No, not Bush. Chavez. Chavez gets powers to rule by decree.
I’ve seen several progressives on this message board sing the praises of this guy. Now is the time to step forward and condemn him for what he is-- a power hunger would-be tyrant.
Come on, BrainGlutton. It’s time to put up about Chavez or shut up about Bush.
Did the Reichstag catch fire?
From Venezuala:
Enabling law passed in public session
“No revolution is possible in the absence of ideology and awareness”
The business side of things:
PDVSA, Statoil, Total in Sincor talks - Venezuela
This sounds like a classic 70’s style confrontation, but this time without Kissinger.
Refresh my memory and name some.
Did you overlook the part that says Venezuela’s democratically elected Congress gave him that power? Or was it a coup?
Tyrant? Can you show something he has done to warrant that description? Do tyrants win 60% of the vote? Maybe you just don’t care for his anti-American policies?
That´s pretty much what I´ve been saying everytime the guy comes up in a discussion. I can´t name names because I can´t remember, but there have been instances of people defending Chavez as a good leader; he is not, he´s getting more obssesed with the idea of being the next Simon Bolivar day by day, and sooner or later, if things keep going this way, he´ll get a whole lot of people killed in the name of his revolution.
I hate to say it, but I’m not surprised.
Socialism breeds dictators. Whenever the people of a country decide to cede their rights and responsibilities to a government, it is damn near historically inevitable that either one individual or a very small cadre of people will grasp that power and ask for more.
I don’t think I’ve ever praised the guy. I’m not a fan of the US meddling in undermining democracies, but I’m even less of a fan of natives meddling to undermine democracies. Chavez has been pretty much doing that on a straight slide down to having himself declared Supreme ruler for years now.
It’s good to be king.
Fortunately, I don’t think a lot of what Chavez is doing down there is going over very well with a substantial, powerful portion of the population. While embraced by the poor, he’s also creating a great deal of dissention and concern among the educated and wealthy.
Chavez was fun with his tantrums and Bush baiting but he’s getting on my nerves. He’s following a Castro-ish path when he doesn’t need to–he doesn’t need to ally with a USSR to get aid because the oil will pay for whatever he needs. Hell, he doesn’t even need the “rule by decree” law because the legislature is in his hip pocket already.
Or maybe he does because he knows the populace that stays will someday look around and see how well “socialism” worked out for the Cubans, Russians, Poles, Romanians, etc and Ceauşescu him.
Chavez was democratically elected, and has done some good things for the poor in his country. But this is totally out of line. As an American, I’m totally opposed to the idea of a powerful executive who takes it upon himself to rule by decree. Chavez is out of line, and it’s up to the people of Venezuela to get him under control, just like it is up to the people of our country to get Bush under control.
Well, a democratically elected tyrant is still a tyrant. And a congress that votes to give the executive tyrannical powers has still created a tyrant. George Bush won two elections. That doesn’t make it right if he rules by decree. Whether he enacts anti-Mexican policies or not.
Oh, and blah, blah, blah, Germany, blah, blah, blah, Reichstag, blah, blah blah, election, blah, blah, blah, 1933, blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, what Lemur866 said.
Most tyrants have the backing of the people when they begin. After all, how else could they take control? A tyrant doesn’t have to be one who rules absolutely while the peope protest his rule. It can just as easily be one who rules absolutely as the people adore him.
Didn’t he recently shut down or threaten to shut down a television station because he didn’t like their reporting?
Well, if it was Fox, I can’t really complain.
In [url=]this thread I said “It’s too soon to tell” whether what Chavez is doing is a good model for democratic socialism, and I stand by that. Also, that I do not like his meddling with press freedom one little bit. But if you want to show Chavez is a tyrant, you’ll have to do better than this.
:rolleyes:
The problem with Bush, John, is not that he is a dictator – he isn’t, yet – but that he is malicious and an idiot.
Yep, it was called RCTV.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-avenez01jan01,0,5588091.story?coll=sfla-news-nationworld]
Chavez pulls TV license, sparks censorship cries
The link is from the Sun-Sentinel in Florida, but it’s a reprint of an article in the New York Times. He decided not to renew the stations license because he feels that it supported the failed coup in April of 2002.
Oh Christ Jesus, what else do you need? The guy just got himself the right to rule by decree. Do you honestly think he’s going to be the proverbial benevolent king?
It was “democratically elected” Reichstag that gave Hitler supreme power.
Right…only people with GOOD intentions are interested in having that kind of power.