Anti Chavez protests get

Akrasia

Sand wrote: »

Seriously Akrasia - pathetic - you switch from absolute terms to percentage terms as suits your argument. Let alone you ignore what I said and try to disprove something else. Like I said, save it for the converted.

I'm not switching the terms to suit my argument, I spent 20 minutes trying to find figures in a consistent format, they were the best I could come up with. If you want to find better statistics then be my guest

bobbyjoe

Sand wrote: »

Well, I guess I dont need to say much more do I?



Castro was given as an example of the lefts infatuation with dictators. Though admittedly its usually a long distance relationship. Sovtek has rather amusingly proven the point by dodging out of condemning Castros regime. With the ability to dodge out of condemning questionable regimes, surely a career as a White House press secretary cant be far off?





Nope, he is a leftist after all. Have to keep the faith. As we all know leftists are all for developing countries using their income for massive military spending and against wasting it on silly liberal bleeding heart stuff like education or health.

Oh wait, that was the fascists wasnt it? Are lefties for the international arms trade now? Steady on guys, youre going to make me look like a tree hugging hippy if you keep this up:D

So you can't say anything about Chavez without first condemning Castro??
He does spend a lot more on education and health.
You think he doesn't need to a strong army?

Lirange

Akrasia wrote: »

No, Venezuela spends about 6% of it's national budget on Education, America spends less than 4%

That is the American federal budget you've cited. Education there is funded mainly through the states.

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote: »

So you can't say anything about Chavez without first condemning Castro??

Why don't you look back at where this point was raised originally before trying to twist the argument?

The observation is that many of the leftist posters here will happily damn a right wing dictators (or refer to Bush, for example, as one) but will go through hoops to avoid any criticism of left wing dictators. This has been demonstrated here by Sovtek's Bertie-ism - there's very little chance that he would ever criticize Castro or any other leftist dictator as he is labouring under the delusion that they are good or 'justified' dictators.

Of course it doesn't say anything about Chavez per say, IMO, but it does mean that whether or not Chavez is a dictator is irrelevant to such posters, as they would still defend him regardless.

He does spend a lot more on education and health.
You think he doesn't need to a strong army?

Chavez or Castro? If the latter, are you justifying his dictatorship?

sovtek

The Corinthian wrote: »

This has been demonstrated here by Sovtek's Bertie-ism - there's very little chance that he would ever criticize Castro or any other leftist dictator as he is labouring under the delusion that they are good or 'justified' dictators.

Don't spout rubbish and put words in my mouth.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote: »

Don't spout rubbish and put words in my mouth.

Really? Prove me wrong then.

bonkey

I don't have a problem condemning any regime where it's warranted and with consideration to the context of the situation.

You've made this stance clear, but when asked whether or not you condemn Castro, you've avoided saying either yes or no.

The implication is either that you do have a problem condemning Castro where its warranted, or you feel that Castro does not warrant condemnation.

sovtek wrote: »

Don't spout rubbish and put words in my mouth.

You have carefully avoided answering the question asked, basically by saying you'd have no problems answering such questions.

It would seem that TC is taking the option that you were honest about not having a problem issuing condemnation where warranted. Therefore, your lack of condemnation in the face of a direct question can only suggest that you don't believe it to be warranted.

sovtek

bonkey wrote: »

You have carefully avoided answering the question asked, basically by saying you'd have no problems answering such questions.

I have answered the question asked and have yet to receive another one. Am I going to spout on about Castro? No. Anyone wants to discuss Castro is welcome to start one and I'll gladly participate.

It would seem that TC is taking the option that you were honest about not having a problem issuing condemnation where warranted. Therefore, your lack of condemnation in the face of a direct question can only suggest that you don't believe it to be warranted.

Or it suggests that no one has brought up where Castro warrants condemnation.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote: »

Or it suggests that no one has brought up where Castro warrants condemnation.

Nope. It suggests that you are doing your best to avoid doing so. If asked would I condemn Pinochet's dictatorship, I would have no problem condemning and/or criticizing it. I've done so in the past when asked if I would in threads that had nothing to do with Pinochet.

On the other hand, you are now going to ridiculous lengths to avoid answering the same question of a leftist dictator (Castro). Asked 'do you condemn a dictator like Castro?' The closest you come to it is saying that you would if he merits it. In other words 'no', you're not condemning him, only refusing to say that you will not.

It's actually laughable, TBH, because all you need do to prove me wrong is in fact condemn Castro - where he merits it - which given he is a dictator, should not be a terribly difficult exercise. My guess is you won't.

Of course this is not really relevant to whether Chavez is a dictator or not, but it does make it irrelevant whether he is a dictator or not for some of the posters, like yourself, because even if he was you still wouldn't condemn him.

sovtek

The Corinthian wrote: »

Nope. It suggests that you are doing your best to avoid doing so. If asked would I condemn Pinochet's dictatorship, I would have no problem condemning and/or criticizing it. I've done so in the past when asked if I would in threads that had nothing to do with Pinochet.

On the other hand, you are now going to ridiculous lengths to avoid answering the same question of a leftist dictator (Castro). Asked 'do you condemn a dictator like Castro?' The closest you come to it is saying that you would if he merits it. In other words 'no', you're not condemning him, only refusing to say that you will not.

It's actually laughable, TBH, because all you need do to prove me wrong is in fact condemn Castro - where he merits it - which given he is a dictator, should not be a terribly difficult exercise. My guess is you won't.

I haven't gone to any lengths to avoid a question you haven't asked.

meditraitor

What is true is that the Venezuelan people are happier with Chavez as there leader than any other since the interferance of westerners a few hundred years ago.
And nothing the bull**** artists with sophit tones like SAND and his ilk can say or argue against this FACT.

The referendum to extend his term of office will take place and the people of Venesuela will decide not halfwits with no mind of there own(and less real education) and a US filter on their brain.

Mark

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote: »

I haven't gone to any lengths to avoid a question you haven't asked.

LOL. You obviously didn't read the bit where you were asked 'do you condemn a dictator like Castro?', although you had no problem quoting it.

Never mind. I'm sure you'll do well in Fianna Fail.

meditraitor wrote:

The referendum to extend his term of office will take place and the people of Venesuela will decide not halfwits with no mind of there own(and less real education) and a US filter on there brain.

Coming from you, I find that quite amusing.

Akrasia

Lirange wrote: »

That is the American federal budget you've cited. Education there is funded mainly through the states.

Its the same in venezuela. Most of the funding for education is distributed through the 23 states

sovtek

The Corinthian wrote: »

LOL. You obviously didn't read the bit where you were asked 'do you condemn a dictator like Castro?', although you had no problem quoting it.

Condemn him for what exactly?

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote: »

Condemn him for what exactly?

So that he's a dictator doesn't bother you in the slightest?

In fairness, I'm not holding my breath on a straight answer from you.

meditraitor

The Corinthian wrote: »

Coming from you, I find that quite amusing.

now thats very hurtfull stranger........

meditraitor

anyway
Whats amusing about the people of a country voting for a leader that has
"reduced poverty from 55 percent of the population to 34 percent as the share of gross domestic product (GDP) on social spending has increased from 7.83 percent to 14.69 percent; the achievement of literacy for 1.5 million adults; the virtual elimination of hunger through subsidized grocery stores that service 13 million people; medical care provided by Cuban doctors via free clinics in slums, reaching 18 million people, nearly 70 percent of the population; access to higher education for the poor and working class; and special affirmative action programs for indigenous people.1 The minimum wage is now the highest in Latin America at $286 per month,"
http://isreview.org/issues/54/venezuela.shtml

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote: »

So that he's a dictator doesn't bother you in the slightest?

In fairness, I'm not holding my breath on a straight answer from you.

I don't see any huge difference between a one party state like in Cuba, and a two party (that share 99% of the same policies) plutocracy like in America.

Sure there are elections in the United States (and in recent years, severe election fraud) but it's always a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

It's a monolithic structure that maintains power through essentially the same means. Propaganda, indoctrination, and repressive laws (The proportion of the population in U.S. labour camps is far higher than anywhere else in the world, including cuba) They call them prisons, or 'correctional facilities, but they're privatised labour camps

The Corinthian

Are you suggesting that dictatorship is OK on the basis that the US is not much better?

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are you suggesting that dictatorship is OK on the basis that the US is not much better?

Why are we talking about dictatorships when it isn't related to Chavez? How does condemning/not condemning Castro have anything to do with Chavez? Prehaps a new thread? Or PM if you want someones personal opinion.

I've yet to see any valid argument about Chavez that doesn't outweigh what it was like before Chavez took power.

The derailments and innuendo of Chavez being up to no good is almost at a Coulter level. I feel like I'm reading "how to talk to a Liberal" again.

Akrasia

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are you suggesting that dictatorship is OK on the basis that the US is not much better?

Nope, I'm opposed to both. Authoritarianism is Authoritarianism, regardless of whether there's a mock election or not.

Sand

Akrasia wrote:

I'm not switching the terms to suit my argument,

I dont know, you make some odd claim about the US spending more on its military than Venezeula does. I highlight the fact that the US [ Being a larger economy] spends more on anything and everything than Venezeula does. Absolute terms right?

You switch to percentage terms then to try and isolate one half of my statement, though as has already been pointed out you are probably wrong on that too.

You then switch back to absolute terms to show Venezeula spends less money than its neighbours, repeating the same error you made initially.

Give it up, stop wasting time on a side issue.

meditraitor wrote:

And nothing the bull**** artists with sophit tones like SAND and his ilk

Careful there, if a mod saw that they might think you were saying I was like a bull**** artist with sophit tones. And you can get banned if they thing you were possibly probably saying something that might be taken badly by the wrong person under certain sets of circumstances, maybe.

meditraitor wrote:

now thats very hurtfull stranger........

True, I was deeply wounded by your personal attack, but I shall rise above it.

Sovtek wrote:

Condemn him for what exactly?

Nothing, hes a leftist afterall - whats to condemn, right?

I have got to say, the funniest thing you only have to say that you condemn the Castro regime to prove everyone wrong, that lefties can condemn dictatorships even if they are leftist. And youre doing everything possible to avoid that. Case closed on how the left will allow itself to support any dictator so long as hes their dictator. They will then swing about and denounce the White House for following exactly the same logic. Ridiculously hypocritical. The White House has the excuse of realpolitick, whats yours?

The Corinthian wrote:

Are you suggesting that dictatorship is OK on the basis that the US is not much better?

Its a common argument, "there is not much freedom of speech in England, hence there is no more than exists in Germany" etc etc.

[QUOTE=[Akrasia]Nope, I'm opposed to both.[/QUOTE]

Then what was your point when you compared the US to Cuba?

Is it impossible to criticise Castros dictatorship on its own merits or lack thereof?

Isnt it true that its fairly predictable that if you condemn say....Sudan, or Iran that some wonderful free thinking lefty radical will copy and paste an argument from indymedia [ or wherever they get their tiresome, repetive, decrepitaly old world views] about how terrible the US is as some sort of confused counter argument?

bobbyjoe

The Corinthian wrote: »

Chavez or Castro? If the latter, are you justifying his dictatorship?

I meant Chavez. Under the current climate I'd imagine that he would require a strong army.

Akrasia

Sand wrote: »

I have got to say, the funniest thing you only have to say that you condemn the Castro regime to prove everyone wrong, that lefties can condemn dictatorships even if they are leftist. And youre doing everything possible to avoid that. Case closed on how the left will allow itself to support any dictator so long as hes their dictator.

Sovtek isn't 'the left' He/she is one person

Its a common argument, "there is not much freedom of speech in England, hence there is no more than exists in Germany" etc etc.



Then what was your point when you compared the US to Cuba?

Is it impossible to criticise Castros dictatorship on its own merits or lack thereof?

of course it is. I do condemn authoritarianism of all kinds. The reason I brought up America is because You would like to see castro overthrown, and have a 'liberal democracy' installed in its place. I am making the point that the differences between Dictatorship and 'democracy' are not all that great, and even in so called democracies, many if not all of the crimes Castro is guilty of are replicated and then some more. Castro does some very bad things, but compared to the regime that came before him, and some of the other regimes in the region, he's a saint. Do you think things would be better if castro was deposed and the U.S. installed some kind of puppet junta like they have in Haiti?

Isnt it true that its fairly predictable that if you condemn say....Sudan, or Iran that some wonderful free thinking lefty radical will copy and paste an argument from indymedia [ or wherever they get their tiresome, repetive, decrepitaly old world views] about how terrible the US is as some sort of confused counter argument?

If the U.S. says Iran violates human rights, of course its relevant to point out that the U.S. violates them too. If someone who supports capitalism criticises socialism, then of course it is relevant to point out the flaws under their own system.

The Corinthian

Hobbes wrote: »

Why are we talking about dictatorships when it isn't related to Chavez? How does condemning/not condemning Castro have anything to do with Chavez? Prehaps a new thread? Or PM if you want someones personal opinion.

Who anointed you the moderator here? Oh wait... no one.

Pointing out the hypocrisy of some on the left in this thread is perfectly valid as it puts in doubt a reason with which they approach any ideological discussing and, regrettably, makes any discussing on Chavez ultimately pointless.

bobbyjoe wrote:

I meant Chavez. Under the current climate I'd imagine that he would require a strong army.

Fair enough point.

Akrasia wrote:

Sovtek isn't 'the left' He/she is one person

More correctly he/she is indicative of the blind adherence to ideology that you tend to get from the radical left or right.

of course it is. I do condemn authoritarianism of all kinds. The reason I brought up America is because You would like to see castro overthrown, and have a 'liberal democracy' installed in its place. I am making the point that the differences between Dictatorship and 'democracy' are not all that great, and even in so called democracies, many if not all of the crimes Castro is guilty of are replicated and then some more. Castro does some very bad things, but compared to the regime that came before him, and some of the other regimes in the region, he's a saint. Do you think things would be better if castro was deposed and the U.S. installed some kind of puppet junta like they have in Haiti?

LOL. You sound like all those Chileans who argue that things would have ended up a lot worse under Communism without Pinochet

edanto

sovtek wrote: »

Condemn him for what exactly?

TC, you've already ignored his clarifying question once whilst you attempt to beat him for not answering. Are you not to be held to your own measure?

It's also relevant that the question you're giving him grief about is completely loaded. Along the lines of Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Are there good dictators? Has there ever been? Is Castro good or bad? Why? And it's quite OT, but that's not my call. New thread for that?

Attack the dictator's actions, not the dictator, remember.

Anyways, to comment on Sand's style too, of labelling posters leftist or sandal wearing. Why do I always notice that people on the right such as Sand have a one size fits all rebuttal such as 'oh you leftists' to specific cases or behaviour that are pointed out by leftists as antisocial.

Reports from Venezuela make it clear that living standards have increased a lot since Chavez was elected.

What have you Sand, as a rightist, got to say about the intervention of the US arms of influence in Venzuela today?

The Corinthian

edanto wrote: »

TC, you've already ignored his clarifying question once whilst you attempt to beat him for not answering. Are you not to be held to your own measure?

There was nothing clarifying about his response - it was a clear cut sidestep of what was asked of him and this was noted by a number of other posters.

Attack the dictator's actions, not the dictator, remember.

Wrong. Dictators, outside of the classical definition, are bad. Full stop.

Once you get into the argument that it is acceptable in any circumstances for one individual to concentrate power indefinitely into their own hands, using various levels of coercion to do so, then we might as well stop the debate.

Anyways, to comment on Sand's style too, of labelling posters leftist or sandal wearing. Why do I always notice that people on the right such as Sand have a one size fits all rebuttal such as 'oh you leftists' to specific cases or behaviour that are pointed out by leftists as antisocial.

The labeling however is merited because the behavior is cliched and predictable. Start any debate on any subject and you are met with a diatribe about how something is predictably good or evil, often citing nothing more than a comparison with the US for justification. It is this blind adherence to a cause that earns them a label, because it ceases to be a question of arguing on the merits of an issue and becomes a simple case of defending one's flag, regardless of what it represents in reality.

Reports from Venezuela make it clear that living standards have increased a lot since Chavez was elected.

That may well be, but as there are numerous reports that point to the opposite too, it is debatable - which is the point. I have no problem conceding that Chavez is a good guy in debate, if merited, however I'm certainly not blind to his increasing demagoguery and cronyism either.

Akrasia

I don't know why we're talking about dictatorships anyway. This is a thread about chavez, and specifically about opposition protests because he wants to hold a referendum. (not very dictatory so far)
The vote is on tomorrow, we'll see then how much support he has.

Dirk Gently

sky news reporting that it looks like the yes vote has won the election in Venezuela today. Can't find any english links as of yet (note to self to get around to learning spanish). Polls closed a couple of hours ago. Next few hours/days will be interesting, especially as there have been calls from some opposition leaders to take to the streets regardless of the results to create a situation which is impossible to govern. I don't know what the percentages are likely to be, if anyone finds any links please post them up.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well, here's hoping the left is right about chavez. There may be trouble ahead....