Is Chavez becoming a liability?

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

The reasons for not renewing RCTV's license have been discussed pages ago on this thread, their pretty good in my opinion. The owners are lucky not to be in prison.

If RCTV or individuals within RCTV commited crimes, then it would be a legal matter. The Chavez government bypassed the legal route and decimated the ability for the station to broadcast station via a committee without any type of trial. This has also been discussed several pages ago.

The lies spread about Chavez are to do with him moving away from the established subservient position that the west likes to have those south American countries in.

Are you suggesting that my last post was factually incorrect?

bobbyjoe

The Corinthian wrote:

If RCTV or individuals within RCTV commited crimes, then it would be a legal matter. The Chavez government bypassed the legal route and decimated the ability for the station to broadcast station via a committee without any type of trial. This has also been discussed several pages ago.

Are you suggesting that my last post was factually incorrect?

The coup leaders were tried, but the supreme court of Venezuela ruled that the coup was not illegal. The evil dictator Chavez accepted this ruling and didn't seek revenge on those who kidnapped him and took over the country. Then five years later the license is up for renewal by a gov committee and denied. The station helped in a coup! Sounds like he followed all of the legal routes and was exceptionally generous.

Your last post was mostly correct.
How can he censor CNN and foreign news agencies?
Close down their offices maybe, deny them access etc but not censor. Reporters in any country who criticise the Gov find their access removed or limited.

FYI

clown bag wrote:

Like how Bertie is the everlasting God Emperor of Ireland and Gordan Brown is the everlasting God Emperor of the UK?

Good point!!!! Cant be made often enough.

Not to forget other inconvienent facts, also contained in the articles posted against (!!!) Chavez:

"Chavez proposed a raft of legal changes on Wednesday that increase the presidential term from six to seven years, end limits on re-election"

"The changes would have to be approved by a popular referendum."

"Chavez has secured strong support among the poor majority with free health and education projects"

Then take this criticism from an opponent:

"Justice First opposition party leader Julio Borges dismissed Chavez's reforms as a thinly veiled attempt to advance his "continuous re-election, re-election for life, permanent re-election.""

Is this the most ridiculous criticism youve heard in recent times? God forbid a party or leader would be kept in power by ELECTIONS, free and fair ones at that!

"The reform proposal would allow him to stay as long as he keeps winning elections."

The headline of this piece and pretty much every piece in the mainstream media are completely anti-Chavez. A big 'no prize' for anyone that can guess why.

Oh and I see the Corinthian has finally began to modify his/her rhetoric. Will wonders ever cease? Will he/she actually accept his/her argument is a fraud?

"He effectively has shut down - more correctly crippled - a TV station" (Copyright the Corinthian 2007)

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

The coup leaders were tried, but the supreme court of Venezuela ruled that the coup was not illegal. The evil dictator Chavez accepted this ruling and didn't seek revenge on those who kidnapped him and took over the country. Then five years later the license is up for renewal by a gov committee and denied. The station helped in a coup! Sounds like he followed all of the legal routes and was exceptionally generous.

Sorry, you're saying they were tried and acquitted and he still chose to shaft them by committee. I think you're being delusional there on the whole generous comment.

Your last post was mostly correct.
How can he censor CNN and foreign news agencies?
Close down their offices maybe, deny them access etc but not censor. Reporters in any country who criticise the Gov find their access removed or limited.

You can certainly censor if you deny a media outlet from broadcasting. The RCTV is a case in point. Because of the TV demographics of Venezuela, once you pulled the wireless plug on RCTV it became a dead duck viewable by a tine fraction of the population.

As for censoring the foreign media - one word, Zimbabwe.

FYI wrote:

Good point!!!! Cant be made often enough.

When Bertie decides to start ruling by decree I may take you seriously.

brianthebard

The Corinthian wrote:

He effectively has shut down - more correctly crippled - a TV station as it now can only reach a small fraction of it's previous viewers.

They still broadcast on Satellite and the net, he only revoked their terrestrial license.

bobbyjoe

The Corinthian wrote:

Sorry, you're saying they were tried and acquitted and he still chose to shaft them by committee. I think you're being delusional there on the whole generous comment.

You can certainly censor if you deny a media outlet from broadcasting. The RCTV is a case in point. Because of the TV demographics of Venezuela, once you pulled the wireless plug on RCTV it became a dead duck viewable by a tine fraction of the population.

As for censoring the foreign media - one word, Zimbabwe.

When Bertie decides to start ruling by decree I may take you seriously.

I asked this before but it was never answered.
What country would allow a tv station to broadcast calls for the overthrow of the elected government and takes part in a coup to continue broadcasting afterwards?
Very few I suspect. Chavez has banned them from broadcasting on the national airwaves not banned them outright. Greatly reducing their audience but has been more than generous to them. He accepted the supreme court ruling that his own kidnapping was not illegal! Hardly the actions of a dictator.
Comparing him to Mugabe is another favorite tactic, yet he keeps getting elected?
The west would love a subservient south America which they can use as a petrol station and fruit farm but it looks like the natives are tired of this. Chavez is annoying a lot of powerful people thats why he gets all this bad press. Look at any country that takes the IMF/World bank route they get their economies decimated. Chavez has chosen a different path. Countries that allow their oil industries to be controlled by foreign companies also tend to get shafted.
Regarding rule by decree it was agreed by the parliament and is limited to 18 months. If the opposition don't like it why don't they get themselves elected and stop it thats what democracy is about. You know the thing the right claim to support.

brianthebard

bobbyjoe wrote:

I asked this before but it was never answered.
What country would allow a tv station to broadcast calls for the overthrow of the elected government and takes part in a coup to continue broadcasting afterwards?
Very few I suspect. Chavez has banned them from broadcasting on the national airwaves not banned them outright. Greatly reducing their audience but has been more than generous to them. He accepted the supreme court ruling that his own kidnapping was not illegal! Hardly the actions of a dictator.
Comparing him to Mugabe is another favorite tactic, yet he keeps getting elected?
The west would love a subservient south America which they can use as a petrol station and fruit farm but it looks like the natives are tired of this. Chavez is annoying a lot of powerful people thats why he gets all this bad press. Look at any country that takes the IMF/World bank route they get their economies decimated. Chavez has chosen a different path. Countries that allow their oil industries to be controlled by foreign companies also tend to get shafted.
Regarding rule by decree it was agreed by the parliament and is limited to 18 months. If the opposition don't like it why don't they get themselves elected and stop it thats what democracy is about. You know the thing the right claim to support.

Good post. There's an article in the Guardian today about Venesuala, in which the author points out that Chavez is a nationalist and a social democrat, but people on the right, in America, Corinthian, etc, want to make him out to be a radical socialist. He is not. Furthermore he has the support of the majority of his countries people. He is helping to make a difference in the lives of so many people. Why that is a bad thing in some people's eyes is beyond me.

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

I asked this before but it was never answered.
What country would allow a tv station to broadcast calls for the overthrow of the elected government and takes part in a coup to continue broadcasting afterwards?

It was answered, more than once. The individuals involved would be arrested, tried under law and, if found guilty, punished. Even if the station were to be targeted for closure, it would have to go through legal channels, not through a committee that does not answer to the courts.

Now, you might not like that answer, but it was given and now has been given again.

Comparing him to Mugabe is another favorite tactic, yet he keeps getting elected?

So does Mugabe.

The west would love a subservient south America which they can use as a petrol station and fruit farm but it looks like the natives are tired of this.

The end justifies the means, you mean.

Regarding rule by decree it was agreed by the parliament and is limited to 18 months. If the opposition don't like it why don't they get themselves elected and stop it thats what democracy is about. You know the thing the right claim to support.

I agree with this. One of the reasons that Chavez is so popular is that there is presently no credible opposition. The same can be said, to a lesser extent, for Ahern or Brown. However, over time oppositions do become credible and more organized and eventually Ahern and Brown will end up being pushed out as people seek change - assuming that the democratic playing field remains level, which was one of the concerns with Berlusconi in Italy due to his control of practically all the TV stations.

brianthebard wrote:

but people on the right, in America, Corinthian, etc, want to make him out to be a radical socialist.

I think you'll find that most of the criticisms that people are levving against Chavez have nothing to do with ideology, and more to do with his cult of personality and increasingly authoritarian attitudes. You can be either left or right wing and still do that.

He is not. Furthermore he has the support of the majority of his countries people. He is helping to make a difference in the lives of so many people. Why that is a bad thing in some people's eyes is beyond me.

In itself it's not, but that's not what's being criticized here. There appears to be a bit of a blind spot where it comes to the Chavez fanboys where coups against him are bad, while by him are justified, or that essentially any criticism of his methods are defended on the basis of his "helping to make a difference in the lives of so many people".

bobbyjoe

The Corinthian wrote:

It was answered, more than once. The individuals involved would be arrested, tried under law and, if found guilty, punished. Even if the station were to be targeted for closure, it would have to go through legal channels, not through a committee that does not answer to the courts.

Now, you might not like that answer, but it was given and now has been given again.

So you can't name a country then?

This did go through all the legal processes required. If the process for license renewal goes through a committee why should it have to go to trial in a court. Other reasons for non renewal of the license included non payment of tax. RCTV are appealing by the way (to the courts), Chavez must be a terrible dictator 80% of broadcast media there is privately owned. The vast majority are anti-Chavez.

The Corinthian wrote:

So does Mugabe.

You saying elections in Venezuela are fixed?
Their much more tightly monitored by international agencies than most. The USA for example.

The Corinthian wrote:

The end justifies the means, you mean.

What ends are you talking about? Chavez possibly becoming a dictator at some future date? Venezuelans have freedom of speech. The country has regularly had rule by decree most leaders have used it. How come Chavez hasn't used his new powers to silence the opposition? The vast majority of the media.
If you've got 80% of the population living in poverty some fast drastic measures are needed to improve this.
Limiting the number of terms a president can be elected is not all that common. The UK, Ireland for example a person can be elected as many times as they want. The US is one of the few countries that have limits. These limits are anti-Democratic anyway. In Britain they don't even vote for the Prime minister. Was the public asked if they wanted Gordon Brown? I'd say Chavez has even more legitimacy than him they voted him in as president. Yet the UK is and example of democracy and Venezuela is a tyrant dictatorship makes no sense.

The Corinthian wrote:

I agree with this. One of the reasons that Chavez is so popular is that there is presently no credible opposition. The same can be said, to a lesser extent, for Ahern or Brown. However, over time oppositions do become credible and more organized and eventually Ahern and Brown will end up being pushed out as people seek change - assuming that the democratic playing field remains level, which was one of the concerns with Berlusconi in Italy due to his control of practically all the TV stations.

Grand thats called democracy. Have an election whoever wins is in charge. If they feck it up, elect someone else next time. Allegations that Chavez is trying to control the media based on the RCTV case pale into insignificance when you know that 80% of broadcast media and almost all newspapers 118 or so are in private hands and mostly anti-Chavez.

The Corinthian wrote:

I think you'll find that most of the criticisms that people are levving against Chavez have nothing to do with ideology, and more to do with his cult of personality and increasingly authoritarian attitudes. You can be either left or right wing and still do that.

Cult of personality? Being popular and having popular support means a cult of personality? I saw posters of Bertie all over the country before the election and his face on tv, radio etc. No one claimed he was creating a cult of personality. But when it happens in one of those hot countries with brown people their to dumb to make up their own minds and are being brainwashed by some cult methods I suppose.

The Corinthian wrote:

In itself it's not, but that's not what's being criticized here. There appears to be a bit of a blind spot where it comes to the Chavez fanboys where coups against him are bad, while by him are justified, or that essentially any criticism of his methods are defended on the basis of his "helping to make a difference in the lives of so many people".

Yeah his coup attempt was good and the one against him was bad. Coups aren't necessarily a bad thing pity someone didn't overthrow Saddam. If Bertie ordered the army to shoot protesters on O'Connell st dead and people started Disappearing I'd hope they would disobey orders and kick him out on his arse rather than waiting a few years until the next election. I'm sure theres plenty Chavez is doing wrong but no politician does everything 100% right. Your accusing others of being "fanboys" and yes supporting someone 100% on everything they do is stupid but maybe your guilty of bias against anything to the left?

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

If the process for license renewal goes through a committee why should it have to go to trial in a court.

Because the reason cited was a criminal offense. You tend to have trials to determine if those accused are guilty of those in democracies, you know...

You saying elections in Venezuela are fixed?

No, I'm saying that simply getting elected does not differentiate him from Mugabe. Mugabe was elected in free and fair elections too - at the start.

What ends are you talking about? Chavez possibly becoming a dictator at some future date? Venezuelans have freedom of speech.

Decreasingly.

Limiting the number of terms a president can be elected is not all that common. The UK, Ireland for example a person can be elected as many times as they want. The US is one of the few countries that have limits. These limits are anti-Democratic anyway.

Actually the logic behind them tends to be to safeguard democracy.

Yet the UK is and example of democracy and Venezuela is a tyrant dictatorship makes no sense.

How many coups has the UK had in the last century?

Allegations that Chavez is trying to control the media based on the RCTV case pale into insignificance when you know that 80% of broadcast media and almost all newspapers 118 or so are in private hands and mostly anti-Chavez.

Except that he managed to silence the single largest media outlet in the country, that also happened to be critical of him. Not a bad start at censoring opposition IMO.

Yeah his coup attempt was good and the one against him was bad.

Four legs good, two legs bad :rolleyes:

FYI

The Corinthian wrote:

When Bertie decides to start ruling by decree I may take you seriously.

You're really not interested in a discussion are you?

You're quite happy just continue with silly generalisations and lots of hyperbole.

What's an executive order?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_%28United_States%29

Then there's the 'state of emergency' called by Fatah recently, which was roundly praised by the international community, and I'd hazard a pretty good guess that you liked the cut of their jib in that instance?!? Yet the action was anti-democratic and unconstitutional - not the act of calling it, but the actions that followed, i.e. dismissing the democratically elected government, who had responded, albeit violently, to the threat of a US backed coup.

The Corrib gas issue is an interesting one too, the licensing laws that have given Shell and co. all 'our' gas were done behind closed doors!!!!!!!! No bloomin need for a decree.

Then's the absolutely stupid Bertie comparison. Does Bertie have a majority of population without the means to acquire life necessities? Learn a bit about Latin America's history before even attempting to put 1 and 5 together, this has long since become ridiculous. Land reform, reversing privatisation, weakening the imperialist grip and the dependence on foreign commodity is a tricky business - all the time being threatened by the world's most powerful and ACTIVE military in the world.

Sand

You're really not interested in a discussion are you?

What discussion? You, and other the other ex-pat Chavistas, are extremely clear that there is no boundary or limitation on what Chavez may or may not do. Rational discussion makes no impact on the fanaticism. You wont move to Venezeula to share in the glorious leadership of Chavez, as you prefer the far worse yet reassuringly limited power of Bertie. But youll happily endorse the removal of every right you hold sacred - so long as theyre not your rights.

But Chavez, yes he is a benevolent never erring genius who can do no wrong. You probably think the Popes infallibility claim is ridiculous, but when its a leftist like Chavez....well, he is infallible, isnt he? We didnt need those constitutional checks on power anyway. Right?

Venezeulans will learn - like so many others - why checks and balances on power are not something to be easily thrown aside. Will you?

FYI

Sand wrote:

Venezeulans will learn - like so many others - why checks and balances on power are not something to be easily thrown aside. Will you?

The 'discussion' you and A ANOTHER propose, in so far as I can see there might exist one, extends to this and this only:

"Chavez is on the way to becoming a dictator!"

In order to assert this unsupported and unsupportable (given that the statement holds absolutely no understandable insight) you and the other use two issues. Namely the non-renewal of RCTVs license and Chavez's use of presidential decree powers. Forgive the rest of us for thinking you've missed the point.

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

In order to assert this unsupported and unsupportable (given that the statement holds absolutely no understandable insight) you and the other use two issues. Namely the non-renewal of RCTVs license and Chavez's use of presidential decree powers. Forgive the rest of us for thinking you've missed the point.

Interesting you should ignore every other thing that has been raised about him here, including his undermining of an independent judiciary, his threats to expel foreign journalists who fail to tow the line and his move to remove term limits for the presidency, and extending the term of office from six years to seven.

You additionally downplay the RCTV, ignoring the fact that the license was revoked on the basis of a criminal accusation without trial to prove that accusation. Not to mention how you employ a double standard for he coup against him and the coup by him, justifying the latter even though the democratic means to remove the government existed and were ultimately employed.

All this while distracting attention from Chavez by discussing US foreign policy in the daft logic that because one might criticize Chavez, then by definition they must support the latter - a point that has been repeatedly rubbished.

Of course don't take my word for it, if you don't believe that there is any reason for concern with Chavez's policies you can check up on that bastion of Neoconservatism's - Amnesty International - observations.

bobbyjoe

Sand wrote:

What discussion? You, and other the other ex-pat Chavistas, are extremely clear that there is no boundary or limitation on what Chavez may or may not do. Rational discussion makes no impact on the fanaticism. You wont move to Venezeula to share in the glorious leadership of Chavez, as you prefer the far worse yet reassuringly limited power of Bertie. But youll happily endorse the removal of every right you hold sacred - so long as theyre not your rights.

But Chavez, yes he is a benevolent never erring genius who can do no wrong. You probably think the Popes infallibility claim is ridiculous, but when its a leftist like Chavez....well, he is infallible, isnt he? We didnt need those constitutional checks on power anyway. Right?

Venezeulans will learn - like so many others - why checks and balances on power are not something to be easily thrown aside. Will you?

Straw man.
Who said he was infallible? Who said he can do no wrong?
Why don't you move there lol!!!

bobbyjoe

The Corinthian wrote:

Because the reason cited was a criminal offense. You tend to have trials to determine if those accused are guilty of those in democracies, you know...

No, I'm saying that simply getting elected does not differentiate him from Mugabe. Mugabe was elected in free and fair elections too - at the start.

Decreasingly.

Actually the logic behind them tends to be to safeguard democracy.

How many coups has the UK had in the last century?

Except that he managed to silence the single largest media outlet in the country, that also happened to be critical of him. Not a bad start at censoring opposition IMO.

Four legs good, two legs bad :rolleyes:

Still can't name all these countries that would allow a tv station involved in a coup to continue broadcasting afterwards?
RCTV was more than critical of him it took part in a coup!!!! The leaders thanked the station for their help on air!!! Care to name the countries where this would be allowed?


Get back to us when he bans elections and makes himself president for life you'll be right then but at the moment he hasn't. Yet its reported as if he has why do you think that is?
The same claim could be made about any elected leader.

Not limiting the number of terms is a more democratic system. How can it be more democratic if I can't vote for who I want.

Four legs good, two bad!!!
So would you expect the military in Ireland to obey orders to shoot protesters in the streets and disappear people?

FYI

The Corinthian wrote:

Interesting you should ignore every other thing that has been raised about him here

It's not that I am ignoring anything. It's that you, with full knowledge, choose to apply higher standards to Chavez than other leaders.

And as you must know AI has a bigger rap sheet on the US. Chavez is not a saint, but he is not the demon you wish him to be.

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

It's not that I am ignoring anything. It's that you, with full knowledge, choose to apply higher standards to Chavez than other leaders.

Rubbish. For example, I and others have already stated that both coups by and against him were both wrong. You cite term limits not existing in other countries but ignore that these countries are far more stable than Venezuela or ignoring that evil Amerika has similar limits and no one's trying to remove them.

And as you must know AI has a bigger rap sheet on the US. Chavez is not a saint, but he is not the demon you wish him to be.

Oh, there you go again distracting attention with the US. No one here denies that the US has significant domestic and international human rights transgressions, but this thread is about Chavez it's not about how we can turn a blind eye to his violations because the US might be worse.

No one is suggesting he is a demon. I and others, including some dye-in-the-wool leftist posters, have expressed concerns about his policies and direction. Even suggesting concern has resulted in a fanatical backlash by you and the rest of the Chavez fanboys.

If there is one argument we seem to return to again and again is your belief that the end justifies the means. Let's face it, if he did become a dictator, you'd think that acceptable too because it is his ends - his agenda - that you support and you're less concerned about the methods he will use to achieve them. Just like his 'justifiable' coup.

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

Still can't name all these countries that would allow a tv station involved in a coup to continue broadcasting afterwards?

UK, Ireland, Germany - to name a few.

RCTV was more than critical of him it took part in a coup!!!! The leaders thanked the station for their help on air!!! Care to name the countries where this would be allowed?

So what? If individuals in RCTV were guilty of criminal acts then they should been tried in a court of law.

Get back to us when he bans elections and makes himself president for life you'll be right then but at the moment he hasn't.

What ignore what's going on until it's too late? You'd like that.

Not limiting the number of terms is a more democratic system. How can it be more democratic if I can't vote for who I want.

Until there's only one candidate on the ballot.

So would you expect the military in Ireland to obey orders to shoot protesters in the streets and disappear people?

They can refuse such orders without staging a coup, as they did in Russia.

FYI

The Corinthian wrote:

Rubbish.........................No one is suggesting he is a demon. I and others, including some dye-in-the-wool leftist posters, have expressed concerns about his policies and direction. Even suggesting concern has resulted in a fanatical backlash by you and the rest of the Chavez fanboys.

Okay this the end of it. You continue to misrepresent the actual situation in Venezuela, unknowingly or purposely or both. You fail to understand the actual concept of decree as it has been practiced. You continue to misrepresent the media situation, which is predominantly hostile to Chavez. And you continue with this absolute absurdity...'he isn't a dictator, but he is becoming one'.

The government has the right to not renew a TV stations public broadcasting license. FACT

Similar situations in most other countries would have resulted in the immediate closure of the station.

Venezuela's voting system is freer and fairer than many Western democracies.

The Presidential term limits will be decided on via referendum.

Venezuela has human rights violations, but so does every other country on earth...there is no evidence in AI's report that the regime is dictatorial (or becoming - absurd, it either is or isn't).

As long as Chavez does what the Venezuelan people want and need he deserves international support.

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

Okay this the end of it. You continue to misrepresent the actual situation in Venezuela, unknowingly or purposely or both. You fail to understand the actual concept of decree as it has been practiced. You continue to misrepresent the media situation, which is predominantly hostile to Chavez. And you continue with this absolute absurdity...'he isn't a dictator, but he is becoming one'.

No, as others have stated, he’s not a dictator but his actions are becoming increasingly authoritarian and he could become one if this trend continues. You might consider this ‘absurd’, and it would be if it were only one action, but there is enough there to warrant concern.

As such it is your ostrich like denial of such behaviour that is the absurdity – a complete inability to accept that perhaps he might be pushing things too far or in a direction that would be anti-democratic. The evidence is there, you simply find it incompatible with your credo.

The government has the right to not renew a TV stations public broadcasting license. FACT

No democratic government has the right to refuse to renew a TV stations public broadcasting license without just cause. If that cause was criminal involvement in a coup then that is a matter for the courts to decide if the station is culpable. FACT.

Similar situations in most other countries would have resulted in the immediate closure of the station.

Examples?

Venezuela's voting system is freer and fairer than many Western democracies.

Increasingly questionable. As you read from Amnesty International report reports of intimidation and other anti-democratic practices are present.

Venezuela has human rights violations, but so does every other country on earth...there is no evidence in AI's report that the regime is dictatorial (or becoming - absurd, it either is or isn't).

Why don’t you actually read the report? It highlights issues with lack of independence of the judiciary, freedom of expression and political intimidation – hardly the signs of the happy-clappy democracy you appear to be convinced of.

FYI

The Corinthian wrote:

No democratic government has the right to refuse to renew a TV stations public broadcasting license without just cause. If that cause was criminal involvement in a coup then that is a matter for the courts to decide if the station is culpable. FACT.

You really think you've got the argument clincher with that one don't you?!? I guess the reason you still have it in your head that it works is that no one could be bothered reasoning with you anymore. But for one last pointless effort...

The act of supporting the failed coup may not be actually against the law, I cannot say for sure, but that is not really the issue. The non-renewal of the license is not based on the potential criminality of the network or it's staff. This is on your part more diversion.

What the station did in a) pleading for anti-Chavez protests and b) not covering Chavez successful reinstatement was... "abandoned the public interest and violated the public trust that is seen in Venezuela (and in the U.S.) as a requirement for operating on the public airwaves"

The fact they did indeed support the coup is not even questioned by the mainstream media:

"the Washington Post, explained (1/18/07), "RCTV, like three other major private television stations, encouraged the protests," resulting in the coup, "and, once Chávez was ousted, cheered his removal.""

"the Financial Times reported (5/21/07), "[Venezuelan] officials argue with some justification that RCTV actively supported the 2002 coup attempt against Mr. Chávez.""

And whether a democratic government is entitled to do this, well, the law allowing it was put in place before Chavez went into office. The rights and wrongs of this cannot be put at his feet. Did you criticize these decisions at the time?!?

"laws preexisting Chávez's presidency placed licensing decision with the executive branch, with no real provisions for a hearings process: "Unfortunately, this is what the law, first enacted in 1987, long before Chávez entered the political scene, allows. It charges the executive branch with decisions about license renewal, but does not seem to require any administrative hearing. The law should be changed, but at the current moment when broadcast licenses are up for renewal, it is the prevailing law and thus lays out the framework in which decisions are made."

Venezuela is still a country in massive transition, it is beginning to recover from centuries of plunder and most definitely does not reflect all our Western 'sensibilities'. Corruption remains, but the scale is definitely reducing. Poverty still exists, but the wealth is beginning to be spread more evenly. Abuses still occur, but unless you actually look at the who/what and where of all of these, your rush to lay everything at Chavez's feet alienates you from realistic debate and many, I presume, have lost the will to engage with you.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

You really think you've got the argument clincher with that one don't you?!? I guess the reason you still have it in your head that it works is that no one could be bothered reasoning with you anymore. But for one last pointless effort...

Quit the ad hominem attacks. They don't help your case.

The act of supporting the failed coup may not be actually against the law, I cannot say for sure, but that is not really the issue.The non-renewal of the license is not based on the potential criminality of the network or it's staff. This is on your part more diversion.

If it was an criminal act then it should have gone through the courts, otherwise it is a legal political view.

What the station did in a) pleading for anti-Chavez protests and b) not covering Chavez successful reinstatement was... "abandoned the public interest and violated the public trust that is seen in Venezuela (and in the U.S.) as a requirement for operating on the public airwaves"

You've just described political censorship.

When a government my define a legal political view as being either in "the public interest" or not and censor it on that basis then that's what it is - plain and simple.

And whether a democratic government is entitled to do this, well, the law allowing it was put in place before Chavez went into office. The rights and wrongs of this cannot be put at his feet. Did you criticize these decisions at the time?!?

What law exactly? Was his a valid interpretation of the law?

Venezuela is still a country in massive transition, it is beginning to recover from centuries of plunder and most definitely does not reflect all our Western 'sensibilities'.

So I see it's convenient for you to compare the political system to that of Western democracies and classify it as 'special' whenever it suits.

Corruption remains, but the scale is definitely reducing.

Where are you getting your information for this?

lostexpectation

so it seems The Corinthian supports shooting and killing your own supporters to stoke coups, he supports the fascists that are willing to do this.

The Corinthian

lostexpectation wrote:

so it seems The Corinthian supports shooting and killing your own supporters to stoke coups, he supports the fascists that are willing to do this.

Can you read? It was FYI and not I who suggested that supporting the failed coup may not be against the law, I simply followed his logic thereafter. What is it with this idiotic reasoning that brands anyone who may criticize Chavez as Fascist/pro-American/Whatever

nacho libre

The Corinthian wrote:

Can you read? It was FYI and not I who suggested that supporting the failed coup may not be against the law, I simply followed his logic thereafter. What is it with this idiotic reasoning that brands anyone who may criticize Chavez as Fascist/pro-American/Whatever

Your silence in the War on Democracy thread perhaps? Your contention in this thread seems to be that Chavez is subverting democracy and there are signs in his actions he may become a dictator.
Constrast this with the glaring absence of condemnation from you for past American trangressions with regard to the democratic process in other countries and your intense dislike of Socialism gives the distinct impression that this thread is not solely motivated by principle; namely your concern for democratic institutions being undermined, and increasingly autocratic rule taking hold in its place, irrespective of the politics of the leader.

The Corinthian

nacho libre wrote:

Your silence in the War on Democracy thread perhaps?

How about my silence on the "Leftie Greens" thread? Or the "Everyone Loves Ireland" thread in After Hours? Indeed, I don't contribute to a Hell of a lot of threads - perhaps you want to read something into that too? Like I'm not a student and work for a living and so don't have the time (or frankly the interest) to read, let alone respond to every idiotic thread out there?

Your contention in this thread seems to be that Chavez is subverting democracy and there are signs in his actions he may become a dictator.
Constrast this with the glaring absence of condemnation from you for past American trangressions with regard to the democratic process in other countries and your intense dislike of Socialism gives the distinct impression that this thread is not solely motivated by principle; namely your concern for democratic institutions being undermined, and increasingly autocratic rule taking hold in its place, irrespective of the politics of the leader.

I've repeatedly criticized the US and US foreign policy in the past. Simply because I don't share your need to add a "me too" to every idiot discussion on the subject does not mean that I am in anyway an Americaphile.

nacho libre

The Corinthian wrote:

How about my silence on the "Leftie Greens" thread? Or the "Everyone Loves Ireland" thread in After Hours? Indeed, I don't contribute to a Hell of a lot of threads - perhaps you want to read something into that too? Like I'm not a student and work for a living and so don't have the time (or frankly the interest) to read, let alone respond to every idiotic thread out there?

I've repeatedly criticized the US and US foreign policy in the past. Simply because I don't share your need to add a "me too" to every idiot discussion on the subject does not mean that I am in anyway an Americaphile.

Idiotic discussions because you don't agree with the material more like.
Where are these posts where you condemned American foreign policy??
Did you condemn the coup plotters who shot at their own to stoke a coup against Chavez? let me guess there is no proof of this?
The crux of the issue is this; despite all your obfuscation and denials to the contrary throughout this thread, Chavez is a Socialist leader. You are vehemently opposed to Socialism. Therefore this is the reason you've found the time to persist with this inane supposition about Chavez being on the road to dictatorship. Your contentions have been thorougly refuted in this thread but you continue on with this charade regardless.
Yet on established facts about democracy being willfully traduced you are strangely silent(sorry you don't have the time to be consistent). This thread is simply not motivated by principle. You'll of course continue to deny this.

oscarBravo

nacho libre, the thread topic is Hugo Chavez, not The Corinthian. Please stay on topic.

The Corinthian

nacho libre wrote:

Where are these posts where you condemned American foreign policy??

Here's a whole thread. Feel free to join adulthood in your next post.

Bloody kids...