• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

President Chavez calls President Bush "The Devil" (1 Viewer)

TurtleDude said:
it is truth from his perspective-in the American Elections, the left lost and that is "UNFAIR" to the movement. In Venzuela, a nutcase leftwing loonbird won :mrgreen: Outcome based analysis is a leftist proclivity including constitutional scholarship (The Electoral college is UNFAIR for example)
More bullshit Dude? Please enlighten us as to which ELECTED Democrats are caliming hte Electoral College is unfair and also please, please show us which ELECTED Democrats are supporting anything Chavez has said, especially his speech this week?

Dude this is where you usually cut and run or use your famous "I saw it on TV" cop out....How about some actual verifiable facts to back up what I believe are more untruths that you've posted?

We're waiting.....:2wave:
 
What ild like to know is how the electorate have been able to force several referendums on his presidency when they have no civil liberties?
 
26 X World Champs said:
More bullshit Dude? Please enlighten us as to which ELECTED Democrats are caliming hte Electoral College is unfair and also please, please show us which ELECTED Democrats are supporting anything Chavez has said, especially his speech this week?

Dude this is where you usually cut and run or use your famous "I saw it on TV" cop out....How about some actual verifiable facts to back up what I believe are more untruths that you've posted?

We're waiting.....:2wave:

Stuff it. I never said elected democrats. Take your leg humpin somewhere else. Your fixation on me is troubling.
 
26 X World Champs said:
More bullshit Dude? Please enlighten us as to which ELECTED Democrats are caliming hte Electoral College is unfair and also please, please show us which ELECTED Democrats are supporting anything Chavez has said, especially his speech this week?

Dude this is where you usually cut and run or use your famous "I saw it on TV" cop out....How about some actual verifiable facts to back up what I believe are more untruths that you've posted?

We're waiting.....:2wave:

Democrats are not leftist. They decide what they are based on whats popular.
 
LeftyHenry said:
Democrats are not leftist. They decide what they are based on whats popular.

as to Clinton (William) I agree with you on that.
 
LeftyHenry said:
His elections were fairer than Bush's.


Only if you consider giving 2,000,000 illegal immigrants voting rights to be fair.

Ya well freedom house should take a look at the constitution which you sourced. They should see that there is freedom of speech and you are allowed to speak out against the government.

Well you should learn to read because the new and improved descato laws have eleminated the freedom of speech not to mention that Chavez has rewritten the Venezuelan Constitution to his own ends.

From your own source.
From my source:

Article 148. Any person who offends, verbally or in writing or in any other fashion, the President of the Republic or the person serving in that capacity shall be punished with a prison term of between six and thirty months, if the offense was serious, and of half that duration, if it was slight.

LOL okay ya they are threatened by government supporters. That's not the governments fault. The press is free. There is a privatly owned media which has the freedom to report pretty much whatever it feels like.

Is this what you call freedom of the speech?


Bush stole the election. lines in the suburbs were 1/3 as large as they were in black communities.

Even if what you say is true tell me how Bush made the lines longer.

In Florida, over 50,000 voters were taken off the registered list for various false reasons. Many irregularities were found and studies have proved that Gore won.

This is a lie the studies have found the exact opposite recount after recount proved that Bush won.

Diebold voting machines have no paper trail and their tallies can be changed by a bribed election worker in under a minute.

Do you have any evidence that the machines were tampered with? Point of fact there was found to be voter fraud but in favor of the Democrats.

BTW it wasn't just monitored by the Carter Center. There's also 5 opposition polls which had results claiming he won and the Organization of American States monitored the elections. Your wrong. Chavez was electecd by the people and by a considerable margin in a democratic fashion, unlike the Bush Regime.

If you consider voter intimidation by armed Chavez militia to be fair and Democratic then ya sure.


Civil liberties have been steadily declining under the Bush regime; it's called the Patriot Act buddy, besides that's a load of ****. Freedomhouse is notoriously conservative.

Actually Freedomhouse is a non-partisan research group but regardless do you consider Human Rights watch, Amnesty International, the Inter-American Committee on human rights, and the Committee to protect journalists, to be conservative too? Because they all say the same thing and that Chavez has destroyed civil liberties in Venezuela.

Far worse things are done in other countries to people in other Latin American countries. Look at Columbia.

Yep freedomhouse says that they are not free either.

Right wing paramilitaries are known to intimidate unions and left leaning organizations.

And that makes Venezuela more free how exactly? We're discussing Venezuela not Columbia quit changing the subject.

that article ignores the fact that there is a privatly owned independent media in Venezula.

Not anymore just one example of how freedom of the press in Venezuela has gone the way of the dinosaurs:

VENEZUELA: Chávez threatens critical private broadcasters

New York, June 15, 2006—The Committee to Protect Journalists is dismayed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s threat to block the renewal of broadcast licenses for privately owned television and radio stations that oppose his government.

Chávez said Wednesday that he had ordered a review of licenses for media outlets that supported the 2002 coup attempt against him. He did not name the broadcasters.

Chávez said that private broadcasters were waging “psychological war to divide, weaken and destroy the nation,” as part of an “imperialist plan” to overthrow his government, media reported. Stations that favored the opposition could be denied broadcast licenses next year, he said.

William Lara, the minister of communication and information, told the local press that the government was legally entitled to refuse license renewals to stations whose behavior it deemed to be in violation of the law. He said he had “noticed a systematic tendency to violate the law.” The Caracas-based daily El Universal quoted Lara as saying there was a concrete possibility that some licenses would not be renewed in 2007.

“We urge President Chávez to refrain from making these kinds of menacing statements which could have a chilling effect on the press,” said CPJ Executive Director Ann Cooper. “The allocation of broadcast frequencies should be based on technical considerations not politics.”

http://www.cpj.org/news/2006/americas/ven15june06na.html

While their are tensions between Chavez and the media, any country you look at is no different. It's been like that here since Truman.

Actually unlike in Venezuela the United States has a free press.
 
TurtleDude said:
it is truth from his perspective-in the American Elections, the left lost and that is "UNFAIR" to the movement. In Venzuela, a nutcase leftwing loonbird won :mrgreen: Outcome based analysis is a leftist proclivity including constitutional scholarship (The Electoral college is UNFAIR for example)

there is far more evidence proving that Gore won in 2000 than there is evidence that Chavez lost in any of the elections he won. It's as simple as that. 2 major independent organizations monitored Venezulan elections and spotted no irregularities and said they were completely fair, as well as 5 opposition polls which reached the same conclusion: Chavez won.
 
LeftyHenry said:
there is far more evidence proving that Gore won in 2000 than there is evidence that Chavez lost in any of the elections he won. It's as simple as that. 2 major independent organizations monitored Venezulan elections and spotted no irregularities and said they were completely fair, as well as 5 opposition polls which reached the same conclusion: Chavez won.


Bush won fairly despite efforts on the other side to steal the election by changing the standards post election day. I have no clue who won in Venzuela. Its not my issue
 
TurtleDude said:
Stuff it. I never said elected democrats. Take your leg humpin somewhere else. Your fixation on me is troubling.
Fixation on you? :rofl How about a fixation on the TRUTH? I realize that you prefer to not deal in truths and when challenged you run and hide and accuse others of being fixated on you...Life's a bitch Dude when confronted with challenges to your untruthful, unsubstantiated posts....

You keep posting the same inaccurate claims and I will keep rebutting them...this is DEBATE Politics and rebuttal is at the core of this site.

Just look at me as your own personal "Media Matters" website....You know who they are? They describe themselves as:

"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

:2wave:
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Even if what you say is true tell me how Bush made the lines longer.
Pretty simple really. Make sure that in communities that you want a lower voter turnout you make sure that there aren't enough voting machines "per capita." End result is that people get off the long line and go home and do not vote.

Then to make it even less equitable you make sure that in districts where you want a large turnout you have too many machines so no one has to wait and everyone votes.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Only if you consider giving 2,000,000 illegal immigrants voting rights to be fair.

when did he do that?

Well you should learn to read because the new and improved descato laws have eleminated the freedom of speech not to mention that Chavez has rewritten the Venezuelan Constitution to his own ends.

Not to mention that the new constitution was approved through a democratic referendum by the majority.

From my source:

Article 148. Any person who offends, verbally or in writing or in any other fashion, the President of the Republic or the person serving in that capacity shall be punished with a prison term of between six and thirty months, if the offense was serious, and of half that duration, if it was slight.

Where in your link is that? The only curbing on freedom is when on the air, in public you can't do sexual or violent or offensive things. but that's the same here.

Is this what you call freedom of the speech?

Umm what does any of that have to do with Chavez? Non of those things are because Chavez is banning freedom of speech. None are arrested for 'violating ban of free speech'.


Even if what you say is true tell me how Bush made the lines longer.

In Florida Jeb Bush was governor and the head of Bush's campaign was in charge of the electoral process there. Jeb Bush took over 50,000 registered black voters off the list.

This is a lie the studies have found the exact opposite recount after recount proved that Bush won.

Umm no. Study after Study have proven Gore won.


Do you have any evidence that the machines were tampered with? Point of fact there was found to be voter fraud but in favor of the Democrats.

How would ther be evidence of such a thing? Do you think they left a tape telling everyone what they did? Of course not. I'm just saying that It's a well known fact that Diebold voting machines can be hacked in under a minute easily and that the CEO of Diebold was a major campaign contributor to Bush and that Diebold voting machines and ES&S voting machines count 80% of the votes in US elections. And I can back that up.

If you consider voter intimidation by armed Chavez militia to be fair and Democratic then ya sure.

umm do you have any unbiased evidence?


Actually Freedomhouse is a non-partisan research group but regardless do you consider Human Rights watch, Amnesty International, the Inter-American Committee on human rights, and the Committee to protect journalists, to be conservative too? Because they all say the same thing and that Chavez has destroyed civil liberties in Venezuela.

Freedomhouse camn claim to be non-partisan but it's no coincidence that every state which goes against the US is not free or partially free by their standards. And no they don't. There are the same amount if not more civil liberties under Chavez than there were before. It's pretty ****ing upsurd to claim that a country that has free and fair elections doesn't have free speech.


Not anymore just one example of how freedom of the press in Venezuela has gone the way of the dinosaurs:

Chávez said Wednesday that he had ordered a review of licenses for media outlets that supported the 2002 coup attempt against him. He did not name the broadcasters.

yeah no **** buddy, like we give licenses to terrorist newspapers.


Actually unlike in Venezuela the United States has a free press.

umm okay then why is there a privately owned press in venezula which says what it wants. For example, Aykron's conspiracy theory article that Chvez donated a 100 million to Al Quida says that that exact story was published on the front page of all newspapers. If there was no free press that would be impossible.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Pretty simple really. Make sure that in communities that you want a lower voter turnout you make sure that there aren't enough voting machines "per capita." End result is that people get off the long line and go home and do not vote.


Then to make it even less equitable you make sure that in districts where you want a large turnout you have too many machines so no one has to wait and everyone votes.

So you're saying that Bush is responsible for how many voting machines go into a particular community?
 
26 X World Champs said:
Fixation on you? :rofl How about a fixation on the TRUTH? I realize that you prefer to not deal in truths and when challenged you run and hide and accuse others of being fixated on you...Life's a bitch Dude when confronted with challenges to your untruthful, unsubstantiated posts....

You keep posting the same inaccurate claims and I will keep rebutting them...this is DEBATE Politics and rebuttal is at the core of this site.

Just look at me as your own personal "Media Matters" website....You know who they are? They describe themselves as:

"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."

:2wave:


Your constant braying that you are the repository of all truth and that anyone who doesn't buy into your whining welfare-socialist Bush hating psychobabble is a liar is getting old.

Your last "rebuttal" was based on "ELECTED DEMOCRATS" a term I never used. You might be the king of the strawman destruction around here but its obvious you are so biased with BDS you can't see how idiotic the crap you spew is. It must really suck to be you given the level of hate and venom you constantly spew here

as to what you claim you are to me-I see you as a nasty little poodle who constantly messes up my nice trouser legs. I should be flattered that you are fixated on me when there are so many leftwing posts in need of correction including much of the garbage you spew
 
C'mon Turtle. Be fair. You spread your hate and venom fertilizer as much as anybody around here.

Relax dude. You just got your leg humped. I should be so lucky.:mrgreen:
 
Captain America said:
C'mon Turtle. Be fair. You spread your hate and venom fertilizer as much as anybody around here.

Relax dude. You just got your leg humped. I should be so lucky.:mrgreen:


true enough but I don't have a hard on for anyone in particular.I wouldn't call it hate either. venom-well maybe but that would be the wrong reptile. If someone who I "humped" says something smart- I give them credit for it. I don't keep whining at one person like the clown in question does.
 
TurtleDude said:
true enough but I don't have a hard on for anyone in particular.I wouldn't call it hate either. venom-well maybe but that would be the wrong reptile. If someone who I "humped" says something smart- I give them credit for it. I don't keep whining at one person like the clown in question does.


Well..... I love ya bro but you are now.

Let's blow this popsicle stand and go for a beer. Relax. It's Saturday. A rainy Saturday perhaps but there's always Jack and Coke.

I am sending you a cybor cocktail. Here. :drink
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
So you're saying that Bush is responsible for how many voting machines go into a particular community?
Remember Ohio 2004? Good ol' Ken Blackwell, Ohio's Sec. of State decides how many voting machines go into a particular precinct...and as you know the very same Ken Blackwell was also Bush's Campaign Chairman in Ohio. Does that clarify it for you?
 
Captain America said:
Well..... I love ya bro but you are now.

Let's blow this popsicle stand and go for a beer. Relax. It's Saturday. A rainy Saturday perhaps but there's always Jack and Coke.

I am sending you a cybor cocktail. Here. :drink


cool dude. Good suggestion:smile:
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Bullshit propaganda with no evidence to support any U.S. involvement in the Coup.




There is no press freedom in Venezuela it is a victim of the Chavez regime, those journalists who speak out against Chavez are routinely harrassed, attacked, murdered, and incarcerated. Speaking out against Chavez or his regime is now against the law in Chavez's Venezuela!

Oh really now... Chavez hosts a 3-4 hour call in show every Sunday where citizens call in and ask questions of Chavez - both pro and con.

Can you imagine that in the US?
 
TurtleDude said:
Your last "rebuttal" was based on "ELECTED DEMOCRATS" a term I never used. You might be the king of the strawman destruction around here but its obvious you are so biased with BDS you can't see how idiotic the crap you spew is. It must really suck to be you given the level of hate and venom you constantly spew here
:rofl I almost always prove my points with respectable links to respectable sites that prove my point. You almost never do this most simple of debating techniques.

In this forum people who write the truth post links to sites. People who make it up and do not tell the truth write bullshit like "I saw it on TV."

Maybe you'll learn how to debate here one day, and maybe you'll even post a truth or two, one day. Until that day you need to know that your falsehoods and false statements will be rebutted with facts. Now if this also happens to make you look ignorant, so be it. I would argue that exposing your ignorance is actually you doing it to yourself since you post crud that isn't true.

One really easy way to avoid the truth microscope is to begin to post with links that prove your point....Is that too hard for you to do, Counselor? :2wave:
 
LeftyHenry said:
when did he do that?

Read:
In more recent years, the issue of national voting rights has played a prominent role in debates over the Venezuelan government’s plans to increase the speed of the naturalization process. In a Decree dated 3 February 2004, President Hugo Chávez announced a new “Regulation for the Regularization and Naturalization of Foreigners Found in the National Territory.” Among other provisions, the new regulation requires the National Office of Identification and Immigration to decide within six months of the receipt of a naturalization application whether or not to grant the application; for nationals of Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Caribbean and Latin American countries, the Office must decide on naturalization applications within four months.

Following the Decree on fast-track naturalizations, President Chávez’s government quickly granted citizenship to over 200,000 foreign nationals, primarily Colombians, and announced plans to naturalize thousands more. Opposition supporters have charged that the naturalizations undertaken by the government in 2004-2005 were part of an attempt by President Chávez to increase the pool of voters supportive of his movement, particularly in the period leading up to the national referendum on the Chávez presidency during the summer of 2004. Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel denied these accusations at a ceremony in July 2005 during which 17,504 foreign nationals become Venezuelan citizens: “These ceremonies are not done for electoral reasons. They are not held to make you vote for Chavez or Chavez’s movement. They are held because you have the right to be Venezuelans.”

http://www.immigrantvoting.org/World/Venezuela.html


Not to mention that the new constitution was approved through a democratic referendum by the majority.


Where in your link is that?

The one about the Descarto Laws which outlaw speaking badly of the President or his regime.

http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Venezuela2003eng/chapter6.htm
The only curbing on freedom is when on the air, in public you can't do sexual or violent or offensive things. but that's the same here.

In the United States it's illegal to critisize the President? Some one ought to inform the Daily Show.

Umm what does any of that have to do with Chavez? Non of those things are because Chavez is banning freedom of speech. None are arrested for 'violating ban of free speech'.

None you say?

VENEZUELA: Journalist convicted of criminal defamation


New York, May 5, 2006—The Committee to Protect Journalists is alarmed by the criminal defamation conviction of Venezuelan journalist Henry Crespo, who was handed an 18-month suspended jail term after reporting on government corruption. Crespo, a reporter for the Caracas-based weekly Las Verdades de Miguel, was sentenced by the Caracas Eighteenth Tribunal on Wednesday.
http://www.cpj.org/news/2006/americas/ven05may06na.html
In Florida Jeb Bush was governor and the head of Bush's campaign was in charge of the electoral process there. Jeb Bush took over 50,000 registered black voters off the list.

Source?

Umm no. Study after Study have proven Gore won.

Oh really?

Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm

How would ther be evidence of such a thing? Do you think they left a tape telling everyone what they did? Of course not. I'm just saying that It's a well known fact that Diebold voting machines can be hacked in under a minute easily and that the CEO of Diebold was a major campaign contributor to Bush and that Diebold voting machines and ES&S voting machines count 80% of the votes in US elections. And I can back that up.

So in other words you have no proof to back up your accusation.


Freedomhouse camn claim to be non-partisan but it's no coincidence that every state which goes against the US is not free or partially free by their standards.

So are Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Inter-American Committee on Human Rights, and the Council to Protect Journalists neo-con propaganda machines too? Because they all say that their is no longer a free press in Venezuela.

And no they don't. There are the same amount if not more civil liberties under Chavez than there were before. It's pretty ****ing upsurd to claim that a country that has free and fair elections doesn't have free speech.

A country where Journalists are being arrested for reporting on Government corruption and where there are Descarto Laws which outlaw critisisms of the government is not a country with freedom of expression.

Chávez said Wednesday that he had ordered a review of licenses for media outlets that supported the 2002 coup attempt against him. He did not name the broadcasters.

yeah no **** buddy, like we give licenses to terrorist newspapers.

What he says and what he's doing are two very different things, he has revoked licenses of broadcasters who critisize his regime.

umm okay then why is there a privately owned press in venezula which says what it wants.

Actually the descarto laws make it illegal to critisize the Chavez regime:

Article 148. Any person who offends, verbally or in writing or in any other fashion, the President of the Republic or the person serving in that capacity shall be punished with a prison term of between six and thirty months, if the offense was serious, and of half that duration, if it was slight.
 
Last edited:
hipsterdufus said:
Oh really now... Chavez hosts a 3-4 hour call in show every Sunday where citizens call in and ask questions of Chavez - both pro and con.

Can you imagine that in the US?

Can you imagine a law like this in the US?

Article 148. Any person who offends, verbally or in writing or in any other fashion, the President of the Republic or the person serving in that capacity shall be punished with a prison term of between six and thirty months, if the offense was serious, and of half that duration, if it was slight.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Can you imagine a law like this in the US?

Article 148. Any person who offends, verbally or in writing or in any other fashion, the President of the Republic or the person serving in that capacity shall be punished with a prison term of between six and thirty months, if the offense was serious, and of half that duration, if it was slight.

Holy smokes! :shock: That's worse than making them stand in the "Free Speech Zone!" I'll be bet he screens his pre-questioneers even harder than Bush!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom