-2-

[Edited on May 29, 2007 at 8:52 PM. Reason : ¡Vive la revolución!]

5/29/2007 8:52:06 PM

The so-called elections were suspect, to say the least.

Venezuela election boycott widens

Quote :

"A fourth Venezuelan opposition party has withdrawn from this Sunday's congressional election amid a dispute over electronic voting machines."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4487686.stm

And why are the Democrats in the US Senate so concerned about this? According to many of you here, Chavez's actions and ideology are no problem, am I right?

US Senate 'deeply concerned' over Venezuela TV closing

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Senate on Friday unanimously approved a resolution expressing 'profound concern' over the decision by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to revoke the broadcast license of an opposition-run television station."

Quote :

"The measure also 'strongly encourages the Organization of American States to respond appropriately, with full consideration of the necessary institutional instruments, to such transgression.' The resolution was introduced by Democrat Christopher Dodd -- who his seeking his party's nomination for the 2008 presidential race -- and Republican Richard Lugar. Bill co-sponsors included Democratic presidential hopefuls Joseph Biden, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Republican presidential hopeful John McCain."

5/29/2007 9:14:25 PM

Hooksaw will only allow discussion in this thread if it involves bashing Chavez, socialists, leftists or really anyone who doesn't agree with him.

5/29/2007 9:15:01 PM

Maybe people don't want to comment on Chavez because it is nothing new and not worthy of a discussing that hasn't been had before. Furthermore, I haven't noticed any ardent Chavez "Defenders" in here either outside of maybe Kris (and I don't know that for sure), but then again, I haven't paid that close attention.

5/29/2007 9:49:30 PM

Quote :

"Why does it matter what he does in his OWN country?"

He does not own Venezuela, he leads Venezuela. Currently, he's leading by poor example.

5/29/2007 10:00:18 PM

Quote :

"Hooksaw will only allow discussion in this thread if it involves bashing always bash Chavez, and he disagrees strongly with socialists and leftists or really anyone who doesn't agree with him."

Fixed it for you.

[Edited on May 29, 2007 at 10:29 PM. Reason : .]

5/29/2007 10:11:35 PM

Quote :

"And if any of our media outlets supported a coup against the presidency, you bet that they would be treated harshly."

No, no they would not. Any individuals at that TV station that engaged in illegal acts would be arrested and prosecuted. If the government could not make a criminal case then it would end there. The corollary is if someone at the FCC got upset that the Justice Department could not obtain a conviction and chose to yank their license instead. It would be all over the headlines, protests in the streets, and various NGOs would bring lawsuits in federal court to have the license reinstated, and they would probably win. This is because, in America, you cannot be punished for a crime you were not convicted of committing.

This is exactly what happened in Venezuela. Chavez's government could never make a criminal case against anyone at the TV station. Since Chavez did not have absolute authority in Venezuela back in 2002, he had no choice but to swallow his pride and leave the station alone.

But times have changed. The legislature is almost 100% Chavez supporters, a majority of the supreme court has been replaced with supporters, as well as most of the lower court judges, and he has the authority to rule by decree. Now, Chavez can easily squash the station for political reasons irrespective of the law, even if he cannot prove their involvement in the coup, since he is the law.

5/29/2007 10:29:04 PM

Quote :

" Any individuals at that TV station that engaged in illegal acts would be arrested and prosecuted."

This is assuming it was particular individuals. If it was a top-down thing, then the investigation would be hampered in some way by the executives, or a scapegoat would be chosen.

Quote :

" If the government could not make a criminal case then it would end there."

I'm not sure what "supported a coup" means in this case, but I can't think of any valid context this could be used in the US that wouldn't have legal implications. If a news outlet was saying "we should forcibly remove the president of the US, using an underground militia" they would be labeled as terrorists, and at the very least, would be barred from saying that. On the other hand, if they were actually supporting a militia group that would depose the president, then they have direct financial ties to what would be labeled as terrorists, and are in worse trouble. But, there is no scenario where they get off scot free.

Quote :

"The corollary is if someone at the FCC got upset that the Justice Department could not obtain a conviction and chose to yank their license instead. It would be all over the headlines, protests in the streets, and various NGOs would bring lawsuits in federal court to have the license reinstated, and they would probably win. This is because, in America, you cannot be punished for a crime you were not convicted of committing. "

You can't be punished by the law, but you can be punished.

5/29/2007 10:45:48 PM

How about when "supporting a coup" means being critical of the current administration and giving voice to the opposition? Like in this case?

This is a classic case of silencing the opposition, which is a staple of any dictatorship. This kind of shit would never fly in the US, or any other true democracy for that matter.

5/29/2007 11:00:28 PM

Quote :

"How about when "supporting a coup" means being critical of the current administration and giving voice to the opposition? Like in this case? "

link?

5/29/2007 11:02:34 PM

Any of you still defending Chavez should be ashamed of yourselves.

Chavez threatens another TV channel

Quote :

"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has called the Globovision news channel an enemy of the state just days after closing down another provate station. Tens of thousands of Venezuelans marched in Caracas in a fourth consecutive day of protests over Mr Chavez's closure of the RCTV network - a move which has sparked international criticism that the leftist leader's reforms are undermining democracy."

Quote :

"'Enemies of the homeland, particularly those behind the scenes, I will give you a name: Globovision. Greetings gentlemen of Globovision, you should watch where you are going,' Mr Chavez said in a broadcast all channels had to show. 'I recommend you take a tranquilizer and get into gear, because if not, I am going to do what is necessary.'"

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/0530/breaking5.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/29/venezuela.media/index.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahz.x6tq.fTA&refer=home

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN2933672520070529?src=052907_1547_DOUBLEFEATURE_

5/30/2007 3:25:36 AM

No one was defending Chavez in the first place.

5/30/2007 3:34:07 AM

^ O'RLY? Here are just a few examples from this thread:

Quote :

"Chavez is da man"

Wolfman Tim

Quote :

"Why does it matter what he does in his OWN country?"

rainman

Quote :

"Hooksaw will only allow discussion in this thread if it involves bashing Chavez, socialists, leftists or really anyone who doesn't agree with him."

HockeyRoman

Quote :

"Furthermore, I haven't noticed any ardent Chavez 'Defenders' in here either outside of maybe Kris (and I don't know that for sure), but then again, I haven't paid that close attention."

Blind Hate

You're right--you haven’t been paying attention.

Quote :

"My point was that police would and do use tear gas and rubber bullets to control assemblies that cause a disruption, especially in cases where the people don't have a permit."

moron

Yeah, just a little "disruption" to their fucking freedom! Maybe you're right--Venezuelans should get a permit for freedom from their dictator. Please shut the fuck up.

PS: Don't post your sex doll in public.

5/30/2007 3:55:00 AM

^ None of those are defenses of Chavez (except for the "Chavez is da man" but that was probably in jest).

5/30/2007 4:00:51 AM

^ Yeah, right.

5/30/2007 4:12:11 AM

Moron:

Quote :

"You can't be punished by the law, but you can be punished."

What does this mean? Are you suggesting they be gunned down on the street? I ask, because legally if the Government cannot obtain a conviction for any bad acts then there is nothing it can legally do. But you are right, there are lots of things it can illegally do, but thanks to America's independent judiciary, the government is not likely to get away with it and might even land themselves in jail.

Quote :

"On the other hand, if they were actually supporting a militia group that would depose the president, then they have direct financial ties to what would be labeled as terrorists, and are in worse trouble."

Which would be demonstratable in court and would lead to a felony conviction. If the Government had any evidence what-so-ever that the owners of a TV station engaged in any illegal acts, such as financially supporting terrorists, then they would go to jail. After that, the remaining owners of the station would appoint new management and keep broadcasting (barring bankruptcy).

[Edited on May 30, 2007 at 6:22 AM. Reason : .,.]

5/30/2007 6:12:09 AM

Quote :

"None of those are defenses of Chavez (except for the "Chavez is da man" but that was probably in jest)."

5/30/2007 7:36:28 AM

Quote :

"None of those are defenses of Chavez (except for the "Chavez is da man" but that was probably in jest)."

[ ^ signed ]

i dont know who here points to chavez as some sort of model leader they'd want here in america.

you dont like venezuela's government? well fucking too bad for you. I'll bet you don't like China's government either, im sure, but when were you last hollering about them? China's got a far worse human rights record. hell, even Guatemala is refusing China's food products for legal and human health concerns.

the USA has enough issues with nation-building these days. we dont have time for any new projects.

anyhow, its not like we have a very good human-rights record with propping up our own rightwing dictators in central and south america




[Edited on May 30, 2007 at 1:18 PM. Reason : ]

5/30/2007 1:18:16 PM

Quote :

"^ O'RLY? Here are just a few examples from this thread: "

lol, you are hopeless

5/30/2007 1:32:24 PM

Quote :

""You can't be punished by the law, but you can be punished." What does this mean? Are you suggesting they be gunned down on the street? I ask, because legally if the Government cannot obtain a conviction for any bad acts then there is nothing it can legally do. But you are right, there are lots of things it can illegally do, but thanks to America's independent judiciary, the government is not likely to get away with it and might even land themselves in jail. "

I'm talking about people knowing who you are and losing jobs/contracts/respect because of it, or being blacklisted from certain circles. Just look at OJ Simpson, he pretty much has to remain low key (there was a recent story about him getting kicked out of a restaurant because of who he is), because everyone knows he did it, but got off by playing the system. Our legal system isn't perfect.

5/30/2007 2:31:15 PM

^^ If you were being sarcastic in the post I quoted, I regret the error. Don't worry about me being hopeless, though--John Edwards said that hope is on the way.

5/31/2007 8:51:31 AM

Nobody really likes Chavez anymore, you fucking wing-nut.

Evo Morales has kept his distance recently.

The president of Brasil, Lula da Silva, who is from the Worker's Party and a left-winger, resents Chavez's militaristic ideals and pompous attitude of wanting total power.

I was in Guatemala this week, an extremely poor nation, and even the leftist political pundits are negative about him. The same in Nicaragua, a country run by a Sandinista- Daniel Ortega.

He hasn't invested anything for his nation's infrastructure or helped the impoverished population that supported him.

The only people outside of Venezuela who like Chavez (or PRETEND to like Chavez) are a few ignorant American attention whores and anyone who wants to give the US adminstration the middle-finger.

Chavez is an asshole, and nobody likes an asshole. Not even liberals.

5/31/2007 4:26:38 PM

Quote :

"peaceful protesters "

in south america? surely you jest

5/31/2007 8:27:54 PM

Quote :

"Considering that the same TV station supported a coup against Chavez in 2002, it's very generous of him to merely not renew their license now. "

that right there says it all. it would only be generous of him if he was a dictator. it would be expected of him if he believed in keeping venezuela a free and democratic state

5/31/2007 8:31:26 PM

Quote :

"it would only be generous of him if he was a dictator. it would be expected of him if he believed in keeping venezuela a free and democratic state"

hmm.

I wonder... how would the supporters of a failed coup against the democratically elected President of the US fare, do you think?

revoked media license?

or "moderately discomfortable" stress positions and pressure points at Guantanamo ?

i dunno. tough call.

5/31/2007 10:27:52 PM

^^^^ I respect your position--except for the "fucking wing-nut" part. It just ain't so, man.

5/31/2007 11:04:42 PM

joe_schmoe, we really don't know, given that there have been no attempted coups against the U.S. President. That said, we do have a long list of individuals and organizations calling for the impeachment of the President, some others have called for his forced removal and execution for war crimes. None of them have been arrested without evidence of wrong doing. Similarly, none of them have been demonstrably hassled by the Government.

As the TV Station in question did nothing more than advocate Chavez's political removal; I'm not sure, but I don't believe they advocated having Chavez executed for war-crimes, it seems to me that some American TV comentators have gone further and gotten away with it.

5/31/2007 11:50:06 PM

No, no they haven't. Name a "tv commentator" that has called for the execution of the President for war crimes.

6/1/2007 10:56:08 AM

this guy hates freedom. nail 'im up, i say. nail 'im up.




[Edited on June 2, 2007 at 2:48 AM. Reason : ]

6/2/2007 2:47:39 AM

Google search, "I'm feeling lucky" TV Bush "war crimes":

Quote :

"A week later, Harvey Tharp made his first Television appearance on Santa Maria's Comcast Channel 25, On Second Thought, hosted by Viet Nam Veteran, William J. Wagener [who is against Undeclared Wars]. Mr. Tharp made a clear representation that THIS Iraq War is about deception of Americans, about WAR CRIMES, using well meaning, but mis-guided American youthful soldiers to commit a WAR of Aggression under the cover story of stopping "Global Terrorists.""

6/2/2007 9:44:59 AM

Chavez is a typical leftist despot who thinks democracy exists only as far as his interests are concerned. He isn't the 1st leftist despot and sadly won't be the last...

6/2/2007 9:48:42 AM

Quote :

"some others have called for his forced removal and execution for war crimes."

Your feeling lucky link doesn't make any mention of execution for war crimes. Furthermore, who the fuck his Harvey Tharp, and what the fuck is On Second Thought, and who is William J. Wagener? These are a bunch on insignificants.

6/2/2007 9:57:51 AM

Chavez Bush is a typical leftist rightist despot who thinks democracy exists only as far as his interests are concerned. He isn't the 1st leftist rightist despot and sadly won't be the last...

6/2/2007 10:38:44 AM

^^ Well, what is the most common sentence for war crimes?

And I seriously doubt the TV station in Venezuela called for Chavez's death; more likely they called for his generic political removal from power without addressing how. A coup is an example of this, but so is losing an election and resigning from office.

As such, convicting Bush of war crimes would land him at least in jail, something above and beyond that advocated by the TV station in Venezuela for Chavez.

6/2/2007 11:59:17 AM

^^ If you think that Bush is a "rightist" then you're a tool, but we already knew this..

6/2/2007 5:21:08 PM

^

inform us please.

how exactly is Bush to be categorized, in your esteemed opinion.

6/2/2007 6:17:57 PM

Middle of the road sellout. He outdemocrated the democrats on education, campaign finance, and most recently, immigration. If Bush didn't have an R beside his name you people would worship the ground he walks on, much like Richard Nixon.

6/2/2007 7:32:57 PM

Great, there you go again, claiming everyone that have ever posted in Soap Box history is a bleeding heart liberal.

6/2/2007 7:57:55 PM

Chavez's approval rating is 65%, Putin's is 85%, and Bush's is is 29%. Just because our country allows its citizens to be raped by its Enrons and Military Industries doesn't mean others who try not to aren't free.

[Edited on June 2, 2007 at 9:16 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on June 2, 2007 at 9:17 PM. Reason : a]

6/2/2007 9:16:00 PM

you can expect a leader's approval rating to be higher when he restricts negative speech about him. why do you think chavez is trying to silence the tv station that is broadcasting things that make him look bad?

6/2/2007 9:49:16 PM

Yep. Putin shut down his TV critics years ago, he's even forced out most critical print media; hence his 85% approval rating. Chavez just shut down one and is threatening the last remaining critical TV station; in a few years as Venezuela collapses into a currency crisis his approval will have risen at least to 85%, if not more.

Putin and Chavez have re-stumbled into the calming effect of un-challenged propaganda. Bravo democracy, you have led yet more countries inexorably to totalitarian dictatorship.

6/2/2007 10:00:55 PM

Quote :

"Wlfpk4Life - If Bush didn't have an R beside his name you people would worship the ground he walks on, much like Richard Nixon."

you're on fucking drugs.

there isnt one thing that GWB has done that has been remotely progressive or democratic.

oh, wait. there was one. his designation of the Hawaiian Marine Wildlife Preserve as a National Monument was good.

but it is completely overshadowed by the harm his countless anti-environmental policies have done. and it wasnt very altruistic. there was essentially no commercial fishing or exploration being done there. had there been any significant short-term commercial economic interest it would have never been protected.

as for the rest of his legacy? tax cuts for the wealthy, 5 years of pointless war, broad trade concessions and exporting jobs, faith-based initiatives, installing ultra rightwing wingnuts to Federal and US Supreme courts, undermining basic civil liberties on an unprecedented scale...

yeah, we liberals just love that shit.





[Edited on June 2, 2007 at 11:55 PM. Reason : ]

6/2/2007 11:48:11 PM

Quote :

"broad trade concessions and exporting jobs, "

Bush exported jobs? Is there a button he pushes that magically transports jobs to India? Has unemployment gone up the past 7 years? Trade concessions, wth? I wouldn't call Bush a "free trader"

Quote :

"undermining basic civil liberties on an unprecedented scale..."

Wait, what? What civil liberties have you lost? Seriously, this is probably the most retarded talking point know to man.

Quote :

"tax cuts for the wealthy everyone"

There.

Quote :

"harm his countless anti-environmental policies have done"

Que? I know it might be a bit of a shock, but our environment is actually cleaner than it was 7 years ago. What has he done that has hurt the environment? Stop talking out of your ass.

Quote :

"faith-based initiatives"

you "liberals" as you call yourself, are suppose to be open to new ideas. Yet, you don't even give it a chance or try to understand where he is coming from. Sounds pretty closed minded to me.

"Liberals" in America are anything but for the most part.

I don't like Bush, but you could at least not use talking points from the DNC, be a little sincere.

6/3/2007 12:57:08 AM

Quote :

"but our environment is actually cleaner than it was 7 years ago."

What does this even mean?

6/3/2007 1:11:33 AM

Quote :

"you "liberals" as you call yourself, are suppose to be open to new ideas. Yet, you don't even give it a chance or try to understand where he is coming from. Sounds pretty closed minded to me."

Haha, be open minded to this religion we are trying to force on you!!!!

6/3/2007 1:12:08 AM

It's useless trying to convince you would-be Chavistas of the value of freedom and democracy. Just keep wearing your Che Guevara t-shirts and blaming America--just as Chavez is doing now concerning the uprising in Venezuela. You should be ashamed of yourselves, but you have no shame, do you?

America is not alone in condemning Chavez, other countries and organizations are denouncing him, too--hell, even the Carter Center has expressed concerns:

Quote :

"While condemnation from the Bush administration, an ideological foe of Venezuela, was expected, criticism has come from many quarters around the world, some of them surprising. Spain's Socialist government, in a joint declaration with the United States, called Friday for Chávez to renew RCTV's license. The European Parliament voiced concern, and Brazil's Senate passed a resolution calling on Chávez to reconsider, drawing a sharp rebuke from the Venezuelan leader. 'A head of state who doesn't know how to live with democratic manifestation, such as that of the Brazilian Senate, is probably against democracy,' the president of that body, Renan Calheiros, said in response. Reporters Without Borders, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, the Chilean Senate and the Atlanta-based Carter Center have said freedom of expression could be in peril in Venezuela. 'I think this weakens the Chávez government's argument that it furthers free expression,' said Carlos Lauria, who has studied the case for the Committee to Protect Journalists. 'It debilitates that argument.'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/01/AR2007060102630.html

Will those of you that claim you are not Chavez defenders condemn him now?

[Edited on June 3, 2007 at 2:25 AM. Reason : .]

6/3/2007 2:24:14 AM

hooksaw, what is your hardon for Chavez all about? no one here is supporting him. I dont particularly like him, and I wouldnt want him or anyone like him to be a leader in THIS country.

But Chavez doesn't give a flying fuck what Fox News Sunday, or the Carter Center thinks about him. And he doesn't give a flying fuck what you I think about him.

Venezuela's government is Venezuela's business, especially when their leader is legally and democratically elected.

Perhaps you remember what happened the last time we tried to remove a leader of a sovereign nation?

6/3/2007 2:41:26 AM

^ Do you have a flaccid phallus for condemning Chavez? If you don't support him, prove me wrong now--condemn him or at least his actions that are at issue. Come on--let's see it.

BTW, nice little jab at Fox News there--you just couldn't help yourself, could you? Fox News was NOT mentioned in the article above from the Washington Post, which was the newspaper that helped take down Nixon--FYI.

[Edited on June 3, 2007 at 3:11 AM. Reason : .]

6/3/2007 3:08:01 AM

i know who the Washington Post is. my choice of examples was analgous to points close to american political extremes. FNC <--> Carter Center. In that Chavez doesnt give a flying fuck about what any of them think.

you sure are sensitive to perceived insults against your beloved news channel.

here's my condemnation of Chavez that you so desperately desire:

Chavez has pulled a bunch of bullshit that (hopefully) would never fly here in the US. but since hes the elected leader of a sovereign nation, its up to his own electorate to sort out the legality or illegality of what he has done.

did Chavez shut down a media outlet for disagreeing with his policies? well, that sounds pretty fucking sketchy. if i was a Venezuelan, i'd be really pissed off. but guess what? I'm not Venezuelan. in other words, "I ain't got a dog in that fight.

in any event, the US history of meddling in central/south american affairs, and the apparently inability of the US media to get beyond White House talking points, leads me to not put too much stock in any analysis of US media reports on the matter.

6/3/2007 6:01:51 AM

hey man we all love chavez up here in seattle, and obviously seattle is an accurate microcosm for the united states since the us is as retarded and liberal as we are here in seattle

hey btw i'm married with a kid but i'm posting on tww at 3am, i'm joe_homo

6/3/2007 7:13:10 AM