Chavez calls 'no' voters 'traitors'...

[Flatulo]

Source: breitbart

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez warned his supporters on Friday that anyone voting against his proposed constitutional changes would be a "traitor," rallying his political base before a referendum that would let him seek unlimited re-election in 2012 and beyond.
Brandishing a little red book listing his desired 69 revisions to Venezuela's charter, Chavez exhorted his backers to redouble their efforts toward a victorious "yes" vote in the Dec. 2 ballot.

"He who says he supports Chavez but votes 'no' is a traitor, a true traitor," the president told an arena packed with red-clad supporters. "He's against me, against the revolution and against the people."

His speech followed the recent high-profile defection of his former Defense Minister Gen. Raul Baduel, a longtime ally who called the president's proposed reforms a "coup." Others have also broken with the Chavista movement in recent months, including politicians of the small left-leaning party Podemos.



Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8T3M1P00&show_...

[Teaser]

1. hmm...that strategy sounds familiar

.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

26. Guess he's trying to counterbalance the million$ Repub Miami Cubans, Venezuelans & the CIA spend

The Florida city of Weston is jam-packed with multi-millionaire Venezuelans who took their money out of Venezuela. Now they live in Weston in splendor and spend some of their money trying to topple Chavez so they can resume their lifestyle down there. The Miami Cuban mega-rich and the CIA are their best friends.

Each day I have less patience with the mega-rich right wing. They bring us to the doors of Communism through their greed and their creation of poverty, then whine their ass off and declare war against their own country and people. They make me rather sick.

[Flatulo]

42. So do you agree that anyone who disagrees with Chavez is a traitor?

Would you support that type of rhetoric if say, oh, I dunno, GWB used it?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

44. Not necessarily but Bush considers you and me traitors for many things....

... so what's the difference?

[Flatulo]

53. There is no difference. That's the freakin' point.

Yet some people here cannot parse the slightest criticism of the man. It doesn't fit into their belief system, therefor it just can't be.

[Ken Burch]

57. We can handle criticism, but we can't handle the attempts at a coup.

It goes without saying that if Chavez were forced out, Venezuela and the rest of Latin America would be forced back to the Washington Consensus. If the U.S. would say that it accepted that developing countries had the right NOT to put profits before people, this would be a different discussion.

[AlphaCentauri]

68. There is a difference

While republicans want to dispose George, Venezuelans don't want to get rid of Chavez but external interest want to.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

121. Okay so they have a Bush in Venezuela.....

... did you ever visit Venezuela in the past? Even a Bush there would be a welcome sight. The homelessness in the cities, misery in the countryside, and abuse by the mega-rich is disgusting. Chavez is a different sort of Bush. He's set up "street" free medical clinics (when has Bush done that?), he's given land to the landless farmers (when has Bush done that?), I can go on. If he's a kind Bush that is helping the poverty-stricken, he's wonderful. What Venezuelan people (except the rich) have had to live with in the past, has been rather monstrous. This is a breath of fresh air.

I'd like to add one more thing: the mega-rich and their monstrous greed always brings us to the door of Communism. The poor don't do it. The GREEDY MEGA-RICH do. They did it again. They'll do it over and over.

[reggie the dog]

103. the difference

is that Bush says those opposed to him in general are traitors. Chavez said that if you support him and vote against the constitutional change you are a traidtor to the revolution. He does not consider people that do not support him and vote no to be traitors.

[Peace Patriot]

135. Chavez did NOT say that "anyone who disagrees with Chavez is a traitor."

He said that anyone who claims to support Chavez and votes against the Constitutional proposals is a traitor. The word "hypocrite" would have been more precise. But the word "traitor" is accurate, in the context of what he was saying.

At least try to be accurate in your echoing of Bush Junta "talking points"--although I know it's hard to stick to the facts, considering the source of the "talking point" that Chavez--a guy who puts everything to a vote--is a "dictator."

[Teaser]

46. and that makes it right.

yeah.

[Sufficient Voice]

49. Let really look at this article.

Okay this is clearly propaganda.

I am not a big pro-Chavez person, I have lots of concerns, and I am typically in favor of term limits.

But the titles says "Chavez calls 'no' voters 'traitors'..."

Which suggests that he is saying that those who are voting against him are betraying their country. That is why GWB has said about us peaceniks.

However that is not what Chavez is saying. Right after that it is clear that Chavez is saying that not supporting this vote is not supporting him. That is a very different message.

Also I wonder if we are not losing something in translation here. I mean there are quite a few words that could be translated as traitor. It is somewhat like Chavez to use an over the top word though. He is prone to overly fiery language and use of hyperbole.

[AlphaCentauri]

69. Agree

He is talking about him self not about the country in other words he is not using a patriotic rhetoric to argue with his opponents.

[Selatius]

2. I generally don't care too much for that kind of rhetoric.

It will only make the country even more polarized. I support his economic reforms, but this isn't helping in that cause.

[LibertarianAtheist]

7. so if Bush started confiscating private property

would you support that kind of economic reform?

[Selatius]

8. That depends on what kind of property and the reasons for the seizure.

With the land reform law in Venezuela, large agribusiness farmers had portions of their land confiscated because they were intentionally leaving the ground unfarmed in order to artificially inflate food prices at the counter. Millions of poor people objected to this form of price manipulation, so the order went out to either use that land to grow food or get off the land and let someone who will farm it use it.

[LibertarianAtheist]

11. i'm pretty absolute in that private property shouldn't ever be taken by the government

because once you say "under this condition your property can be taken" then eventually another condition will be added and another, until eventually private property will simply be too difficult to own.

[Selatius]

14. One thing I share with individualist anarchists is the belief in private property, but...

unlike the right libertarians on this issue, individualist anarchists, a form of left libertarianism, believe that if you own property and then don't use it, say farmland, then it naturally reverts back to its unowned state. Then, anybody else who wishes to use the land is free to do so.

It comes down to the balance between individual rights vs. societal rights. The individual should only be free to exercise his rights in as much as it doesn't violate the rights of the other. I don't generally believe that the individual should be given so much freedom that it becomes detrimental to the rights of others who live around him.

[LibertarianAtheist]

24. i believe in individual rights over societal rights every time

individuals make up the society, so if you take away more individual rights you are taking away societal rights. You want to know an easy solution to prevent price manipulation like what occurred in Venezuela? Opening up the economy to more potential agricultural business. If some people want to manipulate the marketplace in that way, an open economy will allow businesses who see that using all their land allows for more product and therefore more profit despite potentially lower prices on the goods that come from said land. It would have forced those businesses engaging in that manipulation to either use their remaining land or forced those agribusinesses out of business because other providers would have been making money from offering their product cheaper because of smarter business practices.

[Selatius]

36. I generally don't see it your way. It's a philosophical chasm that has never been bridged.

It's why left libertarians became what they are and why right libertarians became what they are. Your argument about individuals making up society is only true to such the extent that resources are unlimited in a theoretical sense and that one's actions do not theoretically negatively impact others. In that case, scarcity of resources is not a problem. Of course, the individual does not exist in a vacuum but in an environment where his individual actions can affect others, and the individual exists in an environment where resources are, indeed, scarce.

As a result, the interests of others must be weighed against the interest of the individual; otherwise, even worse conflict could ensue that would be far worse than the government merely passing the equivalent of the Homestead Act that the US government passed in the 1800s. The poor and the landless farmers call the large ranchers and corporations "latifundistas" after the latin word for estate.

I'm afraid the problems in Venezuela's countryside are a bit more complex than that. In the 1980s and 1990s, neoliberal economic reforms were instituted in Venezuela opening up sectors such as farming to foreign competition, allowing many foreign firms to come in. Nations such as the US started practicing dumping of subsidized farm products in the local markets. This drove down the price, which put many family farms out of business. At the same time, large multinational corporations were coming in to buy up the land. Eventually, you see that in many areas a few firms own the bulk of the land. Once the land was consolidated, they then cut back on production to drive prices back up to squeeze more profit out of per unit of crop generated. If a new competitor entered the market to try to undercut them, these MNC (multinationals) simply undercut the upstart to drive him back out of the market, or the new upstart eventually decided to follow along with the MNCs. Eventually, the only guys left were the giants.

[zbdent]

17. please return my crack house ...

it's getting cold here in Cleveland ...

[LibertarianAtheist]

22. i couldn't care less if people are cooking meth in their house

as long as their property was acquired legally and they are paying for the property, then the government need only take the people into custody for committing crimes within their domicile.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Eminent domain

You need to do some research on right-libertarian ideology. Generally they concede that private property rights do in fact have to give way to the public good under certain circumstances. The classic problem is the holdout property owner in the way of the only good place to build a bridge across a river. There are even sillier examples of why this position is indefensible. Absolutism with respect to private property rights is generally as idiotic as absolutism in most other areas.

[LibertarianAtheist]

29. in terms of whether the government has any right to take what i own legitimately

i am absolutely opposed to allowing the government to engage in taking it. it's no concern of the state whether i'm using my land for the betterment of society or for purely selfish purposes, nor is it any concern of yours. if i want to use my land to grow hemp and have wild unprotected sex orgies among consenting adults, that's my business and the business of people who wished to enjoy what i was doing with my land. i couldn't care less if the department of agriculture sees a greater benefit for everyone else from growing, say, organic veggies from the land i'm (hypothetically) using for sex and drugs, it's not their property.

[SyntaxError]

38. There shouldn't be any private property. It's that simple.

[cigsandcoffee]

60. You must not own any. n/t

[slackmaster]

129. Let me use that toothbrush, comrade

[Imperialism Inc.]

113. "my land"?

there is no such thing as "my land" without a government to issue property rights. The earth, and parts of it, "belongs" to no one. Without a collective agreement (i.e. through government) to allow someone to temporarily have sole use of a particular piece of land, no one has any exclusive rights to it. With the granting of privileges comes the right to remove said privileges.

You seem pretty confused about this and other things. You speak elsewhere of "businesses" and their rights. These businesses are of course corporations. As above, there is no such thing as a corporation without a government that creates it. A corporation is a limited liability entity. That means that investors and owners are only liable up to the amount they put in to the corporation to start with. This is a huge gift to owners and investors. The biggest government intervention there is in fact. Most hard-core libertarians know this and support the abolition of corporations (or "businesses" as you call them).

These and other mistakes you have made on this thread lead me to the conclusion that your name should probably be 'not-really-a-libertarian-but-i try-to-play-one-on-the-internet'. The key word being try. And poorly at that.

[Hosnon]

134. In some cases, it certainly is the concern of the state for what you are using your

property. Have your next door neighbor (in a typical neighborhood) begin operating a slaughterhouse and you will most likely change your mind.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Ah the cluelessness here...

You should research the status of the oil industry in Venezuela. Chavez is re-nationalizing Venezuela's oil resources and industry, undoing the neoliberal de-nationalization forced on the nation under the Caldera administration in the mid 90's. The original nationalization was in 1975-1976 under president Carlos Andres Perez.

In addition your use of the term 'confiscation' to describe the nationalization process in Venezuela is inaccurate. In all cases the process is conducted within a legal framework that fully compensates the shareholders of nationalized assets.

[LibertarianAtheist]

32. and in addition your use of the term "nationalization" is inaccurate

because it softens the fact that future profits from individual shareholders from businesses taken over by the government were stolen, period.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. No actually that would be part of the compensation.

The current value of an asset such as this reflects future profits. But you are simply ignoring the fact that Chavez put an end to the de-nationalization of an already nationalized asset. The people of Venezuela, in 1995, were by your own logic deprived of the future profits from their oil resources by the perfidious de-nationalization of the oil industry imposed on Venezueala by the usual neo-liberal agencies.

Right libertarianism, and in your case anarcho-capitalism, has a huge blind spot with respect to global corporatism and the actual power structures in existence, viewing the world through some sort of randian individualist lens that conveniently finds the horrors of collectivism only in those activities that directly benefit the people, while ignoring the far more pervasive collectivism that all of us live in on a daily basis, which controls most human activity and important resources on the planet for the benefit of huge global corporations and the small group of fabulously wealthy individuals in control of those organizations.

[Lasher]

98. Spot on

[reggie the dog]

104. yes

take the farms from the large agrobiz corps and give them back to people like my displaced farming relatives.

If you do not know the song go to you tube and play "blood on the scarecrow" by John Mellencamp.

End modern sharecropping and give the land to those that work it then stop importing cheap food soas the farmers could sell what they grow in the USA to people in the USA.

[Faygo Kid]

3. I'm getting more than a little tired of Chavez's grandstanding statements after supporting him.

I liked the way he stood up to Bush, but this guy is showing every sign of megalomania. I don't give anybody a free ride, and he's not getting one here. He's acting like a tinhorn despot.

[LibertarianAtheist]

4. Who is actually surprised by his rhetoric?

[Captain Hilts]

5. You're either wit 'im or agin 'im. Sounds familiar! nt

[bluestateguy]

6. He's more like BabyBushCo than we appreciate

His popularity will eventually run its course and in reaction to Chavez, Venezuelans may someday replace his government with a right wing nutjob government.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

31. Actually, no. Chavez could never perfect the corruption and lies the Bushes have managed here. nt

[MADem]

9. Bwahahahahahaa!!!! But, but, but....it's a DEMOCRACY there!! Que viva CHAVEZUELA!!

What a batshit crazy muthafucka. There's NO difference between him and Bush. Puffed up little shits with an oversized view of their own importance.

Doesn't that sound a lot like

Yer with me or yer with the TERRISTS!

He and Bush are opposite sides of the same cheap coin--a pair of "My way or the highway" ASSHOLES.

[Ken Burch]

59. There isn't an antichavista Left. Voting against him means putting the Right and the rich

back in power. Is there anything he could do that could be worth forcing more right-wing governance on Latin America?

[MADem]

83. Voting against him means there's another election in 2012, and he doesn't

get full control over all branches of government and the fucking Central Bank.

That's ALL it means.

Jesus, the brainwashing is amazing.

Chavez....or death!!

Please, spare me.

[Ken Burch]

92. No surprise in your response. You always end up taking the side of the rich.

They're the only one who are raising all the fussy "he has too much control" issues.

And the only reason they're complaining is that the government doesn't put them first.

This isn't about "preserving democracy" at all.

It's about preserving the Washington Consensus.

If the U.S. would leave Latin America alone, it might be different.

[MADem]

96. And you divine that, how? With the same halfassed logic that you used to

explain that Chavez is the "only" solution, and that the people of VZ are what--too fucking STOOPID--to find themselves a progressive leader between now and 2012?

Bush is gone in a year. Then what will your complaint be? That Barack, or John, or Hillary, or whoever gets the WH, are all part of vast anti-Chavez conspiracy?

Chavez is a nutcake and a power monger. Every day he proves it to us more decisively. He's acting like a syphilitic madman, and anyone who cheers that despot on is missing a few nuts and bolts on their old logic-meter.

But whatever. You're full of the Kool Aid, there's no convincing a "true believer" of that which is painfully obvious to everyone else looking at the guy. He's off the page.

[ronnie624]

123. Let's see now. According to you,

Chavez is a "nutcake", a "power monger", a "syphilitic madman" and a "despot". You offer no evidence for any of it. All of it should simply be "painfully obvious", and anyone who doesn't see it, is "missing a few nuts and bolts on their old logic-meter" and "full of the Kool Aid".

What is obvious, is that once again, you attack with labels and vitriol and no substance.

'Logic' indeed.

[nick303]

97. He did bring up an important point

which is that central bank independence is an important feature. Japan's lack of independence led to their bubble and recession in the late 1980's and early 1990's.

[Occulus]

99. How independent is the Federal Reserve? n/t

[AlphaCentauri]

71. As long as he gets elected it will be a democracy n/t

[MADem]

84. If this referendum passes, the idiots voting it in are voting FOR dictatorship.

That's what the sixty nine articles give Chavez--absolute power, with no checks or balances.

Funny how the same people who SHRIEK like little children when Bush tries to pull that shit (in halfassed, piker, amateurish fashion compared to Hugo) are just fine with it so long as it's the Great Unwashed of VZ who have to live under that sort of regime.

It's hypocritical in the extreme, too.

[AlphaCentauri]

86. How com?

Aren't they ELECTING their own future, isn't it DEMOCRACY when there are elections...

[MADem]

88. Read the sixty nine points--he can suspend the constitution and

declare a permanent state of emergency--for the REST OF HIS LIFE. And he can do it ALL BY HIMSELF. No legislature, no judiciary input. Just him.

No checks, no balances. No one to tell him "Hey, don't do that," or "Hey, don't spend that money on THIS, spend it on THAT."

No input from the people. Just his way or the highway.

Detention without charges. Secret trials.

That's not what democracy looks like.

But hey hey hey...Que viva Chavezuela! The bullshit argument is the opposite of Chavez running the show is the "evil right" running the show. Which IS bullshit. The military officer who SAVED Chavez's bacon, but can't go along with THIS shit, hasn't left yet.

When they "elect" their own future, they're condemning those who come after them to a life under a dictatorship. They're trading a few hours off a week for their fucking LIBERTY. And they don't even realize it.

[reggie the dog]

105. did you read the article????

He never said his OPPONENTS would be traitors to the revoultion if they voted no, he only said his SUPPORTERS would be traitors to the revolution if they voted no.

[MADem]

109. Yea, I read it. "You're either wit' me, or yer wit' da terrists!"

Oh wait, that was Bush. Same church, different pew.

Of course he wasn't hectoring the deballed opposition. He was threatening his own cadre.

[lvx35]

10. We need an American Chavez.

My theory is that he would cancel out Bush and we would be left with some sanity.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

28. I agree. We're at desperation's door. I'd vote in a Chavez.

The mega-rich right wing and Libertarians brought us to that point.

[Flatulo]

54. So you believe that political dissenters are traitors? nt

[AlphaCentauri]

73. if their money comes from another country they are...... n/t

[Progressive Friend]

65. I agree completely

[JDPriestly]

12. I feel vindicated.

I have said all along that Chavez is not a democrat. He is a demagogue. There is a huge difference. A leader can be a democrat and impose bad policy on a country and vice versa.

Democracy is about democratic processes and institutions. Chavez does not care much at all about democratic processes and institutions. In fact, he is impatient with those things.

I am not saying Chavez has not done some good things (and bad, no doubt) for the poor in his country. However, he is not building democracy. He is not encouraging free participation in democratic institutions.

[LakeSamish706]

15. That might be and I might agree with you, but as I see it he certainly is ...

good for the poor folk of Venezuela!

[balantz]

30. Good for now

to get them to all line up in support of him. I don't know a lot about him, but when I hear his rhetoric it sounds fishy.

[AlphaCentauri]

74. where is he attempting against democracy?

is he attempting a coup? is he abolishing the institutions?
what is the point?

[slowry]

13. Sounds like a genuine threat, whether he means it that way or not n/t

[brazos121200]

16. My understanding is that Chavez is trying to get

the constitution changed so that he can seek re-election more times than he is now allowed. In our own country it was legal for a President to seek re-election an unlimited number of times as long as he could win the elections. FDR himself ran and won four times, and it wasn't until after he left office that the Republicans decided to limit the number of terms a President could serve to two. There is nothing inherently undemocratic in having a constitution which allows a leader to serve an unlimited number of terms as long as he can get re-elected.

[LakeSamish706]

19. In my opinion you missed a magic phrase in your post; ....

"as long as he can get re-elected." without rigging the election....

[Selatius]

20. Unless the future elections aren't monitored by the UN and OAS, I see no reason here.

The last several elections were heavily monitored by the OAS and UN observers. It's why the opposition, except for the fringe far right elements, have accepted the outcome of the elections without reverting to the Spanish Civil War route.

But the issue here is Chavez' polarizing rhetoric, not about running for re-election. Ultimately, I believe the poster is correct in asserting that if the people so wish, the law can be changed to remove term limits. That's ultimately an issue of a national referendum where people decide.

[tritsofme]

52. With grand pronoucements such as that, does the average citizen

feel they are in an environment where voting "no" on this referendum may be a detriment to safety of themselves and their families?

[AlphaCentauri]

75. Do you think thats the reason why the low turn outs in US elections?

[Occulus]

100. What did he say, sans AP translation?

I don't and won't trust corporate media translators, and for damn good reason. They have a vested interest in mistranslating people they don't like, and NO, I'm NOT talking about the president of Iran.

[Imperialism Inc.]

114. Exactly.

I was going to say the same thing but since you beat me to it I'll just post this "me too". I would like to see the actual Spanish and to see whether or not the word may have a more nuanced meaning in Spanish before would I jump to any conclusions.

That said, even the way it stands is not such a big deal. Over-the-top rhetoric from a politician is somehow surprising? Since when?

[Selatius]

111. I don't see why not. They risked life and limb reversing a violent military coup in 2002.

If they risked their safety and the safety of their families doing that in 2002, then it seems possible that they would willingly risk it again if someone were to take away their right to self-determination.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. Venezuela has internationally monitored fair elections -

elections far more open and above board than our own.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

27. Yes it does.

The right wing extremist zillionaires demanded repeats of every election Chavez was in. Every time, he won. They won't be happy till they can do what the Repugnicans here in the U.S. did with our elections, will they?

[NeedleCast]

18. More Rhetoric

Was there any chance that anyone in his party was gong to vote against him?

Bluster, and little else.

[SyntaxError]

33. bullshit, he didn't say that.

[Igel]

43. I don't think he did.

At least not in so many words.

[Flatulo]

55. Your source?

[AlphaCentauri]

77. Source

El diablo son los traidores. Se lo llevó el diablo. Ahora, el diablo es como una especie de muerte (…) Allá aquellos que se entregan o terminan entregándose a los brazos del diablo, porque aquí no hay nadie inocente, cada quien sabe a estas alturas lo que tiene que hacer. Eso es parte de este proceso complejo. No será el primero ni será el último, ojala fuera el último (…) Hay unos que brincan la talanquera y se pasan al bando enemigo destrozándose así mismos. (…) Así que más allá de sentimientos y sensibilidades lo que ocurra es lo mejor, los traidores que hay aquí que se vayan para el enemigo de una vez (…) ¿Cuál es el destino final de los traidores? La nada, es el estiercolero, las letrinas de la historia", afirmó.


...

"Bueno ya lo están diciendo, que si se aprueba la reforma será un golpe de Estado. Ellos están preparando, no sólo a algunos sectores de la vida nacional, sino que también preparan internacionalmente el escenario para justificar la agresión del imperio, para tratar de activar mecanismos internacionales, además de las acciones internas que ya comenzaron", aseguró.

http://politica.eluniversal.com/2007/11/06/refco_ava_ch...

[SecularMotion]

34. Your source lists Free Republic, Lucianne, & Powerline as forums.

[SyntaxError]

37. Don't bother. The anti-chavez people always buy into the propaganda....

[Flatulo]

41. What propaganda? I believe the source is the AP Unless they

made a translation error (unlikely), Chavez called anyone who disagrees with him 'traitor'.

Do you support that type of rhetoric?

Does it remind you of anyone else?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nick303]

85. Fix your post

"Don't bother. The pro-Chavez never believe Chavez said something (even though he always did) if it disrupts their view of reality."

[Occulus]

101. Fucking transparent, aren't they? n/t

[PATRICK]

39. The AP frame is

exactly that. Picture and description of Chavez waving little red book. "Communal" organizations, the throw in of Chavez as an ex-paratrooper and many intriguing items like these in a package way too small for any fair context finish at least more descriptively of what exactly he is asking for.

Nw for something as complex as the history and constitution and controversy of another nation's politics we might need a bit more than the tainted pablum that already keeps us from getting at our own. This is a shaky launchpad to conduct the already tainted seesaw debate on DU whether Chavez is a hero of democracy or a strongman headed for the Despot Hall of Fame. From my position on that weary seesaw I see some of these emergency measures as unfortunately justified by America(i.e. us even though as critics we might consider ourselves nobly not responsible), corrective of past anti-democratic anti-people legislation of the past and trying to keep the strength of Chavez totally united to the reforms.

Eventually for these reforms to anchor completely that wedded strength must move beyond the sole personage of the Great Leader. I suppose we are all the wiser for having learned never to permit another four term FDR. I think his greatest role model for the efficacy of reform leadership- and the rooted longevity of hopefully irreversible reforms- is the long term and survival of Castro. He might be very wrong, but that is the local model for success against US self-interested dominance especially for a nation under direct and persisting threat due to its major resource. It is also a populist substitute for the total populace militarization that protects Cuba and that would be a greater tragedy for the relatively non-militaristic, non violent Venezuela, more Gandhi than Hitler on some scale we have little right to own.

Anyone still looking for a window to toss a righteous brick from out of our slimed glass house would do better to take a breath of fresh air and look out into the sunshine instead.

[Morereason]

40. As often as words are distorted in the press I need to see transcripts

Otherwise it is nothing more than inuendo. If he indeed said it *this* way than he was obviously offbase.

[Danger Mouse]

47. You're wasting your time...

Chavez could eat a roasted baby on televion and garnish it with a fresh glass of blood taken from a busload of orphans and kittens while wearing clothes crafted from baby seals and some people here would try to justify it.

[NeedleCast]

50. I bet he could get away with a live baby

n/t

[Flatulo]

51. You got that right, my friend. The man is a God to some people.

and such people scare the living shit out of me. These same people would silence dissent HERE if they could get away with it.

[ronnie624]

89. Horse shit....cough, cough. n/t

[bitchkitty]

137. Aptly named - Flatulo.

Such drama. If people who believe in investigating things and do not take the right wing media's word at face value scare you, maybe you're in the wrong place?

[Deja Q]

56. Were those kittens albino?

Otherwise, I wholly agree with you' it's sad to see Chavez supported so blindly.

[Ken Burch]

58. Being anti-Chavez means wanting the Right to takeover Venezuela

At this historical moment, it isn't possible to vote no and still say you want a progressive Latin America.

[Danger Mouse]

62. There's a difference between being 'Anti-Chavez' and being critical of some of the stuff he does.

Unless you subscribe to the 'with him or against him' sort of logic that is so popular among some.

[Occulus]

102. So why do people critical of 'some of' Chavez's statements and legislation

latch onto each and every 'incident' like a pitbull using lockjaw, claiming he's a dictator? I've seen that again and again and again, and each and every time, they're wrong. That doesn't stop them the next time, though...


...does that sound like another group you know? It does to me...

[Danger Mouse]

119. Oh, I never said that you weren't right about THAT.

Chavez could rescue kittens from a burning building while composing the most beautiful symphony ever written that also is the cure for cancer and ends world hunger, and people would still call him a tinpot despot.
There are two sides to the argument...and both of them are equally ridiculous!
Chavez is human and makes mistakes...to put him up on a pedastal is silly and childish. However, it's just as bad to slam him for everything he does.

[MADem]

87. Being anti-Chavez means they're gonna have to pony up a new progressive in five years. NT

[Ken Burch]

93. They'd come up with a new one in a few years anyway.

This is about weakening the one leader in the hemisphere who stands up to Bush and Cheney.

[MADem]

94. Don't be absurd. Bush is GONE. He's a hamstrung lame duck.

He, and Cheney, can't do SHIT anymore.

[slackmaster]

131. That is a Straw Man

Opposing the measures in the December 2 election is not the same as being anti-Chavez.

[Solar_Power]

48. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

Hugo is no exception

[Renew Deal]

61. If Bush said that sort of thing, I could imagine the reaction.

This is disturbing for Venezuela and the Venezuelan people. I hope they know better.

[boricua79]

63. you know something...THIS is not cool

I usually support Chavez...but calling regular Venezuelan citizens who vote NO on his proposed changes "traitors"...that's a bit too much.

Participating in a democracy and having a position against the President is not being treasonous.

Chavez...you went a little too far there.

[sistagoldilocks42]

66. Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham was also President for Life aka Dictator in Guyana

How many of you jokers realize who Hugo Chavez is? His military had an incursion/invasion of Guyana last Thursday. The Cuyuni River is a demarcation point of the boundaries between Guyana and Venezuela. Venezuela remained silent until today when one of its newspapers called on the government to settle the issue. Guyana needs to refer the gross violations of its borders, blowing of of dredges and the killing of a Guyanese citizen by the Venezuelan government. This folder needs to be referred to the United Nations and the Organization of American States. President Jagdeo is a narco government anyhow, so the fascist neocons are playing tight with this one. So is Venezuela armed to invade Guyana??? I say as a Guyanese, "Not a Blade of Grass" Why is the North American media ignoring this story. Is it because Guyana is below sea level and the recipient or the oil reserves on the South American continent. So all eyes should be on Guyana the land of many waters and the only part of the vast Amazon Rain forest that remains. Watch the criminal cabal bomb or invade Venezuela through Guyana. We always knew this. The CIA is a terrorist organization that needs to be disbanded by the USA congress.

Bob Marley has it right and it is the words of Emperor Haile Selassie I "Until the philosophy that holds one race superior and another inferior, has been totally and finally discredited and abandoned.....because he is still alive. Watch the world crave his music because, he spoke "Truth to Power"

Chavez is a Backoo..pronunced back- Kooooooo. He let the lion loose in the backyard because he is a socialist fanatic who loves power like Bush and Castro. They are all criminal brothers...."Love and Light"

[Judi Lynn]

67. Here's more on that invasion you mentioned:

Last Updated: Saturday, 17 November 2007, 02:37 GMT
Caracas denies Guyana blast claim

Venezuela has denied destroying two gold-mining dredges on Guyanese territory following a strong protest from Guyana's government.
Guyana says 36 Venezuelan soldiers used helicopters and Compostion-4 (C-4), a type of plastic explosive, to blow up the two dredging machines on Thursday.

It has summoned Venezuela's ambassador to explain the incident.

Venezuela denies using force and said the army was removing illegal miners inside its own territory.

Territorial dispute

The dredges were in a disputed border region that has seen a number of recent incidents.

Guyanese troops and police travelled to the border on Friday to investigate whether the incident took place on the Wenamu River between the two countries, or the Cuyuni River in Guyana, according to the Associated Press news agency.

More:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7099476.stm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Guyana Claims Venezuela Blew Up Dredges
Nov 16, 2007

GEORGETOWN, Guyana (AP) — Guyana rushed troops and police to its western border Friday after Venezuelan soldiers allegedly blew up two Guyanese gold-mining dredges on a river near the frontier, the foreign ministry said.

According to the Guyanese military and reports reaching the capital, Venezuelan troops used helicopters and C-4 explosives to destroy the two river dredges Thursday. No one was injured.

Venezuelan Ambassador Dario Morandy was summoned to meet with Guyanese Foreign Minister Rudy Insanally on Friday, but no details of their discussion were immediately released. Venezuelan Foreign Ministry officials said there was no official comment on the matter.

Guyanese troops, police and land surveyors were to investigate whether the incident took place on the Wenamu River between the two countries or on the Cuyuni River in Guyana's territory.

The border region has seen trouble in recent years, as Venezuela's military has periodically staged operations to flush miners from its territory.

More:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j134JvU5hx0v5boaGLkP...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
dredge blasts
News - November 20, 2007

AFP reports that Venezuela has denied blowing up two gold-mining dredges in Guyana, despite a formal protest by the Guyanese government.

"According to the information that we have, nothing like that happened. It is not in the border area, it is in Venezuela," Venezuela's Ambassador to Guyana, Dario Morandy, told reporters.

Morandy was speaking after a second round of talks with Guyana's Foreign Minister, Rudy Insanally.

Morandy said Venezuela had been concerned about illegal gold miners from Venezuela, Guyana, Brazil and Colombia, and needed to protect the river basins of the Wenamu and Cuyuni Rivers. "All these people are destroying the rivers."

More:
http://www.sandandgravel.com/news/article.asp?v1=10516

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Venezuela sends 16,000-barrel tanker of gasoline to Guyana
Published on Thursday, November 22, 2007

By Steven Bodzin

CARACAS, Venezuela (Bloomberg): Venezuela, South America's largest oil producer, sent a 16,000-barrel cargo of gasoline to Guyana, one of the continent's poorest countries, to alleviate a state of emergency.

The MT Caribbean Pearl arrived on Tuesday in Guyana, where a gasoline shortage has shut fuel stations, Venezuela's foreign ministry said on Wednesday in an e-mailed statement.

Venezuela supplies fuel to Guyana as part of its PetroCaribe program, which allows import-dependent countries in the Caribbean to buy oil and refined products with low-cost financing. The two countries had a diplomatic crisis last week after Venezuelan troops blew up two gold-mining dredges; Guyana claimed the dredges were within its territory.

More:
http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/news-4659--13-13--.html

[Le Taz Hot]

122. Fascinating post.

Thank you.

The North American media is ignoring this story because there is a 2-year-old story about a missing white woman that has been recently resurrected which takes precedence over anything that resembles actual news. You must understand, we no longer have a free press in the U.S. -- it is owned by the right-wing corporations who support the current president. They've made sure the next president is also friendly to large corporations so the status quo can be maintained. So, no, this is actual news and the only way Americans can keep themselves informed is through the internet and people like you who ensure we are not kept in the dark.

I have a question. You used a new term I've not heard of before: "Narco government." Could you explain what that is?

Thanks,

And welcome to Democraticunderground.

LTH

[AlphaCentauri]

79. He wasn't talking to regular citizens

He was speaking to the members of the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV)

...

everything else is propaganda

[boricua79]

112. yeah...

but is it good politics to call members of your own party traitors if they decide they don't like THIS particular initiative? You can be socialist and NOT want to give Chavez unlimited terms.

If I vote against a proposed plan by my union, will I be branded a traitor by others in the union. Sometimes I agree with my union, and sometimes I don't.

This still reflects very totalitarian thinking in Chavez...it's bothering my conscience a lot. I don't like Bush-like "you're either with us or against us" thinking.

[SKKY]

64. And yet, many on DU still love them some Chavez....

...it boggles the imagination. For the life of me, I can't get my brain around it.

[sistagoldilocks42]

70. One of the Continent's Richest Countries

Do not buy the hype. How can a country be poor and have vast gold, diamond, manganese, bauxite and other mineral deposits??? Petro Caribe is the oil deal that he Chavez, had everyone sign on. If Chavez wanted peace and Guyana is the poorest country, why bomb and claim territory??? Guyana still awaits an answer from Chavez so does the rest of the Caribbean and CARICOM as to why under the Chavez rule these incursions contiue to happen. So it is classic Hugo, get ones to think you are his friend then stab you in the back. Thanks for the oil that belongs to Guyana. Very soon Jamaica will be out of oil but for Venezuela. The Trinidadians warned all of us about Chavez's Venezuela.

[Judi Lynn]

76. Go ahead and post your information on Venezuela's bombing, and claiming territory.

I believe you overlooked my post to you with articles on the claim you made that Venezuela invaded Guayana. Here's that post, again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Will be waiting to see the information you'll be sharing about Venezuela invading Guyana and claiming its territory.

[kurth]

72. Face it, Chavez is a fucking despot

[Judi Lynn]

78. It would be educational if you explained to DU'ers the ways in which Hugo Chavez

meets the definition of a despot. Here's a quick definition from an on-line dictionary:

despot
One entry found.

despot

Main Entry: des·pot
Pronunciation: \ˈdes-pət, -ˌpät\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French despote, from Greek despotēs master, lord, autocrat, from des- (akin to domos house) + -potēs (akin to posis husband); akin to Sanskrit dampati lord of the house — more at dome, potent
Date: 1585
1 a: a Byzantine emperor or prince b: a bishop or patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church c: an Italian hereditary prince or military leader during the Renaissance
2 a: a ruler with absolute power and authority b: a person exercising power tyrannically

http://m-w.com/dictionary/despot

[MADem]

91. That would be Number Two.

Read the sixty nine points of the referendum. They give him absolute power and authority.

He already exercises power tyrannically, and it will only get worse.

[Odin2005]

80. I see the Chavez-lovers are sqirming trying to defend their beloved tyrant.

They are kind of like those 24% of Americans that would support Bush even if he's caught eating roasted babies, or the Communists in Western Europe back in the 50s that were Stalin sycophants until knowledge of his evildoing leaked out.

[MADem]

90. They don't squirm. They hector self-righteously and perpetuate falsehoods.

And they do the "high dudgeon without any knowledge whatsoever" routine better than anyone supporting Bush can do it.

They insist that the opposite of Chavez is "the far right." Even though the bastard is in his job and doing damage for five more years. If the good people of VZ can't find ANYONE with a progressive mindset in five damned years, well, they're a bunch of fucked losers.

I've never seen such abject idiocy in my life--the "America needs a Chavez" crowd takes the cake for sheer ignorance of the workings of a democratic system. It's fucking pathetic, really.

They spend all their time whining about Bush, our own mini-Chavez-- and what they don't seem to get is that he's JEALOUS of Chavez--Chavez is doing a much better job treating his constitution like "Just a damned piece of paper" than Bush was ever able to do!!!

If we hadn't gotten a Dem Congress, they'd have gotten their "America needs a Chavez" wish. And they wouldn't have liked how it worked out, either.

[Ken Burch]

107. There is a difference. Chavez is on the side of the poor and the workers

If you're on that side against the rich(and you're NOT Stalin, since there's never going to be a fucking Stalin again and you know it) than you probably deserve some of the benefit of the doubt.

[MADem]

108. Chavez is on the side of Chavez. He uses the poor as a prop on his path to power.

What he wants more than anything is control, and he's probably gonna get it. We will know come 2 December.

If he gets what he wants, it will be a sad day for democracy.

[AlphaCentauri]

81. Chávez: Los traidores que hay aquí que se vayan para el enemigo de una vez

Chavez was talking to the member of the PSUV not to the regular Venezuelan citizen...


Caracas.- El presidente de la República, Hugo Chávez Frías, asistió al encuentro con los militantes del Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV) y Juramentación del Comando Nacional Zamora Ampliado, en el Poliedro de Caracas.

Al comenzar el acto, entonó el himno nacional, saludó a los presentes y aseguró la victoria del sí en el referéndum del próximo dos de diciembre. No tardó en hacer referencia a las declaraciones emitidas ayer por el ex ministro de la Defensa, Raúl Baduel.

http://politica.eluniversal.com/2007/11/06/refco_ava_ch...

[nick303]

82. It's a mistranslation by the evil "M$M"

What he actually said was "If you're not with us, you're against us", which is totally cool.

[Endangered Specie]

95. hahahaha, good one.

[reggie the dog]

106. so you see no difference

between saying something like that to the genral popluation like W. did and to your own political party like Chavez did?

[Flanker]

110. Considering Ralph Nader was always considered a traitor

Makes the democratic party quite suspect too, and mind you green voters did not vote for Bush the equivalent of voting NO.

[ohio2007]

115. Do they shoot traitors down there ?

Or only enforce the rules as to why they cannot be put on ballots as an alternative choice ?

[Flatulo]

118. Except when GWB says it...?

[AngryAmish]

116. Unlike Bush, at least he doesn't question his opponent's patriotism

[ohio2007]

117. Who's running against him

...if people vote against term limits are called traitors, What does that make those who run against him ?
Un Venezuelan

[jefferson_dem]

120. Chavez and Chimpy...

Two despotic, demagogic peas in a pod.

[distantearlywarning]

124. It astounds me that there are still people here on DU willing to defend him.

He's a little tinpot dictator, just like Bush. He uses the poor to make himself look better.

Evil is evil, whether it has an (R), a (D), or an (S) after its name. And the enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend.

[HannibalBarca]

125. I know

it's saddening to realise that even on a website that purports to be a place for intellectual discourse and progressive policy that still there is defence of a man who clearly is not deserving of it. I suppose it's indicative of the human condition, the same for those who apply reality alterations for Bush et al.

[slackmaster]

128. The knee-jerk far left is as blind as the knee-jerk far right

Ain't no difference between the two.

[AlphaCentauri]

136. "He uses the poor to make himself look better"

I wish the republicans and many democrat do the same to make them look better.

[slackmaster]

126. It's your civic duty to vote, as long as you vote for Giant Douche

[Bonobo]

127. .

[Acadia Blue]

130. Don't imitate the rePIGs, Chavez. Its tyranical.

[ChazII]

132. Pres. Chavez you have our support

but we are against changing the constitution.

[Hosnon]

133. To be fair, he didn't call anyone who votes "NO" a traitor, only those

who also claim to be his supporters. "Traitor" refers to his party and its ideals, not to the country in general (although I would not be surprised if that was the implication).

That said, Chavez simply does not seem to act like a leader who advocates Democracy. Sure the majority of the people love him but that is not the end all be all.

[EST]

138. We are locking this thread

because the subject line of the OP and the title of the quoted article must match, plus it has proven to be entirely too attractive as flamebait.

Thanks for your patience.

EST, DU mods.