The worlds newest dictator

[FinnMacCool]

So.....you don't really want to know, do you?

How can you expect me, or anyone, to get the information that he refuses to provide? He is very tight lipped about his policies, good luck finding anything relevant

When did he refuse? Does anyone really know anything about this guy?

 

[teacher]

Soooo the thread is about Chavez....you barge in and turn the thread into how bad the CIA and America is.....and then I say crying about the CIA constantly is boring and I might as well cry about MI6....and then you say I'm infantile for bringing up MI6 after you brought up the CIA which deviated from the thread of Chavez.:roll:

...and more garbage from Canucks best friend.

Funny you should say that.....

 

[Deegan]

When did he refuse? Does anyone really know anything about this guy?

That's the point my friend, in a "democracy", the people should know more, right now his actions are all we have to go on, and they don't look good at this point.

 

[FinnMacCool]

That's the point my friend, in a "democracy", the people should know more, right now his actions are all we have to go on, and they don't look good at this point.

What actions?

 

[Deegan]

What actions?

I give up.........try every f**king post and link I have provided, jeezis man, try and keep up!:doh

 

[FinnMacCool]

I can't say any of them really helped me to be honest.

 

[Deegan]

I can't say any of them really helped me to be honest.

 

[Kelzie]

Ahh look at the kitty!!


Don't worry Finn. I'll help you:

Mr Chavez first came to prominence as a leader of a failed coup in 1992.

After being released from prison, he embarked on a political career that swept him to power in 1998, with a promise to root out corruption and transform Venezuela.

Venezuelans are split between those who say he has become increasingly autocratic, and those who say he speaks for the poor.

controversial programme of land reform launched by Mr Chavez that allows the state to seize underused ranches without compensation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3517106.stm

Chávez is known for his democratic socialist governance, his promotion of Latin American integration and anti-imperialism, and his radical criticism of neoliberal globalization and United States foreign policy

Domestically, Chávez has launched massive Bolivarian Missions to combat disease, illiteracy, malnutrition, poverty, and other social ills. Abroad, Chávez has acted against the Washington Consensus by advocating alternative models of economic development and cooperation among the world's poor nations, especially those in Latin America.

Venezuelan society under Chávez has seen sweeping and radical shifts in social policy, moving away from the government officially embracing a free market economy and neoliberal reform principles and towards quasi-socialist income redistribution and social welfare programs.

Chávez's first few months in office were dedicated primarily to dismantling puntofijismo via new legislation and constitutional reform. Secondarily, Chávez immediately allocated more government funds to new social programs

Chávez ordered all branches of the military to devise programs to combat poverty and to further civic and social development in Venezuela's vast slum and rural areas. This civilian-military program was launched as Plan Bolivar 2000, and was heavily patterned after a similar program enacted by Cuban President Fidel Castro during the early 1990s,

Projects within Plan Bolivar 2000's scope included road building, housing construction, and mass vaccination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chavez#Presidency_.281999.E2.80.93present.29


Enough info? I'll find you more if you want.

 

[FinnMacCool]

I read the wikipedia article. Many thanks Kelzie. Well at the very least, he doesn't seem like a dictator. Of course, I cannot be sure of him. Human rights is, obviously, my biggest concern. I guess we're just gonna have to wait and see.

 

[Deegan]

I read the wikipedia article. Many thanks Kelzie. Well at the very least, he doesn't seem like a dictator. Of course, I cannot be sure of him. Human rights is, obviously, my biggest concern. I guess we're just gonna have to wait and see.

My last link, you had better read this, unless this is all a game, and you would rather not know?


http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm

 

[Australianlibertarian]

Yep, Hugo Chavez is going to become the next Castro.

Sure he may have helped the poor in Venezuela, but from some of the posts I've read, it seems that Chavez is becoming increasingly undemocractic.

To me, anyone that asks to have the constitution changed to allow themselves to have a longer presidential term, is a bit dodgy!

I suppose we all better stay tuned on the Hugo Chavez front.

 

[FinnMacCool]

My last link, you had better read this, unless this is all a game, and you would rather not know?


http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/03/24/venezu10368.htm

Yeah thats what I have a problem with. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press should never be sacrificed even if it could, in some way, help his cause. Hugo Chavez I think is someone we have to be careful of.

 

[Inuyasha]

Yeah thats what I have a problem with. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press should never be sacrificed even if it could, in some way, help his cause. Hugo Chavez I think is someone we have to be careful of.

At the risk of going slightly off topic, I worry about those too freedoms right here at home. Both of these freedoms are being attacked, all be it, in a very subtle way in our own society. The news is being homogenized by the press, we are not being told everything in a world where it is possible to tell the public what is really going on. If you look on the news channels and there are almost too many. you see the same stories with a similar slant on all the news. Even Fox that is supposedly right.

It's a case of "if the story has legs it will run, and damn the public." It's as i have said before, not about news and information, it's all about money and ratings. Do you really think that Aruba thing is news? God, just going on the internet I found about a half a dozen unsolved disappearances of teen-agers that have gone cold in the state of Texas alone.

All we get is negative news. Good news is not news because it doesn't sell. Maybe a human interest puppy dog rescue story once in a blue moon. I have a lot of problems with the present administration but I agree with what Bush said this morning about only putting out negative news about Iraq. Nothing on how the rebuilding of the infrastructure is comming along. Nothing about the people in the street. Just war news. And why? It's not politics. It's just business... as usual. I'd like to here the administration admit to it's mistakes and I'd like to see the media inform us of the positive things the administration is doing or at least attempting. "I might as well wait till I'm 93." as Big Bill Broonzy once said.

 

[TheBigC]

Hey don't make me seem like the bad guy. I've already asked for a working definition of a dictator so we're all on the same page.

And this is why I suggested to GySgt that he ask for *your* definition of the term or subject being debated. I haven't been here too long, so forgive me if I'm off base, but from what I've observed, your usual M.O. when debating is to ask others for definitions and proof, then snipe them apart using semantics, prima facie contradictions, or offering contrasting examples... I wanted to see him try to get *you* to put a stake in the ground and define *your* terms so that we can get past this technique and get to the actual heart of the matter. It's the difference between having a constructive position, an actual principle that you're defending, versus an endless critique-fest that will never reach a logical conclusion.

 

[Red_Dave]

I saw this and thought of you..........................

New York gets Venezuela cheap oil

Venezuela denied a political move behind the deal
An oil company controlled by the Venezuelan government has made its first delivery of cut-price heating oil to the Bronx borough of New York City.
The firm, Citgo, is supplying fuel to thousands of people in deprived areas in co-operation with charities.

The initiative started last month with the delivery of heating oil to Boston.

It was announced in August by Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez - a vocal critic of President George Bush.

Under the deal, Citgo said it would provide heating oil at a 40% discount to fill in tanks at properties owned by three non-profit housing corporations in the Bronx.

About 8,000 tenants from 75 buildings will benefit from the project, according to the company and the corporations.

Deliveries will continue through the winter months until 1 April.

Critics

In October, 12 Democratic US senators, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, urged chief executives of major oil companies to help with fuel assistance programmes run by the government.

THE DEAL
It was signed by three Bronx non-profit housing corporations and Citgo, the US-based subsidiary of the state owned company Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA)
The firm will provide heating oil at a 40% discount
Deliveries will continue until 1 April

The senators said that the only company to respond was Citgo, the US-based subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) and the country's fourth-largest gasoline retailer.

Some critics within the US say there is a political move behind the project, claiming it is designed by Venezuela to "embarrass" US oil firms and the Bush administration.

But the Venezuelan ambassador, Bernardo Alvarez, denied this.

Mr Alvarez and US Democrat representative Jose Serrano, of the Bronx, attended a ceremony to celebrate the first delivery to New York.

They said the deal was the "human face" of the energy supply between the US and Venezuela.

Venezuela's left-leaning government, which has been benefiting from high crude prices, is already providing cut-rate oil across Latin America.

The South American country is the world's fifth largest petroleum exporter, and the US gets 15% of its oil from Venezuela.

 

[Inuyasha]

A brief history of CITGO:

Company History


A century goes by fast when you're having fun. Or, as in CITGO's case, when you're growing from a small-town oil and gas company into a global presence. Known as the Cities Service Company in the early 1900s, the company was recognized for its hard work and successful projects. In 1931, the company completed the country's first long-distance, high-pressure natural gas transportation system. The famous "Big Inch" project was a 24-inch pipeline that stretched 1,000 miles from Amarillo, Texas, to Chicago.
From the "Big Inch," Cities Service Company went the extra mile and soon developed into a fully diversified oil and gas company with operations worldwide. The company's familiar green and white logo was recognizable to motorists everywhere.


The CITGO Years


In 1965, Cities Service Company changed its marketing brand to CITGO. The well-known green and white logo evolved into the CITGO "Trimark" logo of today, a symbol of continuing innovation and quality. In the 1990s, CITGO was purchased by Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), the national oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. CITGO is based in Houston, Texas, and continues to be a leading refiner, transporter and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals, refined waxes, asphalt and other industrial products. Servicing cities to serving the world, all in less than 100 years.

http://www.citgo.com/AboutCITGO/CompanyHistory.jsp

 

[TheBigC]

In 1965, Cities Service Company changed its marketing brand to CITGO. The well-known green and white logo evolved into the CITGO "Trimark" logo of today, a symbol of continuing innovation and quality. In the 1990s, CITGO was purchased by Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), the national oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. CITGO is based in Houston, Texas, and continues to be a leading refiner, transporter and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals, refined waxes, asphalt and other industrial products. Servicing cities to serving the world, all in less than 100 years.

http://www.citgo.com/AboutCITGO/CompanyHistory.jsp

Holy crap, and I actually supported keeping that giant sign in Kenmore Square (Boston) !? I feel like such an idiot now...
Here is the sixty-foot tall piece of irony now laughing the face of all 19 of us conservatives in Boston.

 

[Kelzie]

And this is why I suggested to GySgt that he ask for *your* definition of the term or subject being debated. I haven't been here too long, so forgive me if I'm off base, but from what I've observed, your usual M.O. when debating is to ask others for definitions and proof, then snipe them apart using semantics, prima facie contradictions, or offering contrasting examples... I wanted to see him try to get *you* to put a stake in the ground and define *your* terms so that we can get past this technique and get to the actual heart of the matter. It's the difference between having a constructive position, an actual principle that you're defending, versus an endless critique-fest that will never reach a logical conclusion.

:lol: Panties in a twist today? So I ask others for proof and then disprove it...what are you here for again? I call that the debating process. Not sure what you call it.

I'll provide a definition of dictator if you want, but it'd be a better idea for the other side to provide one and for me to prove why I don't think Chavez fits. It would probably be pretty easy to do that if I got to pick the definition.

 

[Deegan]

:lol: Panties in a twist today? So I ask others for proof and then disprove it...what are you here for again? I call that the debating process. Not sure what you call it.

I'll provide a definition of dictator if you want, but it'd be a better idea for the other side to provide one and for me to prove why I don't think Chavez fits. It would probably be pretty easy to do that if I got to pick the definition.

The definition is simple, a ruler with absolute power, and I have shown where he is setting himself up for just that very thing. You can pretend it's not happening, but the facts are as clear as can be, he will not give up his power, or his seat, hide and watch.

 

[Kelzie]

The definition is simple, a ruler with absolute power, and I have shown where he is setting himself up for just that very thing. You can pretend it's not happening, but the facts are as clear as can be, he will not give up his power, or his seat, hide and watch.

That's it? Absolute power? So all I have to do is show that he doesn't have absolute power and you'll admit he's not a dictator?

 

[TheBigC]

So I ask others for proof and then disprove it...what are you here for again? I call that the debating process. Not sure what you call it.

It's not "debate", it's called rebuttal, or sniping. A sniper avoids putting a stake in the ground and making a statement that others can snipe, IMO because they never become vulnerable to being proven wrong or having to change their perspective.

Debating involves making statements and supporting them with *constructive* arguments. Sniping and rebuttal requires the work of others first; one cannot rebut a statement which was never made. It's a reaction that requires an action.

By you providing a definition, or a statement, your fellow debater now has a bar that they can reach (or fail to reach) of what it will take to fulfill their burden of proof and make this a constructive debate, it can actually "go somewhere" as opposed to simply be a repeat of "sucker posts point, sniper shoots it apart, sucker continuously tries to defend initial point."

Anyway, I'm sure I'm boring everyone with this. Forget it. Snipe away.

 

[Kelzie]

It's not "debate", it's called rebuttal, or sniping. A sniper avoids putting a stake in the ground and making a statement that others can snipe, IMO because they never become vulnerable to being proven wrong or having to change their perspective.

Debating involves making statements and supporting them with *constructive* arguments. Sniping and rebuttal requires the work of others first; one cannot rebut a statement which was never made. It's a reaction that requires an action.

By you providing a definition, or a statement, your fellow debater now has a bar that they can reach (or fail to reach) of what it will take to fulfill their burden of proof and make this a constructive debate, it can actually "go somewhere" as opposed to simply be a repeat of "sucker posts point, sniper shoots it apart, sucker continuously tries to defend initial point."

Anyway, I'm sure I'm boring everyone with this. Forget it. Snipe away.

First off, rebutting and sniping are very different. A rebuttal is part of a debate. Sniping is just rude.

Second off, I did not start this topic. Ideally, whoever started it would not only have said "Chavez is a dictator, look at this article" but shown why that made him a dictator and what criteria he uses to judge someone's "dictator-ness". Since he didn't, any person who wants to debate his point is instead forced to debate his article. Which I did. He then changed to a different article. I would have questioned that, if he had provided the law it was discussing, but he didn't. Don''t blame me for working with what I'm given. Unless you have a different method for debating when someone doesn't lay down their terms?

 

[teacher]

And this is why I suggested to GySgt that he ask for *your* definition of the term or subject being debated. I haven't been here too long, so forgive me if I'm off base, but from what I've observed, your usual M.O. when debating is to ask others for definitions and proof, then snipe them apart using semantics, prima facie contradictions, or offering contrasting examples... I wanted to see him try to get *you* to put a stake in the ground and define *your* terms so that we can get past this technique and get to the actual heart of the matter. It's the difference between having a constructive position, an actual principle that you're defending, versus an endless critique-fest that will never reach a logical conclusion.

Dead solid perfect. You're not gonna get her to put a stake in the ground. If you do she'll move it at the last moment. In reality Kelzies style precludes straight up face to face debate, for the reasons you mention. Ask her direct unambiguous yes or no questions. If she doesn't answer right away she's off doing research. She will find someone that is 99% correct and nail that one percent and then the poor sap assumes she's attacking his entire position and then loses his mind. She will lead you down a road of supposition to where you think you have her cornered and then she'll ask, "where have I ever said that"? Like Gunny says, she's our resident devils advocate. I'm learning the trick with her is to find out where her underlying view stands. Not what she posts. That will make you crazy. A hint to dealing with Kelzie: Try to figure out her position from what she doesn't say. She's an evil little pot stirrer.

 

[Kelzie]

Dead solid perfect. You're not gonna get her to put a stake in the ground. If you do she'll move it at the last moment. In reality Kelzies style precludes straight up face to face debate, for the reasons you mention. Ask her direct unambiguous yes or no questions. If she doesn't answer right away she's off doing research. She will find someone that is 99% correct and nail that one percent and then the poor sap assumes she's attacking his entire position and then loses his mind. She will lead you down a road of supposition to where you think you have her cornered and then she'll ask, "where have I ever said that"? Like Gunny says, she's our resident devils advocate. I'm learning the trick with her is to find out where her underlying view stands. Not what she posts. That will make you crazy. A hint to dealing with Kelzie: Try to figure out her position from what she doesn't say. She's an evil little pot stirrer.

For the love of god. gunny and I were having a very civil debate until you people butted in. You want my definition of a dictator? Fine.

In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly. It is comparable to (but not synonymous with) the ancient concept of a tyrant, although initially "tyrant," like "dictator," was not a negative term. A wide variety of leaders coming to power in a number of different kinds of regimes, such as military juntas, single-party states, and civilian governments under personal rule, have been described as dictators.

In popular usage in the U.S., "dictatorship" is often associated with brutality and oppression. As a result, it is often also used as a term of abuse for political opponents; Henry Clay's dominance of the U.S. Congress as Speaker of the House and as a member of the United States Senate led to his nickname "the Dictator." The term has also come to be associated with megalomania. Many dictators create a cult of personality and have come to favor increasingly grandiloquent titles and honours for themselves. For example, Idi Amin Dada, who had been a British army lieutenant prior to Uganda's independence from Britain in October 1962, subsequently styled himself as "His Excellency President for Life Field Marshal Al Hadji Dr. Idi Amin, VC, DSO, MC, King of Scotland Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular." In The Great Dictator, Charlie Chaplin satirized not only Hitler but the institution of dictatorship itself.

The association between the dictator and the military is a very common one; many dictators take great pains to emphasize their connections with the military and often wear military uniforms. In some cases, this is perfectly natural; Francisco Franco was a lieutenant general in the Spanish Army before he became Chief of State of Spain, and Noriega was officially commander of the Panamanian Defense Forces. In other cases, this is mere pretense.

Straight from wikipedia. Shall we go through the points one by one?

leader who holds an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly.

There is an independently elected legislative body in Venezuela. The fact that it is now essentially controlled by Chavez's party means nothing except his party is popular. You can't cry dictator because of this. If they screw up, the opposition has just as good of a chance as they do. Unless the accusations of voter fraud are true. Although it doesn't look like it:

"European observers said Tuesday that Venezuela's congressional elections were fair and transparent despite opposition claims of irregularities and a low voter turnout"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051207...cVjhuIA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

A wide variety of leaders coming to power in a number of different kinds of regimes, such as military juntas, single-party states, and civilian governments under personal rule

He came to power through a multiple party election. No.

brutality and oppression.

Nobody has ever linked any violence in Venezuela with a direct order from Chavez.

The term has also come to be associated with megalomania. Many dictators create a cult of personality and have come to favor increasingly grandiloquent titles and honours for themselves

I must confess, I have only heard him referred to as president. Any one else?

The association between the dictator and the military is a very common one

He was in the military. So have most of our presidents been. They certainly aren't very fond of him right now, so I'd say I doesn't use them to control anyone.






Now howabout you people stop SNIPING at me and debate?

 

[Inuyasha]

It's not "debate", it's called rebuttal, or sniping. A sniper avoids putting a stake in the ground and making a statement that others can snipe, IMO because they never become vulnerable to being proven wrong or having to change their perspective.

Debating involves making statements and supporting them with *constructive* arguments. Sniping and rebuttal requires the work of others first; one cannot rebut a statement which was never made. It's a reaction that requires an action.

By you providing a definition, or a statement, your fellow debater now has a bar that they can reach (or fail to reach) of what it will take to fulfill their burden of proof and make this a constructive debate, it can actually "go somewhere" as opposed to simply be a repeat of "sucker posts point, sniper shoots it apart, sucker continuously tries to defend initial point."

Anyway, I'm sure I'm boring everyone with this. Forget it. Snipe away.

No matter what the outcome here this is a great post. I even stole it and sen t it to a Young person who has a debate homework assignment. Now she's got a secret weapon... knowledge that the others wont have.