How do you know he will?
I have to go to bed, finally, but my final comment is that the issue of whether Chavez is good or not isn’t the issue. The issue, which is what the OP was all about, I think, is whether you truly believe that the power of the executive should be very strictly limited, or whether you only believe that when the executive in question doesn’t agree with you.
To me, the answer is unequivocal. I trust the executive branch of government the way Vince Lombardi trusted rookies: like a grenade with the pin pulled.
I did and he did not.
The shenanigans of the opposition did give lot of cover to Chavez and were also responsible for the current state of affairs, For years I said the opposition needed to be smart and then finally say that some reforms of Chavez would remain, since in a country with a resource like oil there is no excuse to keep poor people down.
I’m trying to remember what biography was were I saw this in the US, but could not find it, it showed in a scene a representative (the future president of the biography) that approached a past current president to complain and to show a picture of a poor home under new power lines, he pointed at the president that “this poor bastard has no access to electricity and he lives next to a big power plant!” IIRC he was advancing legislation to make electricity more accessible in poor areas and it became a reality. The problem in Venezuela is that the opposition concentrated in demonizing Chavez and there was little to hint even a faint approval of projects to help the poor.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/latin_america/venezuela/opposition.html
There is a need for new leadership in Venezuela that understands that there is no turning back in some reforms, the problem I see so far is that the opposition to this day remain discredited for insisting their coup was a good thing, the condescension they exuded in the conservative Venezuelan press and TV at the time of the coup and after the failure of it is another reason why Chavez comes ahead, but not by much.
Was missing this bit:
:rolleyes: Yeah right, I guess the people were wrong in opposing Carmona’s coup.
I guess you are missing that I do not trust him on this latest move, the problem is that you are confusing a realization that the opposition so far is worse with a full support of Chavez.
Speaking of “having no relevance” …
No shit. That’s why they’re Chavez’ power base. Not the military, which in a military dictatorship like the ones you’re trying to compare his to sees the unwashed, obstreperous masses as an opponent, a herd to be kept in line, with forceful measures as required. Do you reallly expect him to start working against the people he’s worked so hard to get support from just because he was a general once? Do you see the Venezuelan military as supporting one of their former members in his populist demagogy, or more as a force that his external opponents (and we can all guess who that might be and why) could use to *overthrow * him (and put a military dictatorship of the more traditional style in place)
I told Frank and now I’ll tell you: Please. :rolleyes:
You’re both better than that.
Okay, time for you to go fuck off now.
Hollering “Godwin!” at me doesn’t invalidate the comparison. I certainly don’t believe Chavez is the next Hitler, I’m simply comparing the enabling acts, which is apt. You state correctly that it will take time to know what Chavez will do; that doesn’t relieve my concerns about this step.
"He will" menaing he will fail? Since such power grabbing has been going around for 150 years and it fails miserably more than 90% of the time, it’s a safe bet
Possibly the only “good” example was Pinochet. When Chile returned to democracy, even whe the Socialists won, they continued woth most of his economic policies.
“He will” meaning he will blame the yankees? EVERY time a socialist fails in latin america it’s the yanks’ doing.
A BIG problem is that the rich/upper class poeple in Latin America are incredibly idiotic, and even more short-term-thinking politically than poor one. They (we) have backed anyone for short-term personal gain, no matter what they did so whenever a Chavez-like guy appears, they don’t know what to do. Unlees latin american elites get their acts together and fight poverty BIG TIME, democratically elected guys, will grab the power legally and mess it up.
In Peru, for instance, in the 2006 election there were three candidates. Flores: right-wing, lawyer, open-market policies, perceived as the “canduidate of the rich”, was 3rd in the 2001 election. García: centre-left, former disastous president, 2 000 000% (that’s 2 million)inflation in his 1985-90 term, full-scale corruption, terrorism increased, tried nationalise banks, had to flee in disgrace, lost in the runoff in 2001. Humala, had organised a mysterious coup and failed, extra-left, army major, accused of torturing, promised natioalisation of everything, return to Inca glories, backd openly by Chavez. Flores, even though she was 1st in the polls until 2 months ran an incredibly bad campaign and was third. Rich people are almost never active inpolitics, no public endorsements. there’s a big guilt thing going around.
So, runoff between garcía and humala. Humala had a highly popular campaign that struck a chord in many Peruvians whose lives are hell anyway and that liked the promise of a better future by “taking back” the country form the imperialists (even if those same policies killed us 40 years before). Middle-class Peruvians had to bite a Big-Bertha-sized bullet and vote for García. garcía won.
The Venezuelan opposition, tried to shame Chavez by not competing in the parlament elections. Chaves couldn’t care less and won 100% of the seats.
Latin america is a horrible combo of dirt-poor people who can only think short-term, elite that only think short term and perosnal gain, and a “chicken without heads” middle class. when a Chavez guy appears, he can become absolute ruler even if he uses the constitution.
That’s exactly right. It’s not that everyone in the sole position of power will turn out to be the next Hitler, it’s that Hitler is a fabulous example of why it’s a bad idea to put someone in the sole position of power. No one wants to find out the hard way that it would have been better not to hand it over in the first place.
Well, I have to say I’m pretty amazed.
Maybe not. Ever since that military commissions vote in this country I’ve been feeling like most people really don’t value freedom much. Every day, the evidence keeps coming in that this really is true. I would never have thought it before, but it’s hard to ignore at this point.
Yep, you’re right Elvis; it’s time for me to fuck off. No use arguing with people who think the right to argue is a luxury that can be given up whenever some ass with a good rap comes along.
It looks to me that some people squaking about his actions being anti-democratic don’t have any idea of how Venezuela’s constitution has checks and balances in place to keep the president from abusing the powers of the Enabling Act.
Five per cent of registered voters doesn’t seem like that much of an obstacle to forcing a referendum. Plus it seems downright democratic to me. That is such a small number even a small oppostion can get the measure before the voters.
As a side note, Chávez, in response to Bush’s criticism said Bush is “more dangerous than a monkey with a razor blade”. 
Huey Long couldn’t have said it better.
We see enough vote manipulation in other third world countries to know it would be easy to quash legitimate dissent. Don’t give me this cock and bull.
As a side note, upon reading this quote I immediately went to the toilet and took a giant, stinky Chávez.
How about I just give you the cock?
Sure thing, needledick. But be warned, that last Chávez was pretty nasty.
When Chavez starts blaming all of Venezuela’s problems on an ethnic minority whom he will proceed to round up into death camps, and turns the country into a military state which he then uses to invade Guyana for more lebensraum, then you’ll have a valid comparison. Until then, there are far better analogies you could use.
Godwin’s Rule exists for very good reasons, ya know, not least of which is to deter the facile insertion of fatuous emotionalism into serious discussions.
And beside the point. It isn’t our decision to make. Neither of us is a poor descamisado or campesino or whatever the fuck a Venezuelan without a share of oil money and resenting that fact are called. The spirit of democracy can be expressed in a lot of ways besides voting. Hell, even the USSR under Stalin had elections.
Fine. I prefer to concentrate my concerns of this nature over the assertion of “unitary executive” authority by an elected President in our *own * country.
pantom, you *should * know better. Too bad you obviously don’t. Now *stay * fucked off, will you, there’s a good lad. :rolleyes:
Listen, you useless waste of time and space: cursing like a sailor only makes you look like the brutal, ignorant idiot you are. Also, if you want me on your ass, keep it up. I intend to ride you until you’re sick of it now.
First off, good luck with fellating Latin American generals leading countries with nothing going for them but a narrow resource base, a sure formula for continued impoverishment and ruin. If dictatorships by ignorant generals and their even more ignorant supporters could produce prosperity, peace, and freedom, Latin America would be far richer than the U.S., and have middle-class democracies up and down the continent, rather than repeat defaulters like Argentina, the continuing dependence of Chile on the price of copper to stay afloat, and general basket cases like Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia.
There is one country doing well and developing nicely: Brazil. They’re a democracy, and they aren’t weighed down by some stupid general getting his rocks off. Where, exactly, comes this need to apologize for militarists? Certainly it isn’t based on any real-world evidence that they can do anything other than murder and dictate their way to infamy.
I don’t see how you’re using it correctly here. If comparing the enabling acts is not a valid comparison to Hitler, what could ever be?
However, as CBEscapee has shown that Venezuelans can annul Chavez’ actions by a means which certainly did not exist in Germany, the comparison is not actually valid, and I withdraw it. I still believe it’s appropriate to have made it.
OK, I’ll keep it on my list of things to mildly worry about; you’ll keep it on your list of things not to worry about; and we’ll both continue to worry about Bush. That works.
Oh, all right. Suppose I told you “Yes, Chavez’ assumption of power is exactly like Hitler’s”. What would follow from that? What would have been the next link in your chain of reasoning? In short, what point *did * you hope to make with that?
pantom, there is no need to reply to your strawmen with any respect at all. What you’re complaining about has no connection at all with anything I’ve said. I know you’re better than this; I’ve seen better from you before. But if this is your current chosen level of discourse, the *only * appropriate response is, indeed “Fuck off”. Now fuck off.
That there is no telling what will happen next when a leader is given power to rule by decree. Reducing government to the whim of one person is dangerous, extremely dangerous. The history of 1930s Germany is certainly pertinent to that point.