets at Al Jazeera news reporters in Iraq, killing their top reporter, and which had plans to bomb the main office of Al Jazeera in Quatar. Killing news reporters and bombing their offices is the most clear cut example of suppression of freedom of speech one could imagine.

The irony is that all too many Democrats, who know that Bush and the media lies to us repeatedly about Iraq and, indeed, all their actions, appear to accept without question the mis-information about Chavez.

Chavez has won four democratic elections since 1998, the last with 68% of the vote. Current polls show him to have the support of 62% of Venezuelans. Every action he has taken has been done in accordance with Venezuelan law, including his proposal to abolish term limits. That change will be voted on by the National Assembly and then voted on by the entire Venezuelan population in a national referendum.

Bush, Chaney and their cabal of neo-conservative war mongers are the world's worst "international terrorists". Rather than attacking Chavez, you would do better to put your energy into removing Bush and Chaney from power and putting them in jail where they belong.

[NativeTexan]

17. Supporting facts?

Maybe I can find the time to look it all up. But in the meantime, I have read, over the years in several articles, that he has been, both directly and indirectly, funding international terrorism, and since he is buddies with good ole Fidel, it only makes sense to me.

As far as being "elected".....so was Hitler, at first. The Italians for a while, adored Mussolini. Almost an entire generation of Cubans honestly believes that Castro is the only reason that they have survived becoming involved in wars (instead of it being the lack of money to do so since the fall of European Communism...Fidel's bread and butter). Not to mention HAMAS in the Palestinian Territory!

[IndianaGreen]

19. Man, you have been watching too much Faux News! You are spewing their crap!

You are repeating the same unsubstantiated crap that Bill-O and Hannity spew about Venezuela.

Wow! We need to get you deprogrammed at once!

[Greyhound]

20. Is there any reich-wing propaganda that you don't unquestioningly swallow?

We are all anxiously awaiting the evidence of Hugo Chavez's terrorist activities that you've stated exists and that you will produce, it will be quite the event since nobody else that has made this empty threat in the past has ever produced any, in spite of all the machinery of fascism working feverishly to create it.

As for the Cubans troubles, they have been caused exclusively by our monumentally stupid policy, and accompanying embargo (the longest in history), which ironically is also the biggest reason that Castro has held power for so long. The Cubans are a very strong and proud people that should be our natural allies, and likely would be if not for our pathetic attempts to force our will on them. They made it crystal clear in 1959, and for almost 50 years since, that they will never bend to our desire to re-impose the rule of petty tyrants on them, no matter the cost, an attitude that we once shared.
:kick::patriot::kick:

[NativeTexan]

51. Why is it that you think......

.....that if someone has a different opinion than you they can't be Democrat. Let me tell you something. Democrats were also anti-communist. They just were not willing to tear apart the Constitution to fight it domestically. Castro was more than willing in 1961 to rip apart his own country if Kruschev was willing to use the nuclear missles they had put on Cuban soil, to rip apart America, and we came terribly close to it. In recent years we have found that it was even worse than was originally thought! Our policy in Cuba is, at the very least, antiquated and needs to be scrapped.....open markets would definitely work better, and there has been no excuse since 1989 NOT to do that...so we agree on that to some extent anyway.

Chavez is a manipulator, just like Bush, except he is on the other extreme of the political spectrum. I am not going to argue with anyone about what the future holds down there. But I will make this prognostication: Chavez's people will someday not too far in the future, realize what so many Bush supporters have here...that they have been lied to, and manipulated and there will just be another South American rebellion going on, and WE are going to (for reasons beyond me) have to figure out just whose side we are on, and hand it over to that beauty of all American institutions.....CIA.

[struggle4progress]

64. What!? Still no link for your "Chavez supports international terrorism" claim?

[Greyhound]

67. A.) That's not what I think, and I haven't said anything that could be construed to

indicate that I believe it, so this must be your clumsy way of deflecting the point, which is...

B.) this mythological evidence of Hugo Chavez supporting terrorism. Where is it? You said you could provide it, and like so many before you, we are presented with nothing.

So far I read nothing from you but baseless declarations of some mysteriously evil intent and dire warnings about "someday" the Venezuelan people will "realize" that they've been lied to, with absolutely no evidence, not even the usually obligatory link to some corporatist web site with their own agenda.

So, for the record, as far as I know the only requirement to be a Democrat is to register as such. Arbusto_® himself could register as one tomorrow and he would be one, it is no qualification at all, and I would never claim that anyone that says they are a Democrat is not one.

Fidel Castro is not some evil genius with superhuman powers of mind control that has duped millions of his countrymen into following him to their destruction, they have apparently decided that, with all of his faults, he is still better than the scum-sucking shitheads that were the Cuban ruling class prior to the revolution, and they would rather live in the poverty and deprivation they have, than to return to the cruel slavery they had before their revolt.

To paraphrase John Hancock, "Why can't Texas just stay the hell in Texas"?

[Chulanowa]

25. Dunno what pap history books you've been reading - Hitler was not elected!

In the German presidential elections against Hindenburg, he received 30% of the vote, followed by 37% in the runoff, against Hindenburg's 49.3% and 53% respectively. Nazi power in the Reichstag began to wane, as the party's violence and extremism turned the German people sour on the party, costing the Nazis 34 seats in the 1932 election. The Nazis were low on power, almost our of money, and the party was beginning to splinter - Hitler threatened to blow his own head off after Gregor Strasser, a high-level party loyalist, tried to undermine Hitler and grab the reins of the party for himself.

While this is happening, the Chancellorship was a hot potato being tossed all over the place. The current chancellor, a man named Schleicher would stay in power only 57 days. His predecessor, Franz von Papen entered an alliance with Hitler to become "co-chancellor" if Hitler and the Nazis would help overthrow Schleicher. Due to Schleicher's inability to form a coalition government, president Hindenburgh forced his resignation. He then called Hitler in to fill the vacated position

On January 30, 1933, amid a national worry that Schleischer was forming a coup attempt to seize power and establish a military dictatorship, Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany. Less than a month later, the Reichstag building was burned, and Hitler brought forth an emergency decree "for the Protection of the people and the State" to President Hindenburg. it read: "Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."

Hindenburg, who by now was probably losing a lot of his tethers to reality, signed this into law. Immediately the Nazis began a violent purge of opposition parties.

The next elections were March 5, 1933. Between their terrorism, propaganda, and dissolution of several other parties, the Nazis still only gained 44% of the vote. Hitler needed 31 non-Nazi Parlaimentary votes to sign his Enabling act. He accomplished this by making false promises to the Catholic Center Party... and then on the day of the vote, by surrounding the reichstag with black-shirted stormtroopers and thugs, who spent the afternoon chanting "Full powers -- or else! We want the bill -- or fire and murder!"

When the vote ended, the Enabling Act had passed 441 to 84. All 84 dissenting votes were Social Democrats.

Hitler was not elected, by any stretch of the imagination. He was appointed to chancellor as a political concession by President Hindenburg. He then used violence, intimidation, and trickery to bludgeon legislation through Parliament that would allow him to name himself dictator.

[1932]

16. Actually, he criticized US bombings in Afghanistan & Iraq--great scene in

The Revolution Will Not be Televised shows that.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Please share whatever you are smoking.

That is some good shit, dude.

[Jack Sprat]

18. Hugo is all right by me. He has come to

the assistance of our citizens several times, especially with oil and heating products. He will never be forgotten for that kind of neighborly friendship.

[Peace Patriot]

23. Peru de-licensed several TV stations (four, as I recall). Was that anti-free speech?

It's never mentioned by the Bush State Dept. or its lapdog corporate news media, cuz Peru's corrupt president, Alan Garcia, loves Bush and U.S.-dominated "free trade," and the murderous U.S. "war on drugs" (war on union leaders, poor peasant farmers and political leftists). It's the same kind of egregious hypocrisy as with Colombia and Uribe's elimination of term limits--Uribe, whose government is involved in huge scandals involving its very close ties to rightwing paramilitary groups that have been chainsawing union organizers and throwing their body parts into mass graves, torturing and killing thousands of people, and drug trafficking on a large scale. Uribe's chief of the military, his former personal chief of intelligence, and many Uribe office holders, including relatives, are involved in these horrors. Uribe wants to be "president for life" so he and his criminal pals can continue stuffing their pockets from the billions of dollars in Bush/U.S. military aid, and oppressing the poor. But that kind of "president for life" of course doesn't bother the Bushites. I'm sure they're trying to figure out how they can do it HERE.

Thank you, IndianaGreen, for bringing the Colombia elimination of terms limits to my attention. I was not aware of it--although I knew about the Peru example of de-licensing several TV stations.

Chavez de-licenses ONE TV station--the one that actively participated in the violent military coup against the democratically elected government--and they accuse him of suppressing "free speech" and being a "dictator." WHO are the "dictators"--Chavez who was elected, or the fascists who kidnapped him? He waited RCTV out. He didn't go in guns blazing and shut them down--which he would have been very justified in doing. Their 20 year license for use of the PUBLIC airwaves expired. He didn't renew it. This was perfectly legal and perfectly within his legal rights as president. All governments regulate the public airwaves, license their use and require that broadcasters follow rules and regulations, some of them very strict. NO legitimate government would tolerate the public airwaves being used to foment a violent coup, riots, killing, suspension of the Constitution, disbanding of the national assembly, shutdown of the court system and kidnapping of the legitimate head of government!

There never was more just cause to deny a broadcast license. But Chavez--according to Bush--is a "dictator" because he threw these fascist traitors off the air!

Term limits in the U.S. were, indeed, a rightwing ploy to break up certain Democratic Party power concentrations. They wanted stupid, ignorant, manipulable people in state capitols and Congress. And clearly, as to Congress, the Bushites not only recruited stupid people, they recruited people who were corruptible, and have no doubt been spying on them to control their votes. Historically--back when the Democratic Party represented the interests of ordinary people (workers, the poor, minorities, the middle class, etc.)--the political contest was between Big Money (the Republicans), on the one hand, and the majority of the people, on the other, and the majority (the Democratic grass roots) developed several means to counter the power of Big Money, good on-the-ground, grass roots organization, and KNOWLEDGEABLE, EXPERIENCED Democratic legislators who exercised high political skill and tight discipline to get things done FOR THE PEOPLE: civil rights legislation, anti-poverty programs, decent wages and benefits, etc.

It was to break up this Democratic political experience and discipline among Democratic office holders that rightwing think tanks conceived term limits--and other bad ideas, like Prop 13 in California, which greatly reduced revenue to local governments, by giving huge property tax breaks to big corporate landowners, in the guise of a tax break for elderly homeowners. I remember when these things occurred in California, and terms limits was among the rightwing ideas that broke the back of the great populist movement in California that started with Hiram Johnson and ended with Edmund G. Brown (Jerry Brown's father). We have had a succession of rightwing governors (Nixon, Reagan, Deukmejian, Wilson, Schwarzenegger) ever since, and steady erosion of liberal policy and populist principles, partly caused by the EROSION of the power of legislators through term limits.

The U.S. presidential term limit (of 2 terms), imposed in the 1950s for the first time in our history, was specifically a rightwing, anti-New Deal measure. It was a reaction to the people having voted Franklin Delano Roosevelt into office for four straight terms. It took four terms to solidify the principles of the New Deal, including items like a safety net beneath the elderly in bad times (Social Security), labor rights, federal regulation of the stock market and banking (to prevent more "crashes" like the one in 1929), and many other national programs--education, infrastructure development, health and safety, the GI bill--to help the poor and middle class. It was the New Deal that created the strong middle class of the 1950s. The fascists in this country have long wanted to smash the New Deal to pieces, and re-create the chaotic, "dog eat dog" economy of the rich elite that nearly destroyed the country in the 1920s. TERM LIMITS were one of the planks in that fascist program. It was, a) anti-FDR (anti-majority, anti-populist president), and b) intended to deprive the Democratic Party of the advantage of experienced legislators in its struggle against Big Money interests. Yes, there were some abuses--entrenched power, labor and other corruption, political "machines," etc.--but the other side of it was that the rich had their elite clubs, their financial entrenchment, their "blue blood" and "old boy" networks, and control of land, resources, manufacturing, and capital.

It was NOT a level playing field.

And that's the situation in Venezuela today. It is NOT a level playing field. The poor need to use their NUMBERS to counter the power of the rich. The poor need to GAIN in power and "entrenchment," if you will. They have had NONE. No power. No schools. No medical centers. No roads. No labor rights. No libraries. No baseball fields. No loans or grants to small businesses and coops. No benefit at all from tax revenues--in a country with vast oil riches that long ago nationalized the oil industry.

This is WHY Chavez has proposed removing the 2-term limit on the presidency--because the poor have finally got themselves a good president. The poor are in the ascendancy. The Chavez government is very like the New Deal government--full of excitement and intellectual ferment, graced with widespread participation, forward-looking and revolutionary, after decades of rightwing greed and brutal oppression. They need to CONSOLIDATE and expand the gains for the poor and the lower middle class. Chavez, like FDR, has the leadership and charisma to do that. And if the people of Venezuela vote to remove the term limit, and then vote for Chavez for a third term (or a fourth), why shouldn't they have the right to do that? It's THEIR country. What goddamned business is it of George Bush or Chevron or the Wall Street Journal or the Associated Press? And how dare they call Venezuela a "dictatorship"? Really, the audacity of this rightwing/corporate lie boggles the mind.

And what an insult it is to the voters of Venezuela!

[IndianaGreen]

24. The NY Times story being peddled by anti-Chavista DUers has many distortions

for example, it refers to Chavez controlling several governors and mayors. NY Times specifically uses the verb "control," leading the reader into thinking that Chavez appointed those governors and mayors and that they are Chavez's cronies. The truth is that those pro-Chavez governors and mayors were elected in free and democratic elections. The fact they support the Bolivarian Revolution should come as no surprise to those that think that elected officials should follow the mandate of the voters (something that the Democratic Congress failed to do when it funded the Iraq War).

Like the junior Senator from New York, the NY Times represents the class interests of the American ruling class and their allies among the Latin American elites, which is why the Times is more concerned about the threat of rising expectations and empowerment of the workers and peasants in Latin America than they are about the loss of our freedoms at home.

[lostnfound]

26. His real crime is being out of sync with the 'Washington consensus'

Anything else is forgiveable in the eyes of our politicians and media.

[Stinky The Clown]

27. Changing the rules to benefit ONESELF is not good no matter who does it

I wouldn't like in a George Bush and I don't like it in a Hugo Chavez. Or in Peru or Iraq or anywhere else.

If you have a reply to this, confine it to **that** **narrow** **point**.

[1932]

28. It's a constitutional process. Venezuelans changing the constitutions to benefit Venezuelans is

not good? Only if you're a selfish, greedy, misguided American who thinks it's good if there's a huge imbalance of wealth and power between the US and the rest of the world, even as it increases the imbalance of wealth and power within the US.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. There you go with the knee-jerk name calling

What did "you're a selfish, greedy, misguided American who thinks it's good if there's a huge imbalance of wealth and power between the US and the rest of the world, even as it increases the imbalance of wealth and power within the US" add to your legitimate statement that "It's a constitutional process"?

Now, if we can get past the chip on your shoulder, we can discuss the **point** .... which is that Chavez' championing this measure benefits HIM.

What if the same change were made, but it was made in a way that it did not take effect until Chavez left office?

Accomplishes the same thing. Removes the stink of self interest.

Is that not a reasonable compromise?

[1932]

36. I'm just wondering what kind of American wouldn't want Venezuelans to benefit from a government that

benefits Venezuelans.

Compare Venezuela now to previous governments. People on the bottom have more power than they have in decades. People who had tremendous power have less.

For whom is that a problem?

I think it's a problem for the people I described in my post.

Also, cute selective edit, by the way. Are you afraid that if you included theh "if" you wouldn't be able to use that subject line?

[1932]

38. I can't let this rest, while waiting for you to respond to my previous post.

It is so obvious that descripiton was not of you, but was addressing your question about what is good and what isn't good for Venezuela.

You asked the question. If you don't want it answered then don't ask it.

It's absurb that you pretend that I was attacking you personally, which is so obviously a dodge from having to address the issue raised in my post or to defend your previous post.

And your selective edit is incredibly low, and I think very revealing.

[1932]

80. Still looking for your response to this.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. What? No more president for life bullshit?

I'm shocked.

[Stinky The Clown]

45. If you want a discussion, answer my question

It was a real simple question.

Maybe that's the problem. It was so simple that its answer wouldn't allow you to spew your views.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. No I'm just wondering what happended to your 'president for life'

bullshit that you started up yesterday. Have you dropped your contention that Chavez has made himself president for life?

It is a real simple question. Maybe that's the problem. It was so simple that its answer wouldn't allow you to spew your views.

[Stinky The Clown]

48. Hahaha ... you have to resort to taunts and lies?

Give it up, Mr Stupidity.

If you answer my question, you'll get a fair reply.

If you make shit up, you get nothing but this .... again.

Please link to the place where I stated (quote from you) "Chavez has made himself president for life"?

Not where I cited someone else saying it. Not where it may have been alluded to sarcastically. Cite a concrete statement I made to that effect.

Put up or shut up.

[1932]

49. Did you say yesterday that Chavez wanted to make himself president for life?

[Stinky The Clown]

53. In a word .... no

Next.

[IndianaGreen]

56. The thread in which you referred to Chavez as "President for Life" is still up in GD Politics

It had over 2,000 hits and 5 K&Rs when I last checked it early this morning. You even asked the rhetorical question of why were people supporting a man that wanted to be President for Life.

Are you having a Tony Snow moment, unable to remember what you said earlier when evidence is presented that contradicted your earlier assertion?

:eyes:

[Stinky The Clown]

63. Please go into that thread and do a page search on 'president for life'

You will discover I used the term twice ..... once in the OP and once in reply to someone else. In neither case did I apply the term to Chavez.

You may want to believe that I did, cuz that suits your premise. Bu it simply isn't true.

Sorry.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. Wait one second.

"In neither case did I apply the term to Chavez."

"Would you celebrate an American President for Life? No? Then why do we cheer this guy?????"
- The title of your rant.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3456036&mesg_id=3456036

Excuse me? Who exactly did you mean by 'this guy'. The article you quote is about Chavez. Please clarify who 'this guy' refers to.

Sheesh.

[Stinky The Clown]

60. Do me a favor .....

... go to the thread you cite and search the page for the term "president for life". It appears in my OP, but in a context that relates to an American president, not Chavez. It is then used downthread, by me for the second and last time in the thread, in answer to someone, but again, not applying the term to Chavez.

I'm sorry if that's all inconvenient, but those are the facts.

[struggle4progress]

65. So you're saying the subject line of your GD post was not intended to imply ...

... anything about Chavez?

Just to refresh your memory, the subject line of that post was Would you celebrate an American President for Life? No? Then why do we cheer this guy?????

Almost everyone would read anything similarly structured as an accusation.

For example, if I passed fliers around my neighborhood headed Would you live next door to a convicted paedophile? No? Then why do we tolerate John Doe?????, innocent neighbor Doe would have good cause for an action against me, and I should expect no sympathy from the court if I whined that I had no idea why anyone would think I was calling neighbor Doe a convicted paedophile.

Similarly, if I posted a thread here at DU entitled Would you expect to have a rational conversation with a Neo-Nazi Klansman? No? Then why are we conversing with Husb2Sparkly?????, the thread would be locked immediately, and I should expect no sympathy from the Mods if I whined that I had no idea why anyone would think I was calling Husb2Sparkly a Neo-Nazi Klansman.

[IndianaGreen]

66. LMAO! Touche!

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

<snip>

Would you expect to have a rational conversation with a Neo-Nazi Klansman? No? Then why are we conversing with Husb2Sparkly?????

And as Sparkly would say, here we are feeding a clown! :P

[Stinky The Clown]

69. Oh ....

.... I'm sooo busted.

[struggle4progress]

71. Drop th mouse, step way from th keyboard, & don try nuthin cute: cuz th deputies is ready

http://cla.calpoly.edu.nyud.net:8090/~lcall/204/8-10/hippies.jpg

[Warren Stupidity]

50. Taunts? yes. Lies? no.

1 out of 2 ain't bad though.


"Would you celebrate an American President for Life? No? Then why do we cheer this guy?????"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3456036&mesg_id=3456036

No lie.

[Stinky The Clown]

54. My Dear Mr. Stupidity

I'm beginning to feel really bad for you. You're like Charlie Brown and that football.

One of these days, you'll get to kick it a lick.

But right now? Nope. Sorry. I never said that. I just didn't.

You may have imputed it to me, but that wold the result of filtration through that red rage shade of glasses you're wearing.

[tkmorris]

59. H2S, normally I rather like your posts but

You are being severely disingenuous here. I see what you are saying, it IS logically possible (just barely) to argue that you weren't saying Chavez was installing himself as president for life, but everyone south of Adak Alaska can see that isn't true. Why pretend otherwise? If your argument has strength there is no need to resort to such silliness.

I think sometimes you are just a little bit too set in your opinions to listen to what others are saying to you, and you aren't very kind in disagreeing. Maybe stressing your point about how Chavez latest action serves to benefit himself would be the better course. I don't happen to completely agree with it but it's a stronger argument by far.

[Stinky The Clown]

62. What I'm 'too set in' is an understanding of what I mean and say.

I grant you that other views of what I said could be imputed - if one were predisposed to so impute. That doesn't say it is what I meant, just what someone assumes I meant.

But the fact is, I never called him a president for life. Others used the term and connected it to him. But I was not one of them.

If you doubt that, go back and search my threads for where I said it.

For what its worth, I just did that search. I simply never said it. I also did an advanced search of the term "president for life" and my name as author in all of GD and GDPol ...... again ... no hits.

I never said it.

[Bongo Prophet]

70. I am disappointed - We discussed your **EXACT** issue yesterday, on your own thread.

I tried to be extremely exact to your points in your very specific morality play.
We had a sane discourse instead of a shouting match. I thought we made progress. I understood your point, and looked at the two situation in comparison.
Now, today - more shouting and insults and denial. Maybe you just like that?

IN your personal story of changing rules to double your presidential terms to 2 (consecutive? Never able to run again? That part is unclear) you had to make a compromise for it to pass.
It really came down to you disagreeing with only ONE thing - that Chavez didn't choose the EXACT solution that you did as president of your trade association.
You wanted Chavez to wait until he was out of office, and ALL "board members" of his parliament/council.
unless "the pres AND board" were retired, and I presume UNABLE to run again, you would not like it.

You also revealed that you crafted a compromise only AFTER "hue and cry" from members who thought you were doing it for false motives. (That SUCKs when folks do that.)
If they had gone along and given you 2 terms without question- maybe because they knew and trusted you, and so judged the proposal on its merits - would that make you a THUG?

I pointed out that, while not EXACT, it was VERY democratic and under the rules of the Venezuelan rules of govt.
Direct democracy - referendum on the amendment, and then an election.
Chavez ONLY benefits by this if the vote goes against him EITHER time!

But this is not enough for you - that he plays by the rules of his own country.
He must play by the rules of your trade association and have the EXACT solution?
That is a mighty high standard that you set.
Because he did not live to your exact specification, that makes him "a THUG" according to you.

In Texas, we change our constitution waay too often.
It is a funky system, really a state referendum of sorts.
I don't like it, but that does not mean I think because some in or out of congress benefit by it, they are THUGs or whatever.
Maybe we are ALL thugs here for passing things that might benefit us BEFORE we die.
Maybe we should only pass ANY laws in the US to go into effect only AFTER anyone in office could also benefit?

This thread is NOT yours and every discussion does not have to go by only YOUR points.
So, THIS thread is about how URIBE (a Bushbot killing machine deathbringer) gets LESS flack than Chavez.
Why is that do you think?

Can you get past that ONE example of your PERFECT DIPLOMACY and deal with the current issue?
If not, well damn. I hardly know you, but you are obviously better than that.

[1932]

73. Check this out...

...http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3457778&mesg_id=3458139

[Bongo Prophet]

75. I saw that - maybe I am foolish for thinking DUers can discuss thing, but H2S is fine on many issues

I have no personal problems with him at all.
I think the heat of battle, one can well, get heated. But it seems the goal would be to learn or come to some consensus.
The very "morality play" that he and i discussed showed that Husb2Sparkly DOES have a sense of compromise and good diplomatic skills.
And I respectfully told him so.
What I hoped was to raise the level a bit and explore issues, and that mutual respect would allow that to grow.
This is why the contrast was disappointing to me - I would like him as ally, and my goals here on DU would never be just to make net enemies.
How pointless is that, unless you were trying to KEEP good discussions from taking place. Possible in some cases.

It is impossible to discuss pros and cons of Venezuela, impeachment, strategy and on and on without hitting the "agree with X or you are a poopypants" style of argument.
Are we that far gone, even in a progressive site like this? Viewpoints right out of FreeRepublic, saying "sic the CIA after them" and "destabilize them" -- without a care to what that would mean to the citizens of a sovereign country. HUMAN BEINGS who don't deserve the hell some ON "OUR" SIDE so blithely call for.

I am no newbie to the net or DU by any means, and so have realistic expectations- but a modicum of respectful back and forth would be a fucking OASIS in this crap desert.
You know the old folk tale stone soup, where everyone adds an ingredient, and it turns into a lovely stew? Well, people keep tossing in shitballs, and then just laugh and laugh,
What the fuck is WRONG with them?

I would actually feel BETTER if I thought they were all trolls or paid CIA operatives. That would at least make sense.

[Warren Stupidity]

77. What I just don't get is the desperation.

Why is it so important for the anti-Chavez crowd here to find something, anything, that can be used to prove that what is going on in Venezuela is Real Bad? Why are they so threatened by a popular democratic socialist movement? I wish, as you say, that they were in fact all trolls or paid CIA operatives, it would be so much easier to deal with. Husb2Sparkly posts lots of stuff I really enjoy and respect, I can't just dismiss his rant as trollism.

[IndianaGreen]

78. Their belief in American exceptionalism is being challenged

They think that the large brown masses of Latin America are silly people, stupid people, that are only good to serve our interests and those we appointed above them. It frightens them to see that they can organize and collectivelly do a lot better for themselves than they did under our tutelage.

They become frightened when they see the people take control over their natural resources and kick foreign companies and investors out of their countries. What if more people were to do the same? What would happen then to America's prosperity, a prosperity that is build on the backs of the working class at home and abroad?

[acmavm]

30. It seems, after reading this entire thread, that those who badmouth

Chavez the most, make the worst accusations, never have anything to back it up.

[Forkboy]

52. That's been my take as well.

[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.

[Mutineer]

34. Keep telling yourself that OP.

He's a dictator-in-training. Let's see, he's seized control of the banks, the oil companies, shut down the only independent television network in his country and now he's ready to appoint himself president-for-life. Oh yeah, there's just no "proof" there whatsoever he's a dictator. He and Fidel are just great guys right? W-R-O-N-G!

[Warren Stupidity]

40. Lets just take one of your bullshit 'factlets'

Asserted 'fact' Chavez's government "shut down the only independent television network in his country".

Reference page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Venezuelan_television_channels

There are 5 national broadcast outlets. 2 remain commercial: venevision and televen. There are many independent regional television broadcast outlets. Venezuela has a vibrant and free media with far more diversity that our pathetic system.

Stop using the fascist kleptocracy's propaganda outlets for your 'facts' and do some research.

[bread_and_roses]

44. how many times does this dis-information have to be debunked here?

The station in question, last I read, was still broadcasting - on cable. That's not "shut-down." In a Dictatorship, the owners would be tortured and dead after their actions. Read something besides Corp news, watch something besides FOX, learn something.

[wyldwolf]

35. yeah, give some folks enough time and they'll blame EVERYTHING on the DLC. Paranoia is treatable

[Bongo Prophet]

72. The OP did not "BLAME" DLC for Chavez. DLC does support Uribe though, IIRC.

Have you EVER had a post on Venezuela that WASN'T insulting people or rolly eyes?
I think DU is a DISCUSSION board, and if you have nothing to add to the discussion, why post?

I could have a discussion and disagree amiably, if you even posted ANY facts or opinions regarding the subject at hand.
We could agree on some things maybe, and other things, not. Respectfully.

For example, do you think our policies toward Uribe and his oppression is a good thing?
If BOTH Uribe and Chavez have increased terms that come about via constitutional processes, that one is bad/one is good JUST on that issue?
Or is it that Uribe plays nice to our markets and Chavez does not?
Do you not like that Chavez fought AGAINST privatizing their social security?
Do you not like the literacy programs, teaching over a million to read?
Free clinics?
Or something else?
These are things we could take on, and maybe have substantive discussion.
No need to name names - but it seems like the same people come to just disrupt.

I know you are a big Hillary fan. Do you have insights on her position regarding these issues?
I know she equated Chavez with Castro, Jong-Il, etc. but they are NOT an official enemy, are they?
Should Hillary as prez sic the CIA on Chavez or assassinate or invade or trade like we would any other country.
MANY with MUCH worse records than Chavez.
Why the focus on HIM as superbad guy of the hemisphere?

[wyldwolf]

82. and that isn't what I stated, is it?

[Bongo Prophet]

83. "yeah, give some folks enough time and they'll blame EVERYTHING on the DLC. Paranoia is treatable"

It sounds like that is what you are saying.
"blame EVERYTHING on DLC" and the topic on Chavez being a subset of everything.

Maybe that is not what you mean.
You obviously have past issues with OP, in DLC wars. I am not in that fight, but I do see how it is being played.

I am through with this thread, as there is no reasonable intention of dialog.
Flame wars are not worth the time.

Do you really think that people, fellow dems who dislike DLC are mentally ill?
Paranoid?
Do you think insults bring people to your side?
This seems strange to me.

[bread_and_roses]

39. "The Old Iran-Contra Death Squad Gang Is Desperate to Discredit Chavez"

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/17/3236/

The similarities in the campaign against the phenomenal rise of popular democratic movements today are striking. Aimed principally at Venezuela, especially Chávez, the virulence of the attacks suggests that something exciting is taking place; and it is. Thousands of poor Venezuelans are seeing a doctor for the first time in their lives, having their children immunised and drinking clean water. New universities have opened their doors to the poor, breaking the privilege of competitive institutions effectively controlled by a “middle class” in a country where there is no middle.

It is this new confidence of Venezuela’s “invisible people” that has so inflamed those who live in suburbs called country club. Behind their walls and dogs, they remind me of white South Africans. Venezuela’s wild west media is mostly theirs; 80% of broadcasting and almost all the 118 newspaper companies are privately owned. Until recently one television shock jock liked to call Chávez, who is mixed race, a “monkey”. Front pages depict the president as Hitler, or as Stalin (the connection being that both like babies). Among broadcasters crying censorship loudest are those bankrolled by the National Endowment for Democracy, the CIA in spirit if not name. “We had a deadly weapon, the media,” said an admiral who was one of the coup plotters in 2002. The TV station, RCTV, never prosecuted for its part in the attempt to overthrow the elected government, lost only its terrestrial licence and is still broadcasting on satellite and cable

In Washington, the old Iran-Contra death squad gang, back in power under Bush, fear the economic bridges Chávez is building in the region, such as the use of Venezuela’s oil revenue to end IMF slavery. That he maintains a neoliberal economy, described by the American Banker as “the envy of the banking world” is seldom raised as valid criticism of his limited reforms. These days, of course, any true reforms are exotic. And as liberal elites under Blair and Bush fail to defend their own basic liberties, they watch the very concept of democracy as a liberal preserve challenged on a continent about which Richard Nixon once said “people don’t give a shit”.

It is utterly amazing to me that people swallow the MSM in US on Venzuela, when they know full well it is nothing but a mouthpiece for the Neo-Con/Liberal promotion of US hegemony/imperialism/exceptionalism.

Seems to me we should look to the beams in our own eyes.

[beachmom]

57. So when you disagree with people, you hurl insults? I don't like Chavez and

I am not a DLC Democrat. Your Colombian answer proves what? I never said Venezuela is bad and Colombia is good. I don't like Chavez, and I am a liberal Democrat. Try to make your point without a flamebait OP. Thank you.

[noamnety]

61. Is there anything in particular

that you don't like about the Bolivarian Revolution?

[Greyhound]

68. What? No answer from the "it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it" crowd?

I'm shocked, shocked hear this...:eyes:

[Bongo Prophet]

76. Hi Beachmom - I won't call you names! Hear me out, and I will try to help clarify.

IG's words can stand on their own, but what I took from it is frustration with our bi-partisan funding of Uribe in Colombia. We give them money and aid, and they use it for paramilitary attack squads, killing citizens and journalists and union workers. They build up troop along the border of their neighbor Venezuela, and have sent troops across the border in Venezuelan uniforms (for what, we wonder?) They spray their people with Roundup - and Paul Wellstone got a dose himself...and on and on.
'Yet no one seems to care, except progressive caucus and of course other human rights minded people, but the DLC and BlueDogs pretty much like it just fine.

But whenever Chavez does ANYTHING, even a very similar thing that Uribe did on this issue, if the people vote for it -
If EITHER of them do it within rule of law, well, it is their country and their people.
But the outrage is not equal at all, nor is the LACK of outrage equal.- = a double standard.
In fact, we can't even discuss the issue or compare without disruption and distortion. And that sucks.
So the charge of hypocrisy is a fair one, to GOP, maybe to DLC, and corporate media -- I don't think to you, personally.

Now, I know you are a John Kerry democrat like me, and you have stood up to the disinformation that his enemies put out to poison his effectiveness and his public image, as have I. You have also defended him from the "he rolled over" and other unfair urban legend bull, all on this site. Any positive Kerry thread of him fighting and doing some damn good things gets shit on by the same people, again and again. It is tedious as hell, and for whatever reason, they feel the need to drop crap and run, or worse, stick around and drain any good out of that thread. . Hats off to you and blm, ProSense and others for sticking up for the truth in those times.

I remember Sen. Kerry getting ragged on for saying he would talk with Chavez, in 03, when Karryn was his advisor IIRC, before Rand Beers and Holbrook got on board and made him get more "serious" - I was disappointed, partly because saying you will "talk" with a leader should NOT be a bad thing. I trust that he would have not allowed CIA to disrupt Venzuelan economy or destabilize or worse. Maybe I am naive regarding JK, but I have followed his career for decades and so trust is built up. Kerry is no war monger, he is an honorable man that should be prez right now, in my opinion. And what some people label "DLC types" didn't really like John much, and SURE didn't have his back in 04 - so I do have some resentment there. (in interest of full disclosure) Now, I don't like the label "DLC types" because it is too broad a brush most of the time.But generally, I know who that means.

Similar things happen on any Chavez/Venezuela thread. NOTHING Chavez does, from clinics to schools to food programs or vaccinations, etc,etc. can be discussed can be viewed as a good thing. NOTHING. Without those same type of disruptive and mean-spirited character assassins parachuting in. So, I know you know how THAT is, friend. As I said, I am a Kerry Dem, pretty much. I am not really a revolutionary Castro fanboy or whatever the detractors like to portray anyone who just looks beyond the veil of BS and keeps democratic PRINCIPLES to heart.

I don't know why you dislike Chavez, maybe some of what troubles you would trouble me too. To get beyond the headlines and slanted stories takes time, and there are many lies out there. So it is difficult. The more intelligent and moderate people trying to figure it out, the better.

So, in that spirit, I welcome your thoughts on the subject, whether pro or con or still searching for the truth of any one issue. As you know, these single issues harden into larger perceptions, whether built on truth or disinfo. So we have to work together to find the truth.

[Judi Lynn]

81. Great post! Looking forward to seeing more of your comments. Thanks. n/t

[Bongo Prophet]

84. Thank you Judi Lynn - Your posts and others' have prompted me to do my own research

By doing the research without prejudice, but rather sticking to my core principles, it was not so difficult to get at least some perspective.
It helps to know the history, and I am still working on it all.

The main thing that concerns me, (and is starting to piss me off, frankly) is the quality of "debate" itself here on DU.
The similar thread "President for Life..." was nothing more than a Friday night GAME by that clown guy.
I went back and reread the entire thread, and it became obvious that I wasted time to respond in sincere fashion, when it later became clear there was NO intention at discourse at all.

He kept changing the goalposts there, eventually claiming he wanted to know why people "admire this guy" but disqualified his ACTIONS and ACCOMPLISHMENTS, which are the only REAL reasons one should have, really.
"I don't care about what he has done" -- now how the hell do you respond to THAT sort of thing?

And all the "rock star" "Cult figure" "Worship at his shrine" BS with loaded words and accusations are childish and tiresome.
And clearly aimed at shutting down any meaningful discussion.
I felt like I was invited to a dinner party with some intelligent people and several spoiled kids throwing shit and shouting.

Sorry for the rant. I am just a bit peeved, still.

Beachmom is a good poster, and I think coming into a thread with saloon fight going on will only turn off people coming in, who could bring more insight.
Maybe that is another reason some don't want these discussions to even take place.

Maybe a "One America" group would be a good place to discuss issues of vital importance to our hemisphere, without the disruptions.
The rules are more strict for DU groups, right? I would LOVE to go into more depth with you, Peace Patriot and many others, and learn/share at a higher level than some are willing to go.