Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by donperkan, Mar 6, 2013.
What a monster.
Sorry, but this is BS. I'm not anti-Chavez by any means, he did a lot of good to Venezuela, but there's no denying his track record regarding press freedom is nothing to be proud of. When Human Rights Watch, Reporter sans Frontières, and Freedom House (among others) heavily criticize your policies, something's wrong. Like it or not, the press was gagged, and it's not excuses such as ''oh, but they spied on us!!'' that will convince me otherwise.
Sorry, I correct myself, there are 111 channels in total, of which 61 are private and 13 are state-owned.
It's funny because the private channels are the whole day criticizing the Chavez regime and saying that there is no freedom of expression, but the mere fact that they can say that, is proof that they can say whatever they want.
Regarding the organizations that you name, the majority of them are directly or indirectly funded by the U.S. State Department, clearly defending the interests of that country and its corporations, I would take that information very carefully if I were you.
Oh, if illegal acts were committed in Venezuela, against journalists or anyone else, just because of thinking differently, I think that is very wrong.
In my opinion, Chavez was not a saint, far from it, but neither was the bloodthirsty and intolerant dictator that everyone seems to describe.
Human Rights Watch and Reporter Sans Frontières and funded by the US Department of State? I want your source on that info. You can't just dismiss all criticism by saying Uncle Sam is behind it.
Chavez was not the devil, but he had an authoritarian streak, I don't see how anyone could deny that. I'd rather we ask ourselves if that authoritarism was necessary to secure the reforms he wanted to make; the rules are just different in latin america than in the West.
Seguiremos adelante, como junto a tí seguimos,
y con Fidel te decimos: ¡Hasta siempre, Comandante!
He is a monster because consensus says he is a monster, and if you disagree with consensus you are everything you don't want to be. It's like a magic trick.
Which is why I can't stand discussing politics with anybody except those who already agree with me...
Actually, he only won four. Pffft. Stroessner and Trujillo won like ten each. Paragons of democracy, both of them.
People here are hilariously uninformed.
Venezuela is ranked #165 (of 174) of the most corrupt countries in the world by Transparency International. It's flanked by countries like Haiti and Equatorial Guinea. Even Zimbabwe and Congo are less corrupt. Imagine that, being more corrupt than those two.
Venezuele is one of the largest oil producers in the world. The price of oil is sky high. Yet average income is lower than surrounding countries. Inflation is 20% or higher. Over 30% of the population is below the poverty line. And despite claims that, for instance, Venzuelan health care is top notch thanks to government spending, infant mortality rate and life expectancy are at best on par and often worse than its neighbours.
Oh, but I'm sure it's all American lies and conspiracies, right?
I'll remember him as someone who halved poverty in his country, dragged the Venezuelan health-care system out of the muck, educated the underprivileged and reminded the US that it's no longer 1975 in South America. He may have not been the best president ever or the most understated one but he was a far cry from a 'crazed dictator' or whatever bullshit Fox news is spilling right now. The fact remains the he really set the stage for the breaking away from the US that many Latin American countries are doing now. He was one of the first to really stand up for Latin America against the US, which has basically spent the better part of a century making the Latin American nations modern day colonies.
Was he the next Willy Brandt? No. But by the press he gets you'd think he started 2 wars in as many years, or removed due process and privacy from the list of things people are entitled to or used his presidential villa to stage orgies and make deals with the mafia or committed so much fraud that his country's economy was ruined for the next 20 years- or you know, whatever else respectable world leaders are up to these days.
But carry on, my friend, for GAWD AND MERUKAH.
Still Venezuela is at least or more corrupt now than it was even before Chavez. You can't explain that.
He was a brilliant orator in his own way, I'll give you that. Still, the figures and statistics seems to contradict all his statements and promises. Venezuela did no better and often worse than its neighbours, and that despite all that oil money. Even I couldn't have fucked up so badly, and I don't even speak Spanish.
You're just throwing out random vague blanket statements that don't mean anything.
HAH! Everything I say is based on figures from Transparency International, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, etc. etc. If you think that hard data that proves that everything Chavez' propaganda claimed is a bold-face lie are "random vague blanket statements" then your head is obviously so far up Chavez' corpse's arse that you are physically unable to seperate fact from the sweet nectar of bullshit that Chavez fed you.
Obviously you don't understand that he accumulated 4 billion dollars of personal wealth for the benefit of his people.
The highest figure I found is $2 billion, and I didn't find independent sources to back that so I didn't include this claim. Yet, Transparency International is about as independent as they get, and if they rank Venezuela to be one of the most corrupt societies in the world that's more than enough to prove the point of corruption.
Nobody ever said the man was a saint. He obviously had many downsides. What matters is that, when it's all summed up, his accomplishments and all the good things he did for his country stand high above his failures, and to question that is pretty much laughable if you know what Venezuela looked like before he came to power. Also, IMF? World Bank? UN? Really?
These guys speak from a totally neutral and objective point of view. Right?
Oh great, here comes the "every NGO in the world and all transnational organisations are in a massive conspiracy against Chavez/Assad/North Korea/...". I haven't heard that one before.
If you know better than all of them, then please show me some proof. Any objectively verifiable proof that Venezuela is a better country to live in than its neighbours, or that the massive oil revenue is spent well. Really, I'll even be lenient.
*EDIT* Also, if you want to question the independence of Transparency International (without any proof whatsoever), then take a look at their audited financial report, publicly available. The list of donors starts at page 29. Then explain to me why all these diverse donors would back an organisation like Transparency International only to conspire and lie about Venezuela.
I'm not even going to bother adressing your bullshit swipe at organisations like the IMF, UN and World Bank - if you think they've all got some sort of anti-Chavez agenda, you're too stupid for words.
I don't think it's too hard to criticise IMF or World Bank on neutrality and objectivity.
doing it with chavez and Venezuela isnt that hard either. Mind you we are not calling him the next Hitler or Stalin here. But corruption in South America is an growing issue. And it is rather easy to glorify someone.
No, you can't criticise a government for lack of neutrality. That doesn't make sense.
On corruption: cronyism isn't always so bad. You have to look at specific examples to judge the damage.