Hugo Chavez - Picking on the Wrong Puppy

Chavez reminds me of Howard Dean.  Both have athelete's tongue!

Chavez, unfortunately, is ruler of a "tinpot" regime with a lot of oil. What a lucky break: You have a state with an abundance of oil and a dictator with grandiose pretensions of his worth. It was only a few months ago that his opposers wanted to usurp him. I predict Chavez, big mouth or not, will go the South American way: Deep in a river with a concrete-filled oildrum wrapped around his South American neck.

Chavez, unfortunately, is ruler of a "tinpot" regime with a lot of oil. What a lucky break: You have a state with an abundance of oil and a dictator with grandiose pretensions of his worth.

Chavez is a dictator now? Uh, he has been democratically elected twice and survived a recall, with large margins of victory, much larger than George Bush ever got. And if I were a gambling man, I would be willing to bet that if Chavez is still in power and not overthrown in a coup, there will be a free and fair election in 2006 and Chavez will win.

Chavez is just trying to do what's best for the people of his country, not the foreign owned businesses operating in Venezuela. And that is why the corporate owned media hate him.

I predict Chavez, big mouth or not, will go the South American way: Deep in a river with a concrete-filled oildrum wrapped around his South American neck.

I agree.  And like I said, the CIA will be implicated (no evidence, but it sounds good), and Bush will get the blame.

Chavez is just trying to do what's best for the people of his country, not the foreign owned businesses operating in Venezuela. And that is why the corporate owned media hate him.

There is doing what is best for one's country, and then there is pissing off your friends, and not influencing anyone.  He has taken the later road.  There is no reason to piss off Mexico and Fox, possibly the most influential ally he could have in his war against the US. (War of words and actions - not overt war).

You can call him anything you want.  Smart will be very hard to prove given his latest rants and paranoia.

Chavez is a dictator now? Uh, he has been democratically elected twice and survived a recall, with large margins of victory, much larger than George Bush ever got.

So was Hitler.  You want to call him a saviour for Germany, go right ahead. (Disclaimer: Hitler was only elected once - but that was all it took),

"Chavez is a dictator now? Uh, he has been democratically elected twice and survived a recall, with large margins of victory, much larger than George Bush ever got. And if I were a gambling man, I would be willing to bet that if Chavez is still in power and not overthrown in a coup, there will be a free and fair election in 2006 and Chavez will win.

It's so ugly when you feign ignorance. He suspended the legislature of his nation in order to draft dozens of his own laws, he and his cronies drafted the new Consitution, he has made it illegal to insult or accuse him or his flunkies of anything; a crime which extends to the foreign press and election observers. He summarily dismissed the results of a union election, leading to 500,000 people marching against him, during which time he was targeted by a coup.

I could go on for hours, frankly, but it isn't going to matter. latour likes fascists in sheep's clothing. He consistantly praises men cut from the cloth of Bolivar. He loves Allende, Mohammad Mossadeq, etc. All socialists wrecking their nation and exerting dictatorial control, but they pretend to be socialists so the easily fooled like latour eats them up...

The case revolves around the conflict that arises when nationalized assets become privatized. That is what Chavez complains about. For more on free trade two aka deep integration click here Link. Right now it must be stated that all regional assets like land, resources and water become a shared problem. For a developing country, the arguement is that this is one problem they do not need.

Remind me to shit kick Paul Martin if he puts water as a shared resource.

I could go on for hours

I am interested.  WHy dont you write an article?  I am sure Latour would not like it, but I am interested.

The case revolves around the conflict that arises when nationalized assets become privatized.

How does that involve Vincente Fox?  I am not following you here.  Fox did not slam Chavez, he just promoted the "Free Americas" deal.

"I am interested. WHy dont you write an article? I am sure Latour would not like it, but I am interested."

coincidentally, I already have, a couple of months ago.

coincidentally, I already have, a couple of months ago.

Excellent! I thought you had more since then. Still a Bakerstreet masterpiece tho!

Thanks. I'd like to have a bunch of new stuff, but, honestly, Chavez prevents a lot of new news from getting out by threatening dissent with prison time. People fleeing to the US to get away from his tyrrany have tales to tell, though. I prefer more "hard" news sources, but when a government starts threatening the press, you don't get as much.

The pipe dream of people like latour is the idea of "businesses owned by the people", which is, frankly, idiotic. These industries aren't owned by "the people", they are owned by "the government" and whatever sawed off fascist is in charge at the time.

Enevitably they stifle their opposition and oppose their beloved "people" when they are opposed, as Chavez did when the people didn't give him union election results he didn't like.

Mexico does not have as many nationalized assets as Venezuala does. Chavez could no longer rule and double dip from his oil fund and be part of an idea such as this. So by accepting Nafta + Mexico exerts more pressure on the remaining south american countries including Chavez's. I have heard many times where Hugo spoke of unifying all of south america. He had proposed an idea last year of forming a trade block similar to the EU. Again NAFTA + puts that idea out to pasture. Either way don't expect kind words from Hugo.

The pipe dream of people like latour is the idea of "businesses owned by the people", which is, frankly, idiotic. These industries aren't owned by "the people", they are owned by "the government" and whatever sawed off fascist is in charge at the time.

You know the stupidity of that?  IN a capitalistic society, the PEOPLE do own the Business!  I own parts of Apple, Dell, IBM, and many other companies!  In a Socialist utopia, the people own nothing!  But the despots do own it all!

Again NAFTA + puts that idea out to pasture. Either way don't expect kind words from Hugo.

But that is what "Free America" is!  Just not under his thumb!  Indeed, it is not under anyone's!  Some Americans hate it, some Canadians hate it and most Mexicans love it.  Why?  because the cheaper the labor, the easier to trade.  America and Canada have had to move on to more higher skilled exports (and for the most part seceded), using the cheap imports.  Does Chavez mean we should not trade with any nation that does not abide our going wages (a very Union and left idea here)?  If so, then that is again cutting off your nose to spite your face.

he is getting good at that.

So was Hitler. You want to call him a saviour for Germany, go right ahead. (Disclaimer: Hitler was only elected once - but that was all it took),

So Godwin's rule only applies to liberals?

And Chavez is like Hitler because he was elected and isn't out of office yet? And Bush, Paul Martin, Tony Blair, John Howard, Jacques Chirac, Vicente Fox, Ricardo Lagos, Angela Merkel, Lula, etc, etc, etc, are different how?

I'll keep this in mind for whenever I feel like calling Bush a Nazi. He was elected, Hitler was elected, Hitler is evil, therefore Bush is evil?

I could go on for hours, frankly, but it isn't going to matter. latour likes fascists in sheep's clothing. He consistantly praises men cut from the cloth of Bolivar. He loves Allende, Mohammad Mossadeq, etc. All socialists wrecking their nation and exerting dictatorial control, but they pretend to be socialists so the easily fooled like latour eats them up...

Had Allende been alive, there would have been elections in Chile in 1976. But there weren't for two main reasons: The legitimate, constitutional, democratically elected President (Allende) was dead, and Pinochet became dictator and pretty much wiped his ass with the constitution and Chilean democracy.

The new constitution was been approved with 71.78% of the vote and the coup was defeated due to a popular uprising about a day later.

Still, I think sometimes Chavez says things that can go a bit too far or make him look bad, like when he called Bush an asshole. This is just one of those things. It's not like Bush never said anything stupid.

"Still, I think sometimes Chavez says things that can go a bit too far or make him look bad, like when he called Bush an asshole."

The man makes dissent punishable by prison time, and the worst criticism you can come up with is saying things that go a bit too far? Just the other day he tossed out aid workers that were helping the poor natives in part of his country. Why? Because he thought they were CIA spies. He has accepted "security experts" from Cuba to help him, do you think you can really trust election results there?

No offense, latour, but damn, you aren't this blind.

most Mexicans love it

i don't know how or why you've come to that conclusion. mexican farmers can't afford to compete with the us' subsidzed agricorps. wiping out family farms in mexico means more mexicans jumping the border to find work here.
at the same time, china's doing its best to edge mexico outta its normal us markets for manufactured goods.

because the cheaper the labor, the easier to trade.

At first glance I would agree with you. But opening up closed grain markets in the americas would devastate them because of the current subsidization in agriculture. When most of the market is geared to selling food and then is undercut.... well you get the idea. The arguement is about food sovereignty. In all three countries NAFTA has undermined people’s food sovereignty by enshrining privileged treatment for predatory multinational agribusiness cartels over the rights of farmers and consumers. Mexico’s agricultural economy is in the midst of its worst crisis ever with 1.5 million small peasant farmers being forced from the land since the passage of NAFTA. The increased vertical integration of North American markets under NAFTA has further consolidated market power into the hands of agribusiness, favouring centralized agricultural-industrial production over decentralized farmer-peasant production. So in short, the low tech farmer always loses. The end result is a destabilized food supply in an agrarian-driven country. Canada can weather this storm, mexico mmmmmmm no so much. The developing americas? Hell no.

I admit I don't have the magic silver bullet to trade problems but the best defense against a subsidized market is to isolate oneself from it.

Also the document is very vague on whose policies get implemented on immigration and border security. Right now we can assume the american model as the default (though I know Canadian immigration will contest this)

So Godwin's rule only applies to liberals? And Chavez is like Hitler because he was elected and isn't out of office yet? And Bush, Paul Martin, Tony Blair, John Howard, Jacques Chirac, Vicente Fox, Ricardo Lagos, Angela Merkel, Lula, etc, etc, etc, are different how?

I never said that.  He merely said that Chavez was elected by huge margins.  I was pointing out that a lot of people have been so elected, and one would not call them benevolent rulers.  You missed the point again.

I'll keep this in mind for whenever I feel like calling Bush a Nazi. He was elected, Hitler was elected, Hitler is evil, therefore Bush is evil?

You might try following the thread and what is written instead of inserting your own words into what is not written.  You are very bad about that.

The man makes dissent punishable by prison time, and the worst criticism you can come up with is saying things that go a bit too far? Just the other day he tossed out aid workers that were helping the poor natives in part of his country. Why?

Because he is a kook!  And while he is not a despot YET, he is on the road to it.  His paranoia is pushing him there.

i don't know how or why you've come to that conclusion. mexican farmers can't afford to compete with the us' subsidzed agricorps. wiping out family farms in mexico means more mexicans jumping the border to find work here. at the same time, china's doing its best to edge mexico outta its normal us markets for manufactured goods.

Another useless diatribe.  Now try backing that up with some facts.

Kingbee fact: Nafta caused illegal immigration. Yea right!

The arguement is about food sovereignty. In all three countries NAFTA has undermined people’s food sovereignty by enshrining privileged treatment for predatory multinational agribusiness cartels over the rights of farmers and consumers. Mexico’s agricultural economy is in the midst of its worst crisis ever with 1.5 million small peasant farmers being forced from the land since the passage of NAFTA.

SO you would keep Mexico poor and agrarian just to suit your purpose? While thousands of manufacturing jobs are flowing to Mexico, and improving their standard of living, but to keep them backwards in the 19th century to support an inefficient system is more important?

That is very jingoistic to suggest we must keep the country poor so that some farmers do not lose their jobs.  Guess what?  Millions of farmers and buggy whipe makers have lost their job in the last 150 years in America.  WHy?  Because we found more efficient ways to produce the goods.  Then countries like Mexico came and took those jobs away.  Did the US crumble?  NO they went higher tech!  And guess what?  Our Standard of living went up as well, and all those out of work farmers?  They got a job a the mills and then in the service industries.