The worlds newest dictator (1 Viewer)

[Deegan]

This is indeed disturbing news, it would appear that the ball has been set in motion for the worlds next brutal dictator.

"CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Lawmakers loyal to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Monday they had won all 167 seats in the National Assembly, after only about one-fourth of eligible voters participated in an election boycotted by the opposition

Electoral authorities were to present the final tally later on Monday, but Chavez's Fifth Republic Movement party said it had secured 114 out of 167 National Assembly seats and that preliminary figures showed its allies had won the rest of the legislature.

Lawmakers backing Chavez say they want to amend the constitution to scrap the two-term limit on presidential reelection and introduce other reforms opponents worry will increase the left-wing former paratrooper's grip on power"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051205...asQr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[Kelzie]

This is indeed disturbing news, it would appear that the ball has been set in motion for the worlds next brutal dictator.

"CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Lawmakers loyal to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Monday they had won all 167 seats in the National Assembly, after only about one-fourth of eligible voters participated in an election boycotted by the opposition

Electoral authorities were to present the final tally later on Monday, but Chavez's Fifth Republic Movement party said it had secured 114 out of 167 National Assembly seats and that preliminary figures showed its allies had won the rest of the legislature.

Lawmakers backing Chavez say they want to amend the constitution to scrap the two-term limit on presidential reelection and introduce other reforms opponents worry will increase the left-wing former paratrooper's grip on power"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051205...asQr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

I wouldn't say brutal. Unless you happen to have proof of some sort of violence? It certainly does not appear to be an election that represents their populace. Although their turn out is not all that worse than ours.

AP makes it sound like the other parties pulled out cause they were going to lose anyway:

Five major opposition parties pulled out of the race, complaining they did not trust the electoral system. Chavez dismissed the boycott as a failed ploy to sabotage legitimate elections and avoid defeat.

Polls indicated the ruling party would trounce the opposition.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051205...OxvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Further, he's been in power since '98, so that's not really all that new.

 

[GarzaUK]

Yeah plus there was nothing unusual about the election in 2000. How can you call him brutal when he hasn't massacred anyone? Talk about getting ahead of yourself.

But then again Kelzie he is an evil evil socialist who spent millions of oil wealth on projects for the people. Ever a ruthless dictator if I ever seen one. Spending government oil money to benefit the poor!!!! How un-American, how uncivilized!!! lol :tongue4:

 

[Kelzie]

Yeah plus there was nothing unusual about the election in 2000. How can you call him brutal when he hasn't massacred anyone? Talk about getting ahead of yourself.

But then again Kelzie he is an evil evil socialist who spent millions of oil wealth on projects for the people. Ever a ruthless dictator if I ever seen one. Spending government money to benefit the poor!!!! Commie! lol

Yeah I know.:lol: Course if a capitalist leader had won with 25% of the people voting, no one would be crying foul play.

 

[Deegan]

I wouldn't say brutal. Unless you happen to have proof of some sort of violence? It certainly does not appear to be an election that represents their populace. Although their turn out is not all that worse than ours.

AP makes it sound like the other parties pulled out cause they were going to lose anyway:



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051205...OxvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

I guess if you don't consider a bloody coup, in where he tried to kill the elected president, brutal, then no, nothing brutal about this man.:roll:

I find it hypocritcal how many liberals side with this man, even as he is trying to change the rules for term limits, and position himself for absolute powers. I think this is why I despise liberals so much, the logic is so strange, so backwards, it's really hard to believe.:shock:

 

[GarzaUK]

I guess if you don't consider a bloody coup, in where he tried to kill the elected president, brutal, then no, nothing brutal about this man.:roll:

I find it hypocritcal how many liberals side with this man, even as he is trying to change the rules for term limits, and position himself for absolute powers. I think this is why I despise liberals so much, the logic is so strange, so backwards, it's really hard to believe.:shock:

The man was elected President, twice. If he tried to kill a President why wasn't he arrested, why did he win the popular vote twice if he tried so? Time will tell I guess, I don't have a crystal ball, neither do you Deegan. But what kind of "brutal" dictator spends money on the people rather than himself?
As for terms and powers, Tony Blair is on his third term and still trying to give his party and the police more powers effecting my liberties.

 

[TheBigC]

The man was elected President, twice. If he tried to kill a President why wasn't he arrested, why did he win the popular vote twice if he tried so? Time will tell I guess, I don't have a crystal ball, neither do you Deegan. But what kind of "brutal" dictator spends money on the people rather than himself?
As for terms and powers, Tony Blair is on his third term and still trying to give his party and the police more powers effecting my liberties.

"W" won twice, and Republicans control both the House and Senate. And he spent lots of money on Katrina and Rita victims. If he lied about the war, why wasn't he arrested and impeached like another President was? So do I have your support for a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the term limit on G.W. Bush?

 

[Deegan]

The man was elected President, twice. If he tried to kill a President why wasn't he arrested, why did he win the popular vote twice if he tried so? Time will tell I guess, I don't have a crystal ball, neither do you Deegan. But what kind of "brutal" dictator spends money on the people rather than himself?
As for terms and powers, Tony Blair is on his third term and still trying to give his party and the police more powers effecting my liberties.

He was sent to prison, and don't be fooled, he has yet to show his true self, this is for certain. I guess you don't remember how his good buddy Fidel started out, promising the people everything under the sun, only to, once in power, rob them blind, and fail to live up to any of the things he had promised. I don't need a crystal ball, one only needs to follow this mans footsteps, and look at his advisors, Saddam, Fidel, terrorist groups inside his own country, etc. No, this man has done just what I thought he would, and I am certain the next election will be an even bigger landslide victory!:roll:

 

[Kandahar]

I have to agree that Chavez is not yet a "brutal dictator" because he hasn't massacred anyone (although he has paid FARC to do so). He is, however, definitely a dictator and will most likely become a brutal dictator if left unchecked. He has virtually eliminated freedom of the press, is working hard to eliminate freedom of speech, punishes his political opponents with trumped-up criminal charges, overtly supports some of the worst authoritarian regimes in the world, and has ensured that his country will be impoverished for decades.

He's about on par with Vladimir Putin, I'd say.

 

[SixStringHero]

"W" won twice, and Republicans control both the House and Senate. And he spent lots of money on Katrina and Rita victims. If he lied about the war, why wasn't he arrested and impeached like another President was? So do I have your support for a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the term limit on G.W. Bush?

I have yet to see empirical evidence that proves there was a lie.
Doesn't mean he didn't, but still there is no concrete proof.

 

[robin]

This is indeed disturbing news, it would appear that the ball has been set in motion for the worlds next brutal dictator.

"CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Lawmakers loyal to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Monday they had won all 167 seats in the National Assembly, after only about one-fourth of eligible voters participated in an election boycotted by the opposition

Electoral authorities were to present the final tally later on Monday, but Chavez's Fifth Republic Movement party said it had secured 114 out of 167 National Assembly seats and that preliminary figures showed its allies had won the rest of the legislature.

His future looks in peril becasue he won't dance to Washington's tune. If these SOB's in the CIA get a chance they will overthrow him & we'll see a real dictator in Venezuela.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html
http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/CIAtimeline.html

 

[Kandahar]

I wish some of you guys would realize that not every leader in the world who rants against George Bush, is automatically a wonderful puppy dog. Chavez is extremely authoritarian, and the fact that there are people here willing to defend him speaks miles to either your values or your knowledge of the situation.

 

[Kelzie]

I wish some of you guys would realize that not every leader in the world who rants against George Bush, is automatically a wonderful puppy dog. Chavez is extremely authoritarian, and the fact that there are people here willing to defend him speaks miles to either your values or your knowledge of the situation.

I don't think anyone's defending him so much as protesting that the choice of the word "brutal" was a little stronger than the situation merited.

 

[Inuyasha]

I wish some of you guys would realize that not every leader in the world who rants against George Bush, is automatically a wonderful puppy dog. Chavez is extremely authoritarian, and the fact that there are people here willing to defend him speaks miles to either your values or your knowledge of the situation.

One might say just the opposite as well. If he is what the Venezuelan people want then he is what they should get. The American people wanted Bush, they got him.

What most of us don't like is people like Lula, Fox, and Chavez are eroding the "Yankee" influence in South America. No country, especially a super power likes to lose their sphere of influence. Times are changing rapidñy, if we don't change with them we will soon be left behind.

Many people in the world look and George Bush with the same eyes you are looking at Chavez or Lula. Are you 100 % sure that you are right and they are wrong. There must be some proof. Do you have any and will settle the fears of the South American people that Bush does not plan to take over and try to control their nations? If you do you should tell them because they believe that the US wants them as colonies.

 

[Kelzie]

Hey anyone know what previous voter turnout has been in Venezuelan elections?

 

[Kelzie]

Hey anyone know what previous voter turnout has been in Venezuelan elections?

I got off my ass (figuratively speaking of course) and looked my self. It was 26% in 2000. I officially am no longer bothered at the low voter turn out. Looks like the people just don't vote, not that the vote was rigged.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Hey anyone know what previous voter turnout has been in Venezuelan elections?

Why would you want to know? You need to know if cocaine is going to be taxed next year? :rofl

 

[Kandahar]

One might say just the opposite as well. If he is what the Venezuelan people want then he is what they should get. The American people wanted Bush, they got him.

Vladimir Putin and Yasser Arafat were both elected too. But like Chavez, they became dictators AFTER they were elected. Elections in the United States are, for the most part, fair and honest. You might not like George Bush, but he doesn't have any dictatorial aspirations.

What most of us don't like is people like Lula, Fox, and Chavez are eroding the "Yankee" influence in South America. No country, especially a super power likes to lose their sphere of influence. Times are changing rapidñy, if we don't change with them we will soon be left behind.

It has little to do with our sphere of influence. Chavez is a destabilizing force on the entire region and the main financier of terror in Colombia.

Many people in the world look and George Bush with the same eyes you are looking at Chavez or Lula. Are you 100 % sure that you are right and they are wrong. There must be some proof. Do you have any and will settle the fears of the South American people that Bush does not plan to take over and try to control their nations? If you do you should tell them because they believe that the US wants them as colonies.

And there is that same fallacy again. Because I condemn Hugo Chavez as he deserves, you automatically assume I'm a Bush supporter. The implict assumption you're making, of course, is that Chavez must be a hero since he doesn't like George Bush.

 

[Inuyasha]

Vladimir Putin and Yasser Arafat were both elected too. But like Chavez, they became dictators AFTER they were elected. Elections in the United States are, for the most part, fair and honest. You might not like George Bush, but he doesn't have any dictatorial aspirations.

That well may be but if their people like them they will remain in power. And most of South Anerica, not just Venezuela like Chavez. At least over seeing the US dominate them as we have for the past 100 years plus. As to Bushs' dictatorial aspirations you'll remember he said "All this would be easier if this were a dictatorship, With me as the dictator." Where there's smoke there's fire and nothing is out of the realm of possiblity.



It has little to do with our sphere of influence. Chavez is a destabilizing force on the entire region and the main financier of terror in Colombia.

How's that? We have billions of dollars invested in agriculture and ranching in Brazil and Argentina, in the mining of copper and other metals in Chile, Peru and Ecuador. We get the bulk of our crude from Venezuela and Mexico not to mention the rapidly growing banking industry of the region that we are involved in. And on and on. South and Central America are crucial to our survival. just stop by the supermarket and buy some produce imported from Latin America... after you fill up your tank with gas that has come from Venezuela.

There are three things that are alive and well in SA that drives them to combine forces and support people like Chavez who stand up to "El gigante del norte" and those three things are the South Americans concept of "Monroe Doctrinism, Manifest Destiny and what they precive as encroaching North American imprerialism. They percive a very physical threat from us. That is logical if you look at how we have sent troops everywhere. They don't see it as "help" they see it as "invasion". I do a lot of translation work for the banking industry and I am seeing it first hand.

CHavez certainly is a destablizing force in the region but mainly to us and the status quo. Just saying that Chavez is supporting terrorism in Colombia is like those who are saying we support terrorism in other parts of the world. It's rhetoric without definate proof.



And there is that same fallacy again. Because I condemn Hugo Chavez as he deserves, you automatically assume I'm a Bush supporter. The implict assumption you're making, of course, is that Chavez must be a hero since he doesn't like George Bush.

I agree on this last point. I fell into a self induced trap. I do not know if you support Bush or not and it doesn't matter. However because Chavez does oppose Bush (really it's US policy) he IS a hero in that region. Bush is just the manifestation of the power we hold in that region. You see what happened in Buenos Aires. This is the opposition to the US. The end note is Chavez is there and we have to deal with him. We will have to make some consesions that we never have before. That is a fact of life. Dealing with him the "Pat Robertson way" is to invite disaster. This administration is going to have to start using diplomacy and not threatening rhetoric.

 

[MSgt]

Chavez is very much an individual that our intel is watching. However he is among many. Until his region begins breeding extremism that start murdering our people, he is not of great concern. He is a careful dictator. Castro, too, was a careful dictator. Now, he's just some guy below Florida that won't die. Chavez's region is of no real threat to us.

Some people believe that we should get rid of him through CIA ways before a very possible inevitable problem occurs...while others believe that we should deal with him through diplomatic business means. This is how we get into trouble with our foreign policies. The same whiners of the world that will point us out as "evil" terrorists if we do something are the same global left that will whine about our doing business with "dicators." The only thing consistent about the global left is their hypocracy to point out American mistakes. Like I always say..."Reality has no weight for the ideologues who cannot live without the conviction that only the United States is ever guilty."

I'll point out that instead of dealing with Saddam and instilling a democracy in the darkest region on earth for our future securities against Islamic extremism when we should have ....we chose to do "business" with a dictator instead. Not because it was the right thing to do, but because it was easier.

 

[Kelzie]

Chavez is very much an individual that our intel is watching. However he is among many. Until his region begins breeding extremism that start murdering our people, he is not of great concern. He is a careful dictator.

He got the popular vote. One group out of the dozens I'm guessing were down there is crying foul. What makes you say he's a dictator?

 

[Inuyasha]

He is a careful dictator to us but not to his people......yet.

 

[MSgt]

He got the popular vote. One group out of the dozens I'm guessing were down there is crying foul. What makes you say he's a dictator?

He doesn't quite fit the definition of what we view as a dictator. Our definition of focus strays from the likes of Hitler and Saddam as the most obvious. However, he shows every sign of an individual that is on his way.

- Catholic Religious leaders in Venezuala have gone as far as to publicly condemn him as a dictator.

- Womens groups in Venezuala have been outraged over his "obscene and lewd" remarks towards women...including our own Condeleeza Rice.

- He has used his military to sieze private vehicles and businesses and despite Venezualen court orders to return them to their rightful owners, he refuses.

- He has seized control of various police departments in venezuala and has refused to return them to the elected mayors of the districts.

- He has used violence and murder to influence his will and to gaurantee his envisioned outcomes to situations - to include political ambitions.

- Protesters are always a target for his "democratic protectors."

- His close advisor is another dictator (Castro).

Venezuela is not as democratic as he has led the rest of the world to believe. Democratic leaders do not seek the advice of dictators. Chavez's contempt for the rule of law is astounding. Despite his praise for the constitution, he has already in his first four years broken more than half of its articles. The new "constitution" that he made after being elected in 1999 dissolved the senate, extended the president's term from five to six years, gave greater power to the military, tightened state control over the oil industry, and limited the central bank's autonomy. The people despise him, and for good reason. Many of his former supporters now consider him a dictator. He has lost a good part of his military high command, who are now in opposition as resisters, urging others to take a similar 'civil disobedience' stand. Chavez has indicated he will cling on to power no matter what. And his "Bolivarian circles," armed gangs modeled after his hero Fidel Castro's infamous Revolutionary Defense Committees, have begun reprisals. A country where the judicial system is not autonomous and must submit to the executive is not democratic.

Sounds like Hitler's beginnings to me.

 

[Inuyasha]

He doesn't quite fit the definition of what we view as a dictator. Our definition of focus strays from the likes of Hitler and Saddam as the most obvious. However, he shows every sign of an individual that is on his way.

- Catholic Religious leaders in Venezuala have gone as far as to publicly condemn him as a dictator.

- Womens groups in Venezuala have been outraged over his "obscene and lewd" remarks towards women...including our own Condeleeza Rice.

- He has used his military to sieze private vehicles and businesses and despite Venezualen court orders to return them to their rightful owners, he refuses.

- He has seized control of various police departments in venezuala and has refused to return them to the elected mayors of the districts.

- He has used violence and murder to influence his will and to gaurantee his envisioned outcomes to situations - to include political ambitions.

- Protesters are always a target for his "democratic protectors."

- His close advisor is another dictator (Castro).

Venezuela is not as democratic as he has led the rest of the world to believe. Democratic leaders do not seek the advice of dictators. Chavez's contempt for the rule of law is astounding. Despite his praise for the constitution, he has already in his first four years broken more than half of its articles. The new "constitution" that he made after being elected in 1999 dissolved the senate, extended the president's term from five to six years, gave greater power to the military, tightened state control over the oil industry, and limited the central bank's autonomy. The people despise him, and for good reason. Many of his former supporters now consider him a dictator. He has lost a good part of his military high command, who are now in opposition as resisters, urging others to take a similar 'civil disobedience' stand. Chavez has indicated he will cling on to power no matter what. And his "Bolivarian circles," armed gangs modeled after his hero Fidel Castro's infamous Revolutionary Defense Committees, have begun reprisals. A country where the judicial system is not autonomous and must submit to the executive is not democratic.

Sounds like Hitler's beginnings to me.

I am not nuts about Chavez but how about some links to the comments you have made in you last paragraph. I just don't believe all that you say.