Who's honesty and integrity do you respect more: Carter vs Chavez

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Poll question: Who's honesty and integrity do you respect more: Carter vs Chavez

[AP]

1. Why does this have to be either-or? They both have integrity.

I'll tell you one thing though. These two guys had opposite opinions about privatization.

Chavez nationalized the oil industry in both name and in fact (it was publicly owned for the private benefit of the oligarchs until after the coup attempt). Carter got the privatization and deregulation ball rolling in a way that would make many Republicans proud. http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=1919&t=heskett

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. It doesn't have to be. If you don't like choosing, don't vote. nt

[el_gato]

4. His comments are accurate though

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. Actually those comments were totally offtopic.

The poll is about honesty and integrity, not some DUers opinion about privatization or nationalization.


The news out of Venezuela is so stridently biased towards one side or the other that I am reserving my judgement about Chavez until the facts become more clear.

[AP]

11. I was saying you can't compare them on integrity. But you can compare them

on, say, their feelings about privatization and deregulation, because in that area, it's actually quantifiable and they both have a clear record.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. I understood your post, that;s why I said it was off-topic.

You could compare Chavez and Carter on height -- it's actually quantifiable and they both have a clear record -- except it has nothing to with the topic at hand.

[AP]

35. If you don't understand the subtleties, I'm not surprised you don't...

...understand what's going on in VZ.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. I understand you perfectly, your attempt to insult me is not impressive.

Your post was off-topic because it was on a different topic than the subject of the discussion.

[AP]

51. If I started talking about the wind and the sea, that would be off topic.

I'm not sure that comparing Carter and Chavez was off topic.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

62. I understand that you will never admit your post was off-topic.

That would be an admission of fallibility.

[AP]

67. Even if one does post off topic, I wouldn't characterize it as "failure"

Who's off topic now, btw? What are we talking about now? My personality? That certainly isn't on topic?

Does that make you a failure?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

75. I have no interest in you personally, nor in your opinion of me.

I pointed out that you made an off-topic post. That is all.

[AP]

77. Then why did are you talking about my capacity for admitting failure?

That's a personality issue. And you brought it up. And it's off topic. And being on topic seems to be an important issue for you.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

79. I don't need to. You are putting on a demonstration for us.

[AP]

81. Right-o.

[Vladimir]

70. You do see the irony, don't you? n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

74. No, only you are capable of that, the rest of us are idiots.

:eyes:

[AP]

78. "Don't put words in my mouth" -- don't you say that?

Yet that's what you're doing here.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

82. What words did I supposedly put in your mouth?

I did mock what you said, if you have a problem with that, too bad.

[AP]

84. You say Vlad's calling everyone an idiot when he didn't.

You're putting words in his mouth.

In another post when someone ACCURATELY characterized your argument, you said "don't put words in my mouth" -- ie, "don't characterize my argument."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

85. No, I said

"No, only you are capable of that, the rest of us are idiots."

That's what I said. I didn't say that was someone else's opinion. I said what I said.

[Vladimir]

89. Actually his response

only heightened the irony... ha! Pa da pa pa pa... I'm lovin' it!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

104. But you are going to have to explain it to me

because I'm too stupid to understand the 'irony' without your help. Please explain, thank you.

[Vladimir]

107. I wonder if I should

its funnier this way...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

112. Pretty please

with sugar on top?

Please share your wisdom with us.


Demonstrate your superior rhetoric.


If you want to show that you have the ability to say something clever, this is your chance.


Or, you could just pretend you already have.

[Vladimir]

118. I would but I am too busy laughing n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

121. That's not true.

It is a false statement.


You may have a reason for pretending you've already said something clever, but in the act of posting, you showed that the reason you give is false.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

108. If I may. I think it's an inside joke. n/t

[Zuni]

180. I agree

I think Jimmy Carter is as honest as a politician gets.
And any thying I hear about Chavez is that he is either a wanne be dictator or a savior. I'll wait until something objective and less polarized comes out before if I decide that I like or trust Chavez.

[AP]

209. Choose Knowlege. Take an active part in your education.

Don't sit back and wait for the truth to come to you.

You'll have to sift through a lot of BS from NPR, CNN and the rest while you're sitting back in the barcolounger with your finger on the remote.

[Judi Lynn]

210. AP, you couldn't be more appropriate.

I just started reading this thread very late, and am so pleased you mentioned a fundamental need.

People MUST take the initiative and not simply wait for what someone tells them on tv, or what they read even in the NY Times, which dropped the ball on Venezuela severely, and had two reporters quitting due to their admitted alliance with the coup supporters in Venezuela.

The ONLY way to find out what the truth of the matter is is to get off one's duff and start, by God, doing some research. Time's a'wastin'. Years later they'll look back on their clueless posts with shame, if they don't.

[htuttle]

2. I trust no-one unconditionally in all circumstances

It would have to depend on the topic at hand.

For example, Carter has a lot of integrity -- on the other hand, he had Zbigniew Brzezinski as a National Security Advisor... :shrug:

[Vladimir]

6. Well lets see here

one of them has been overthrown in a coup, and when he got back to power, instead of executing his opponents he has let them walk free and continue to campaign against him.

The other one... goes fishing with prominent opposition figures in a country whose elections he is meant to be supervising.

Tough choice, no?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. History will have it's own judgement.

:hi:

[Vladimir]

8. I don't doubt it

history has judged American intervention in South America pretty consistantly...

:hi:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Does that mean Chavez is honest? LOL

The bad that the US did in the past -- means that Chavez is honest?


Because Stalin was a brutal dictator - does that mean Tony Blair is honest?

do you know what 'non sequitur' means? lol

[Vladimir]

10. Just establishing

a pattern of behaviour, which is being repeated now...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. You are repeating a non sequitur as if it has some validity. It doesn't.

It is an example of flawed reasoning, so I guess it has some validity in that it lessens your credibility, but other than that I don't see a point to your 'argument'.

[Vladimir]

13. Maybe we are working at cross purposes here

I am not trying to prove Chavez's credibility - I am trying to explain to you why I have a very dim view of any US involvement in South America. The only statement I made which directly related to Chavez's credibility was the one about his actions after the coup.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. This thread is about Chavez's integrity vs Carter's integrity

If you want to start a thread about US involvement in South America, go for it.

[Alerter_]

55. interesting reading your responses to this

all heat and no light

[Feanorcurufinwe]

63. Where's the light in your response?

I mean, I get the message - you don't like me. Do you have anything else to add?

[Alerter_]

69. I don't dislike you

I've just read a lot of these posts in the last hour, and you seem to be pretty consistent. So I guess I'm the only one enlightened by my observation.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

73. In that case you aren't stating your point very well. What is it?

[Alerter_]

no, I'm not

my apologies. In hindsight, I should not have bothered. Sorry.

[Zuni]

181. you have a good point

This is not a thread concerning South American history and politics. We could talk about 100 years of American involvement, like Teddy Roosevelt on Panama, or Wilson with Santa Cruz in 1914 or Lyndon Johnson invading the Dominican Republic in 1965. But this would have no relevance to who has more integrity, Jimmy Carter or Hugo Chavez.

I go with Carter.

[debsianben]

52. Missing the point

Jimmy Carter's current activities in Venezuela are quite blatantly part of the many-fronted US intervention there, with the goal of unseating the democratically elected government in the interests of corporate America and its local business partners. (Which is, by the way, why Carter's long and disgusting history of support for privatizaton and deregulation is highly relevant here.) Given that he is openly playing that role, claiming that he has "integrity" is laughable.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. Yes you are missing the point.

The question is whether Jimmy Carter or Hugo Chavez is more credible. You have weighed in with your opinion, however, as the poll results show, that opinion is far from unanimous.

That is the point.

[debsianben]

71. Huh?

"The question is whether Jimmy Carter or Hugo Chavez is more credible."

And I was explaining how Carter's politics (privatization, America's role in the world, etc.) were relevant to that issue when it came to his "credibility" as a nuetral arbiter between the democratically elected government of Venezuela and those who think that democracy is bad for profits. How is that not relevant to your question?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

72. You are pretending that only people who agree with your views are credible

but that isn't true.

Also I don't believe your implied characterization of Carter's views is accurate.

[Darranar]

83. No politician is honest...

national leaders even less so.

[Bombtrack]

36. Carter never attempted a coup himself either

I never really read how having a coup attempted against you is a sign of good character

[Vladimir]

39. No but certain founding fathers did

carrying out a coup is in and of itself no bad thing...

[Bombtrack]

40. Oh but when it happens to him he's practically infallable to people here

cause some of his opposition is right-wing.

You know I also read that alot of right-wingers are against skinning babies alive, we need to start a pro-live baby skinning website.

[Vladimir]

41. Maybe that's because

we realise its him or the opposition and we prefer left-wingers? :shrug:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

44. And some of us prefer, for example, counting votes.

Even if the guy on 'our side' might lose.

[Vladimir]

45. Who said anything about counting votes?

Chavez has a track record of success at coups and democratic elections alike. His opponents, on the other hand, have failed in both repeatedly.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. There is a referendum petition challenge going on in Venezuela now

perhaps you've heard? :eyes:

[Vladimir]

47. And I was talking about coups

and what they say about the various actors involved in them...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

48. You made a vacuous comment about 'Who said anything about counting votes?'

when in fact this is entirely about counting votes. :wtf:

[Vladimir]

49. Because you responded to

my post about coups by going on about votes. The vacuous post is therefore thine.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

50. This is about counting votes.

I'm not interested in insulting you, nor am I interested in the insults you fling at me.

[debsianben]

59. Signatures are not votes...

No one has accused Chavez of failing to win his original election or reelection by large margins. Counting votes is not at issue. Counting petition signatures is. Venezuelan election law is actually far more lenient than most state laws on the subject in the USA at this point, and all the Venezuelans want is to enforce existing laws against fraud. There is abundant evidence from international observers both of out-and-out signature fraud and, on a large scale, of employers forcing their employees to sign recall petitions.

In America, you get your whole page of signatures thrown out if a single signature on the page is too "illegible" to match to a registered voter. In Venzuela, the government is merely demanding that the coup-plotting opposition re-gather signatures in cases where they turn in whole pages in the same handwriting.

Let's face it: the ones in this situation who support the "one person, one vote" principle are the Chavistas. The ones who tried to carry out a military coup and who are trying to recall the legitimately, democratically elected President by means of fraud and dirty tricks are the opposition and their American Republican patrons (for whome Jimmy Carter is a transperant shill.)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

61. "Jimmy Carter is a trasparent shill" for American Republicans.

OK :eyes:

[debsianben]

68. "in this situation"

It doesn't mean that he agrees with them on every issue. He is very good on some issues. But when it comes to Latin America and Venezuela in particular, he shares a lot of the worldview of the Repukes on such issues as privatization, spheres of influence, etc., and is TRANSPERANTLY shilling for their "regime change" effort (e.g. pretending to be a nuetral arbiter and spending weekends fishing with leaders of the recall campaign, etc.)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

76. You are welcome to your opinion, even one that is so obviously wrong.

Please continue with the false characterizations and smears of Carter - they do a better job of revealing the bias inherent in your viewpoint than anything I could say.

[debsianben]

80. Duh

Obviously I'm "entitled to my opinion." That goes without saying. I don't respond to your posts by saying that you have a right to your opinion, because its a waste of bandwith at best and high-handed at worst. I don't think you need me to tell you that.

I notice you don't seem to be capable of producing any evidence or argument for your view other than continually telling people "you're wrong"(with no explanation) and vaguely referencing what a saint Carter is. I mean, you've commented again and again and again in this thread, and let your anti-Chavez bias out loud and clear, but you have yet to pony up with any arguments for your points of view. Frankly, I think this is a "put up or shut up" scenario. Please explain WHY you think Chavez lacks credibility or is an evil dictator or whatever.

Could it be that your failure to come right out and argue for your point of view directly comes out of embarassment that you are clearly on the side of the Bush administration's continued attempts to unseat a democratically elected left-wing government?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

86. My view is that

Jimmy Carter is a generally honest man that I respect. I don't believe he is a 'shill for American Republicans' or that he is a 'friend to fascists'.

Hugo Chavez is a foreign politician that I don't feel I know a lot about, because the news from Venezuela is so clearly biased either for or against him, I don't think I am getting an accurate picture.

I posted a poll question to measure whose integrity and honesty DUers respect more - Hugo Chavez or Jimmy Carter. At the time of this writing, 55% voted for Jimmy Carter, 45% voted for Hugo Chavez. So it seems that the idea that Jimmy Carter is honest and has integrity is not really such a fringe viewpoint after all.


Your imaginings about the opinions you think I have are just plain wrong. I believe the things I've said I believe, not the BS you want to put in my mouth.

[Vladimir]

90. You really ought to work in PR

you would earn a fortune. Being able to spin a 45% vote against Carter (one of the most widely liked Democrats ever, on a Democratic partisan board) as proving your point... man that takes style.

I take my hat off to you sir.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

91. Puerto Rico is too far of a commute nt

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

92. Good! We don't want you here.

Couldn't help it. It was too easy. :evilgrin:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

94. I've never understood why some folks on DU like to insult other DUers.

I just don't get it. Is it pleasurable in some way to spread ill will?

[Vladimir]

96. Me too

I've never understood why so many people here feel the need to insult my intelligence.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

98. Because they are evil commie/fascist tyrant loving bastards. Just a guess.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

101. I'd re-think that career in comedy if I were you.

The jokes usually work better if they make people laugh.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

103. Was it as bad a your attempts at journalism?

It's already too late. Seinfeld College doesn't give refunds.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

114. Still waiting for the joke.

Wake me up if you think of one.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

116. I don't think anyone could wake you up if they tried.

Thanks for playing though.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

146. Look we arlready know you want to insult me.

Why don't you try surprising us by offering something with more substance than insults and schoolyard taunts?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

149. I know you are, but what am I?

You're a big boy I'm sure you can take a joke or two. If not there's nothing I can do about it.

A lot of people feel you started this thread as an insult to their intelligence. Why don't you surprise them them with something meaningful? Do it for the children.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

152. This post

was made to annoy you. My secondary purpose is to get you to respond with another attempt to get the last word. Will I succeed? Do I care?

lol

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

153. DAMN YOU! Can't...help ....self......must reply...............n/t

[Vladimir]

154. Damn you both! I will have the last word here!!! n/t

[Forkboy]

155. This is a riot

you're harping on someone for trying to get the last word in when you had to PM me the other day just so you could get the last word in.

Unreal :crazy:

[Vladimir]

156. Noooooooo! Must.... have.... last... word.... !!! n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

159. Kick

in the ass.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

158. Glad you are enjoying it.

This is good, managed to get two foolish infantile responses instead of just one.



I could make up lies about you, but I will refrain.

[Vladimir]

160. Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies... n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

161. nt

[Forkboy]

162. Nice try Fean,but you really dont want to go there

Not only is the PM still in my inbox but I sent it along to EarlG as well.

So,what was this about me lying again?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

164. lol

you can do whatever you want, including make a weak and pathetic attempt to bait me into breaking DU rules.

So, what about it?

[Forkboy]

165. If you decide to break the rules that your decision

I dont control you.I can tell from experience that the "he made me do it" defense wont fly to well with the mods,but you're welcome to try.

Now,would you care to apologize for accusing me of lying now?

What about it?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

167. I apologize for being immature enough to respond to your flamebait.

Maybe someday I'll grow up and stop wasting my time with you, who knows.


I've never heard you express any idea other than dislike of me. Perhaps there is more to you than that, but I don't know if I will ever find out.

[Name removed]

168. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

170. Please

try not to insult people's intelligence any further.You clearly implied that I was lying about your PM.You did what Bush tries to do,deflect an honest criticism by acting as if the other person is lying.

I could make up lies about you

I'm sure you could and it wouldn't suprise me.However,be that as it may,I most certainly wasn't lying about the PM you sent me.

Now,you amply demonstrated that you simply must have the last word (we both know just how far you'll take it to do so).However,I would kindly ask you not to PM me again with your lackluster putdowns of both myself and the mods.

it is a waste of my time to respond to your posts

I simply took it as a hopeful sign.Thank you for letting me take it the way I want.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

172. It's simple

your characterization was false.

The rules don't allow it to be stated more bluntly, or to generalize about your veracity.

[Forkboy]

174. Now I have two PM's from you

and so does EarlG.

My veracity is excellent.Your is questionable,and you keep giving me all the proof I,and any other interested parties,will need.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

175. So what?

You can send my PMs to EarlG -- so what? Why would I give a fuck? I'm allowed to send PMs.

[Forkboy]

176. Not harrasing PM's

and I consider them harrassing.They are unasked for.You have no right to send insults to other DUers.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

177. LOL if a PM is 'unasked for' it is harassment?

It is another false characterization to say that I sent you an 'insult'. It is simply not true.

[Forkboy]

178. Yes,it is

Isn't it funny how the only way you get the last word
From: Feanorcurufinwe
Date: May 28th 2004
the thread is locked? It must be frustrating to always have to be saved by the 'thread nanny' lol.


You crack me up
From: Feanorcurufinwe
Date: Jun 03rd 2004
Your comments try so hard to 'zing' me, but they never seem to hit the mark!

[Forkboy]

179. Also

Now that I've made perfectly clear that your PMs are unwanted I trust you'll not be foolish enough to try again.

If you have a problem with when a thread is locked,or when you think that the last word is so important that you feel the need to take it private,please send it to a mod instead of me.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

183. OK, now that I know you consider all PMs to be harassment

I won't send any, lol. Wouldn't want to hurt your feelings or anything.

[Forkboy]

187. My feelings are fine and unhurt

I just hate insipid PMs :shrug:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

189. Doesn't look like that from here.

Looks like you can't stand the heat, so you asked for the stove to be turned off.

Don't worry, I promise I won't send any more messages that might upset you.

LOL

[Forkboy]

190. That's ok

I can live with your opinions about me.

BTW,it takes more than typing LOL to be funny.

Goodnight Sam.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

191. Well, the reality is, you got upset because I sent you a PM

and went crying to EarlG that I 'harassed' you. If it wasn't your feelings that were hurt, what was it?

By the way, I thought everyone on DU knew this, but when someone types 'LOL' they aren't trying to be funny -- they are showing that they are Laughing Out Loud. Probably at you. It's such a simple concept I'm surprised I have to explain it. LOL

[Forkboy]

194. I've never understood why some folks on DU like to insult other DUers.

I just don't get it. Is it pleasurable in some way to spread ill will?

you said that.you're gonna set a record for hypocrisy in one thread.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

195. Sometimes it is just a defense mechanism.

A natural response to months of off-topic sniping and content-free posts.

One thing I never claimed and never will, is that I never act hypocritically, or that I never contradict myself, or that I never make a mistake. I am flawed. I fully admit that.


But the fact remains, I sent you a PM, which got you upset and you whined to EarlG about it. Sorry, I had no idea I was dealing with someone who's feelings were hurt so easily. I won't send you any more PMs because for you to even receive a message -- regardless of it's content -- from me would be a level of harrassment that you can't take.

[Forkboy]

198. Now you're getting it

[Feanorcurufinwe]

201. No, I got it months ago.

It's the same tedious unimaginative sniping now as it was then. Come up with something new and then I'll 'get it' anew.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

182. lol

as anyone can see, the 'private' messages I sent to you, (do you know what 'private' means, by the way) don't in any way break the rules. If you consider that harassment -- well harassment is sometimes in the eye of the beholder, lol.

I have to admit though, I do think it is funny how you try so hard to 'zing' me and continually fail to hit the mark.

[Forkboy]

184. Yes,you're right

well harassment is sometimes in the eye of the beholder, lol.

So please do not do so again.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

185. How many times are you going to ask me?

Stop begging, it's degrading.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

193. How many times are you going to kick this thread?

Talk about degrading....

[Feanorcurufinwe]

196. Thanks for another opportunity

you da man!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

197. You bet.

I'm here for ya.

Edit for taste.

[Vladimir]

199. 200 posts!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

200. You say you are there for me

but I have the feeling, eventually you will stop kicking the thread. Oh well, all good things come to an end. I won't hold it against you.

[Forkboy]

202. kick

[Feanorcurufinwe]

204. kick

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

203. I'll kick once more...

...just to highlight the degradation.

Farewell.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

206. I gotta wonder.

How many times you've made that promise ("Farewell") only to break it.

[Bombtrack]

53. Actually I prefur non-authoritarian Third-Way which much of his opposition

is composed of. The half, give or take,of his country that is angry with him and wants new leadership for among other things imploding their economy did not collectively try to depose him.

Sorry if I don't believe it's fine and dandy for everyone in Venezuela with any property whatsoever to lose 80 percent of their wealth no matter how hard you've worked for it.

[Vladimir]

57. I would appreciate some links

which demonstrate that this:

everyone in Venezuela with any property whatsoever to lose 80 percent of their wealth no matter how hard you've worked for it.

is Chavez's policy position.

[Bombtrack]

93. No it's his RECORD

Do you want to dispute that the Bolivar has lost 80 percent of it's value?

Also iss that the only thing you take issue with of what I'm saying. My main point is that it's very frustrating dealing with people who can only see in black and white and believe the only people who have a problem with Chavez could be or are fascists

[Vladimir]

95. I don't see how the currency devaluating

targets a particular group of people, or could ever be described as a government platform. Hmm. Yeah, I've heard that often...

'Vote Labour! For an 80% devaluation in the currency!'

I don't think everyone who has a problem with Chavez is a fascist. I have a problem with Chavez - he is far too nice to fascists for my liking.

[Judi Lynn]

211. I've NEVER seen an article discussing this destruction of Vene.'s economy

Looks as if you haven't, either.

Where ARE those links these guys should provide to give merit to their assertions? I've NEVER seen one non-comical article they could provide yet.

By the way, there's an interesting thread bemildred posted at LBN:

Venezuela's Maza Says Economy May Expand as Much as 12% in year.

June 2 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuela's economy will
probably surge almost twice as fast as the
government has forecast this year, as oil production
and consumer demand rebound from a record
recession, a central banker said.

Gross domestic product probably will grow
between 10 percent and 12 percent for the year,
and growth in the second quarter is likely to be in
the range of 12 percent to 14 percent, said Domingo
Maza, one of seven central bank directors.

Maza, 81, said his comments didn't reflect the
official views of the central bank. The government's
official forecast for GDP growth for this year is 6.5
percent.

---

Inflation will likely slow to between 18 percent and 22 percent this year from 27 percent last year, Maza said.
The bank's official inflation forecast is between 24 percent and 26 percent.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=598352

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

58. Is that why they disolved the supreme court, national assembly,

the office of the ombudsman, etc, etc? They also had the Policia Metropolitana shoot protestors on the streets. And of course there's always this guy.

Last October, the tape of a conversation between Ortega and one of his allies in Venezuela, revealed a plan to prepare a "civil rebellion" with media support against Chavez. "We are going to need about 10, 12 or 15 years of dictatorship to rescue the country, I have no problem with that," said Ortega.




http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/print.php?newsno=1240

BTW where does that 80% figure come from?

[Bombtrack]

97. Well it certainly doesn't come from the Chavista shill website that you

pro-Chavez DUers continually regurgitate his talking points, or his propaganda film.

The 80 percent figure comes from several sources, one of them being the Boston Globe. It's just laughable that you dispute it instead of actually venturing outside the news realm of the hard-left/anti-globalist/anti-US horde-think counterculturalists for some relative objectivity.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vladimir]

102. Can I be in your horde?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

105. Sure. We'll rape their Corporatist Right wing villages and

pillage their women.

[Vladimir]

109. And devaluate the currency by 80% every year n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

111. It's just crazy enough to work. BWAAAAAHAAHAAHAA N/T

[Feanorcurufinwe]

110. How lame can a post get?

Telling someone "I think you need to chill the fuck out B." is not actually a substitutue for a coherent argument.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

113. Please tell us. How lame?

There was no attempt at a coherent argument to start with. Just silly ass name calling. So why should I bother? I made a statement and asked a simple question out of curiosity. I got this bullshit in return. I have to reply accordingly. Or should I take the high road like Chavez?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

115. Your actions speak louder than my words ever could.

"I think you need to chill the fuck out" is one of the most impressive and insightful things I've ever read on DU. Congratulations. :eyes:

[Vladimir]

117. Chilllll Winstooooon! n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

120. Does you post mean something? What? Who is Winstooooon?

[Vladimir]

122. Just a thing we used to say in high school

I thought it was appropriate to the level of debate on the thread...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

144. Does it have a meaning or are you just babbling nonsense?

If it has a meaning, what is that meaning?

[Vladimir]

145. It is both meaningless and infantile, just like me n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

119. That's nice of you. I guess I had you all wrong. Thanks. n/t

[Bombtrack]

123. What is your point? The corporate media made up how much it's

devaluated?

There is no use talking to you people if you actually are in the frame of mind that major US(or non-US)newspapers are less credible or less objective than websites set up for the express purpouse of schilling for any rigid ideology or cause, in this case for the Chavez pseudo-ideology

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

124. No. I was referring to the conduct and comments by your beloved

"opposition". For which you had no comment. Please keep talking to us people. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.

[Bombtrack]

127. I was RESPONDING to the only question you asked.

You stated a rhetorical question in that same post, before the actual question, which was basically a retread of the idiotic, illogical idea that all members of Chavez's opposition are responsible for everything everyone who opposes Chavez does.

While the government continues to scream bloody murder and label all opponents "coup-mongers" and "terrorists", hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan citizens have chosen to face down the regime in the civilized, legal way: by standing in line, again and again, under the rain and despite the intimidation, to sign their names on a petition.
The cornerstone of the government's rhetoric - that they are poor beleaguered democrats holding off a conspiratorial cabal of rich businessmen and media barons with US-backing - looks ever more incongruous in light of the weekend's events. Venezuela, the government wants to convince us, is the only place on earth where the fascist terrorist coup-mongers stand in line, in the rain, to sign petitions, while the belleaguered democrats work tirelessly to keep them away from the ballot box. It makes less than no sense. It had some usefulness as a propaganda tool, but more and more the message is only believed by a hard-core of zealots.

[Vladimir]

128. So you didn't read JudiLyn's

numerous posts about people being coerced to sign petitions on the pain of losing their jobs?

[Bombtrack]

129. Oh Jeezus effing christ do you people ever adress the substance

of the BS you've been called on?

Deflect, deflect, deflect

No, I didn't read what some random DUer said at some time, I guess that makes me real uninformed.

[Vladimir]

131. Point is, the opposition is fighting dirty

so its hardly any blemish on Hugo that he is not lying down and taking it. And in fact I do not doubt that many Venezuelans think that signing that petition is in their interest - when the opposition controls almost all the media, I'd be amazed if it was otherwise.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

148. No.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

130. It is as idiotic as the belief that everything a Chavez supporter

does is directed by his administration. Is it not? (Not rhetorical. In case you're wondering.). Since you only trust your sources look up the Washington post pics of those poor oppressed citizens wearing gas masks and Nike gloves throwing molotov cocktails and attacking the national guard. I triple dare you to try that shit here ans see if you can get away with it. You don't realize you sound just as bad as the most biased "Chavez supporter". Why is your propaganda and hyperbole more worthy of consideration than anybody else's arguments. I really don't see a difference. Do you?

PS Do you deny that Carmona and his crew did the things I posted originally? (not rhetorical)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

125. You've hit the target!

There is no use talking to you people if you actually are in the frame of mind that major US(or non-US)newspapers are less credible or less objective than websites set up for the express purpouse of schilling for any rigid ideology or cause, in this case for the Chavez pseudo-ideology


Yep. Exactly. Their arguments are so driven by ideology that they don't even believe it is possible for someone to be neither pro- nor anti- Chavez.

[debsianben]

126. WHY?

The currency is devalued, and (while the poor are doing much better overall) the economy has a lot of problems. The question is WHY? Gee, you don't suppose that whole protracted national lockout by anti-Chavez business-owners had anything to do with it, do you?

[AP]

60. There's a tape of a coup plotter recently saying he thinks that 10 yrs

of dictatorshipt should be enough to push back all Chavez's democratizing reforms and impulses.

Now THAT'S what I'd call "forced government"!!!

By the way, the wealthy had about 1000% more of the wealth than they could have ever expected in their wildest dreams. So If things are now 80% more expensive for them, they're still over 500% wealthier than they dreamed they could be.

And they hardly spend very much of their total wealth anyway, so more expensive consumer goods isn't going to hurt them.

They have MILLIONS of dollars. So what if that Mercedes is going to cost almost twice as much. They're still rich.

[Bombtrack]

106. "The wealthy" is an extremely misleading characterization for the

huge number of Venezuelans who oppose Chavez, and you refuse to acknowledge that. The super rich are but a sliver of the people attempting to get an election.

[AP]

132. Just like the US: super-rich are pulling the strings. Some middle class

people are confused by the lies from the media.

But there's no argument that it's the super-rich who want Chavez gone because Chavez will no longer guarantee their hegemony (they'll actually have to work for a living if they want to be rich -- no more stealing the profits from the public oil company, no more holding thousands of acres of land without even using it).

[Vladimir]

135. And some of the working class

are no doubt disillusioned too. Hell, I would be disillusioned after the last 4-5 years - but the only ones with the vested interest in getting rid of Chavez are the fat cats. Most of whom, I will repeat, are white. Race comes into this as well... which is why they call Chavez a mokey on television.

[AP]

137. They're probabaly pissed that heads didn't roll after the coup.

They probably think Chavez is going too slow.

[Vladimir]

138. Well I would be too

if I had seen my friends killed by snipers and then seen the people who ordered the snipers there walk free... I'd wonder what the point was. That is my biggest criticism of Chavez - I think he played it wrong after the coup. No one would have said a word had he executed the plotters, and he would be in a much stronger position now had he done so IMO.

[AP]

142. If the fascists win it won't be because Chavez didn't execute a few of ...

...them. When there are billions behind the organization, someone will alwasy step in to take the place of the fascist who fell. (Isn't that one of the arguments in the Matrix?)

A little jail time would be nice, however, Perhaps the statute of limitations will run for a little longer on some of those crimes.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

136. One thing a Venezuelan friend told me is that.

You no longer see all these PDVSA executive and union member children riding around with company chauffeurs and using company cell phones and resources. They were using the company's money like they're own piggy personal piggy banks. These are some of her friends mind you, and they're pissed. It seems someone put a stop to that bullshit. I wonder why?

[AP]

139. People always get pissed when you take away an entitlement. Chavez is...

...exploiting that sentiment too.

He's devolving power rapidly to neighborhood governmental structures, he's building schools, and trying to give people jobs, and he wants the citizens to feel like those are entitlements so that they'll be pissed when the fascists try to take them away. That's what happened in April 2002.

Now, if you asked me whose entitlements are worth wasting your time defending on DU, I'm going with the entitlement of democracy and power for the people over chauffeur-driven benzs, cell phones, and other handouts to people who don't really contribute much to society.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

140. YOU MAKE ME SICK! Good day to you sir. n/t

[AP]

143. LOL.

I never write "LOL." I mean, really. I'm L'ingOL.

[Zuni]

188. It seems to me

that millions upon millions have been marching against him.
He can't be that great with all of that opposition.

[Alerter_]

88. thanks for making your side clear, Bombtrack

"Sorry if I don't believe it's fine and dandy for everyone in Venezuela with any property whatsoever to lose 80 percent of their wealth no matter how hard you've worked for it."

You mean land reform, right?

[Bombtrack]

99. No I mean Venezuelan currency

[Alerter_]

147. how does Chavez have control over that?

The "international community" doesn't like him, so they "arbitrage" the currency, just like Enron did with the energy market. Amazing, the opposition blames Chavez for what they are doing - just like Bush does.

[debsianben]

54. Maybe not...

...but, on the other hand, Zbigniew Brzezinski onced publically bragged about having "lured the Soviets into the Afghan trap", which is imho not much better.

[Vladimir]

56. I wonder who is having the last laugh there... n/t

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

14. Its a little insulting to me to have to choose - they both have integrity

they both exhibitt integrity and concern for the people. This kind of "one or the other" takes any intelligent discussion out of the picture

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. If they were to make contradictory statements, who would you believe?

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

18. Listen - if you are trying to get people to make sweeping generalizations

of character I don't think you'll get too many people here to bite that hook.

I for one will discuss specifics not broad characterizations.

I have a healthy amount of skepticism for EVERY politician, including Hugo. Though I admire him and Carter very much, for some things.

[Cursive_Knives512]

19. Well-said

nt

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Except it ascribed motives to me that I don't have.

I'm not 'trying to get' people to do anything. I simply posted the poll question "Who's honesty and integrity do you respect more: Carter vs Chavez" and the followup question " If they were to make contradictory statements, who would you believe? "

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. If you don't want to answer the poll question, don't.

I don't care whether you participate or not.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

22. I didn't answer the poll. It's my opinion that polls like these serve no

valuable purpose in this forum. If you don't want to listen to me, then don't. I'll still speak my mind.

Do you have a defense for starting this poll?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. Good for you, you have excercised your right to abstain.

If you don't want to listen to me, then don't. I'll still speak my mind.

Whatever gave you that idea? LOL. Please do speak your mind. And, I reserve my right to comment on your comments, ok?


Do you have a defense for starting this poll?

As soon as I start believing I need a 'defense' for my comments, I'll let you know... :eyes:

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. I'm sorry that you choose to censor yourself and not speak your mind

Of course, I won't miss your comments on my 'maturity level' or your other weak attempts at personal attacks.

[dsc]

21. It depends on the statements

and what they are about. For example if it were about the highest speed attainable by a US nuclear sub, I would have to say Carter would be the one I would believe. If it were about the meaning of a particular Spanish word I would have to go with Chavez. My point being that knowledge matters as well as integrity.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

24. Absolutely.

If I wanted to know about peanuts and what not to do when hostages are taken I'd ask Carter, if it were how to handle a US backed oligarchy coup and US backed oligarchy recall referendum I'd ask Chavez. But with both I'd keep a grain of salt in my pocket.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Well let's say

Carter says: "The petition has enough signatures, the process was fair, and the referendum should go forward"

and Chavez says "The petition does not have enough signatures, the process was a fraud, and the referendum should not go forward"



who would you believe in that case?

[dsc]

31. again it depends on why Chavez is saying

that the signatures aren't valid and or the process unfair. Is it an aspect of Venezuealan law that while archane actually exists? Is it a question of who is or isn't eligable to sign? Both of those may well be something Carter knows little to nothing about. On the other hand if it is about the actually number of signatures or the process under which they were gathered then Carter would.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. I get it, you just don't want to answer.

The question is, if they were contradicting each other in such a way that one or the other was lying, who would you believe? It is a hypothetical question, so there is no shame in not wanting to answer it.

[dsc]

33. one can be wrong without lying

The standards for validity on a petition are often able to be interpreted. To take one example, when I lived in Mississippi for two years a case could be made for me to be a citizen of Ohio and one of Mississippi. I had full intention of returning to Ohio, and in point of fact did return to Ohio, and was a student, all of which qualified me as a citizen of Ohio at that time. On the other hand, I was employed in Mississippi, paid taxes in Mississippi, and had a Mississippi drivers' licence with my car registered there. All of which made me a citizen of Mississippi. So if I signed a petition in Ohio it would have come down to just what was in my mind (as to my intent to return).

It is for this precise reason that courts look at these requirements and at the petitions. If the requirements existed before Chavez then even if they are technical and arcane it would seem reasonable that he demand the people follow them.

So if they are arguing over that kind of thing that doesn't make someone wrong necessarily a liar.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. Yes, it is a hypothetical question

one that I hope we won't have to answer in real life.

[debsianben]

65. Basis of comparison?

Fortunately, there is not the kind of thing that has to be settled on the basis of appeals to personal authority "X said it and X is an honorable man, whereas Y is disreputable and could be lying." There have been plenty of reports by international observers of fraud and intimidation being used by the opposition in its signature drive--e.g. as a matter of course all over the place, the people manning the signature tables were giving people little "receipts" of their having signed so when they went back to work they could give those to their boss to prove they had signed. These people are definitely the spiritual kin of the guys that brought us Florida2000.

The fact is no one has ever accused Chavez's supporters of election fraud. Despite Bush and his cheerleaders' claims to the contrary, it goes without saying that the regularly scheduled election will take place when Chavez's turn is up, and that, unlike America in the age of Diebold and Black Box Voting, it will be a fair election. And, if we get back to reality, American election officials tend to be a lot pickier than their Venezuelan counterparts about which pages of signatures they accept. Its pretty routine in America for petitions--to get a third party on the ballot, to get some ballot initiative, whatever--to be rejected by state BOEs in a very biased way based on stupid technicalities, like one signature on a page is from some one who lives in the wrong county, or who lives in the right county but listed their address as in "E. Lansing" rather than "East Lansing" and so on. This shit goes on all the time. By contrast, their Venezuelan counterparts seem only to be suggesting that the opposition shouldn't engage in blatant fraud, and when they do they are willing to extent the deadlines so they can re-gather the sigs legitimately.

[Vladimir]

66. What, you are implying

unimpeachable Democrats like Carter are complict to a display of double standards? You can't be serious!

[Alerter_]

150. agreed. Carter is one of the best

Carter is a good guy, no doubt. He's one of us. That's why they had to take him down, with corrupt deals with terrorists in Iran. Hey, just like now!

[ShaneGR]

25. Uhhhh, Jimmy Carter

Of course.

[0007]

28. I respect Hugo Chavez as much as Jimmy Carter

HoweverI voted for Chavez , because he's a giant of a man for standing up to the U.S. - Who like to hear more from Jimmy Carter on Mr. Chavez.

[Bombtrack]

37. Oh yeah, whoever "stands up" to the United States is a giant of a man

Are the dictators that Chavez show's a unique respect relative to the rest of the world too like Saddam Hussein, Mugabe, and most of all Castro "giants of men" as well?

[AP]

133. He respects the anti-neoliberals. So do I. You don't. Fine. Let it go.

You're wrong.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

166. The 'anti-neoliberals' -- what a totally meaningless phrase. nt

[AP]

208. You really have never heard the term "neoliberal" before?

You're either betraying an ignorance that is incredibly revealing, or betraying a "forced spin" (to paraphrase your compadre) that is incredibly amusing.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

38. Boo!

Boo, I say!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. Boo

Boo, I say!

[eridani]

87. Carter deserved his Peace Prize for work he did AFTER his presidency

Unfortunately, during it, he dramatically boosted military aid to Indonesia after their massacres in East Timor, covertly supported Somoza despite publicly criticizing his human rights record, and gave Brzezinski the go-ahead to recruit foreign Islamic whackjobs to fight alongside the native fundies in Afghanistan.

Chavez hasn't done anything remotely similar.

[Zuni]

186. Carter had worldwide concerns

Chavez was localized. Carter still had to maintain some military balance between the USSR and the US, as well as predict their moves. With hundreds of nukes aimed at each side, Carter had to set up a global effort to keep a nuclear conflict from starting. Chavez has never had to deal with global crisis, and or nuclear threats.

Carter did cut off major aid to Somoza for the most part, as well as several other dictators. He might have not gone all the way, but he represented a dramatic shift beteween the US and Latin Regimes. He did suspend aid or deny it altogether based on gross human rights abuses on several occasions.

In Afghanistan, Carter was faced with a major Soviet presence, even before the invasion. They know controlled the country. The people were supporting the opposition, so Carter began sending small amounts of aid to the rebels. The Soviets, deciding that the Afghan Government was incapable of handling pressure invaded and killed the Afghan President and set up a new, even more puppet regime.
What would you do in this situation?

[Vladimir]

192. Actually in Afganistan

the Soviet occupation was beneficial to large swathes of society. Certainly the communists would not have survived so long in power after the Soviet withdrawal if this had not been so.

[Judi Lynn]

212. Thanks for the push I needed to get off my duff and take a quick trip

to google to check on Carter and Somoza. It looks exactly as bad you you described. I really admire Carter, but he wasn't as strong as he needed to be to counter the truly wicked events and circumstances our rightwing was creating in our hemisphere, and elsewhere.

Here's the first thing I found:

While all of this is good, Carter presided over some serious war crimes in the Third World. Despite Carter's reputation as the President who placed human rights as the top priority for his foreign policy, any examination of the actual policies behind the public relations initiative reveals the Carter Administration's continuation of US support for monstrous Third World regimes.

• Carter secretly supported the genocidal Pol Pot government ousted by Vietnam in 1979. This secret support was essential to further punishment of Vietnam for having successfully defended her own population against the American invaders. US Indochina strategy also intended to outflank the Vietnamese, who were aligned with the Soviet Union, and to back the Pol Pot forces, aligned with China.
  
  
• Carter declared his support for the Shah of Iran-despite the rampant torture practiced by the Shah's secret police in close collaboration with the C.I.A.-more emphatically than Richard Nixon had: "There is no leader with whom I have a deeper sense of personal friendship and gratitude."
  
  
• Following the Indonesians' 1975 invasion of East Timor, Carter continued to arm Indonesia's army dictatorship as well as give diplomatic support (vetoing U.N. resolutions to end the atrocities in the former Portuguese colony). This war has killed more than 200,000 East Timorese, making it the worst genocide relative to population since World War II. Carter did nothing to pressure General Suharto (Indonesia's chief of state) to end the war. He was an ally and major supporter of the Indonesian military's repression of its own population, as well as the slaughter of the East Timorese people. The army's murderous stranglehold on East Timor will continue as long as the ruling military clique of Indonesia lets transnational oil companies have a good share of East Timorese oil profits.
  
  
• During his watch, Carter aided and supported Nicaragua's then-dictator Anastasio Somoza, who murdered and repressed tens of thousands of his own people. When Somoza's forces were about to lose control of the main cities, Carter attempted to launch an invasion under the fig leaf of an intervention by the Organization of American States (OAS). The OAS refused and Carter then planned to send the US military to salvage Somoza's army, which was established by and beholden to the US government-but it was too late. Carter made sure that Somoza was ferried out of the country on a Red Cross-painted US aircraft. The C.I.A. under Carter helped to re-establish Somoza's army as a terrorist force against the people of Nicaragua. These "contras" assassinated social workers, doctors and civilians, burned crops, and tried to exterminate any possibility of social reform that the Sandinistas created.
  (snip)

http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/Apr97/carter.html

[Vladimir]

213. Ah yes, Pol Pot

of all the "communists" to pick to be friends with, and the US picks the most bloodthirsty of the lot. Damn, but why am I not surprised?

[Judi Lynn]

215. That would make a sensible person wonder, wouldn't it? n/t

[ibegurpard]

134. What's the context?

What point are you trying to make here? Please don't insult people's intelligence by claiming that this is some random thing that popped into your head.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

151. The context is Venezeula's recall referendum and Carter's participation

as an observer.


"What point are you trying to make here? "

If I was trying to 'make a point' you wouldn't have to ask -- I would just state my point. I posted this poll because in another thread in which I was participating, Carter was accused of being biased, 'a friend to fascists', and a 'tool of American Republicans', and I was curious as to how common a viewpoint that was at DU.

"Please don't insult people's intelligence by claiming that this is some random thing that popped into your head."

WHAT THE FUCK EVER :eyes:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

207. This antiwar.com article

spells it out without the hyperbole or bias you see in so many reports on this topic:


http://www.antiwar.com/ips/marquez.php?articleid=2736

[Judi Lynn]

214. Your article has two areas which are interesting.

• In raids on homes and political party offices of the opposition, police found hundreds of forged national identity documents.
  
  
• Chávez "has always followed an invariable pattern: he advances boldly until running into invincible superior forces, and then stages a tactical retreat," political analyst Armando Durán told IPS.
  
  According to Durán, who served as foreign minister and minister of information in the second term of social democratic president Carlos Andrés Pérez (1989-1993), Chávez's mood was influenced by the relative isolation he felt at the third summit of European Union, Latin American and Caribbean leaders held late last month in Guadalajara, Mexico.
  (snip)

The first one indicates public awareness of obvious fraud on the part of opposition leaders. How easy is that to understand?

The remark by Armando Durán was of great interest, as it's admitted he was the Minister of Information for the impeached president of Venezuela, the utterly corrupt and improper Carlos Andrés Pérez, who called out police to gun down hundreds of poor protesting in Caracas. He is the man against whom Hugo Chavez led his two coup attempts. Hugo Chavez was also pardoned, later, by another Venezuelan president Rafael Caldera.

I think it's a miracle ANYONE askes Armando Durán's opinion on anything, considering he served with an impeached president who was found to have deposited more money, in American banks, with the assistance of his mistress, than he had made legally. Smooooth!

Yeah, you really know how to pick your politics.

[ContinentalOp]

141. I'm ABC -

Anyone but Carter or Chavez

:)

[Forkboy]

157. People people people

Why answer this poll? It's obvious if you dont make the "right" pick you'll get some damn rude responses.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

163. Thanks for the kick

What is the 'right' pick, by the way?

[Forkboy]

171. Very glad to help

Very glad.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

173. Cool.

[Forkboy]

205. Kick

I voted Carter btw

[Moderator]

216. Locking.......

This thread has gotten off the point and
has turned into flamebait and personal
arguments.

Thank you for understanding.



DU Moderator