Chavez Says He May Seek 'Indefinite' Re-election - Page 5

Napoleon's Nightingale · 07-16-06, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

God are u that ignorant? All socialism works at first just wait for the stagnation to set in due to lack of competition and what comes after stagnation in a welfare state? That would be inflation, hyperinflation, and eventually deflation.

There is no indication that his model will fail. The fact that it is based soley on a product in extremely high demand will insure it's success.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

That's a lie he is exactly like Castro in nearly every way.

That is a lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Ok if they're aren't killed by the Chavez militia first what a crock.

Your insinuations have no basis in reality. Stop trying to invent your own facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

lol and Chavez simply rewrote the Constitution and packed the courts and let's not forget his disdain for true Democracy ie his attempted coup'deta

Chavez didn't rewrite the Constitution; The people of Venezuela rewrote the Constitution. The coup d'etat he led was supported by the vast majority of the Venezuelan people and rid the country of a group of swindlers who kept more than half of the population below the poverty line so they could line their pockets with oil money. It's the opposition which has a disdain for true democracy and that is prooven in their record of running the country and their coup d'etat in 2002 to overthrow the democratically elected government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Our government has outlawed speaking out against the state? Wow.

Chavez did not outlaw speaking out against the state. He and the Legislature outlawed inciting riots, coup d'etats, and slander. There is quite a difference.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 07-16-06, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Napoleon's Nightingale

There is no indication that his model will fail. The fact that it is based soley on a product in extremely high demand will insure it's success.

What a crock without an open market the lack of diversification will insure their economic downfall.

Quote:

That is a lie.

No it is not save for the fact that he gained power Demoratically rather than through a coup his similarities to Castro are undeniable and even Chavez attempted a Coup de'ta.

Quote:

Your insinuations have no basis in reality. Stop trying to invent your own facts.

I'm not, Chavez has already used his militia to murder and beat journalists.

Quote:

Chavez didn't rewrite the Constitution; The people of Venezuela rewrote the Constitution.

That is a lie he pushed for the rewrite and his party dominated the national assembly the people had nothing to do with it.

Quote:

The coup d'etat he led was supported by the vast majority of the Venezuelan people and rid the country of a group of swindlers who kept more than half of the population below the poverty line so they could line their pockets with oil money.

That is a lie if he had had the support which you claim it would have been a success and the only reason he has support now is because he has silenced all opposition through fear, coercion, vioence, murder, and draconian legislature, Venezuela is now firmly on the path to dictatorship.

Quote:

It's the opposition which has a disdain for true democracy and that is prooven in their record of running the country and their coup d'etat in 2002 to overthrow the democratically elected government.

They attempted a coup because of the tyrannical actions of Chavez.

Quote:

Chavez did not outlaw speaking out against the state. He and the Legislature outlawed inciting riots, coup d'etats, and slander. There is quite a difference.

That's a complete lie. Aside from government sanctioned violenceof against members of the press the government has also made it illegal to speak poorly about the government.

Among prohibited material includes and I quote:

Quote:

"disrespect toward legitimate institutions and authorities,

And according to freedom house they no longer have a free press:

Quote:

Status: Not Free

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16&year=2005&country=6862

Napoleon's Nightingale · 07-17-06, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

What a crock without an open market the lack of diversification will insure their economic downfall.

BS. The Chavez model will be sustainable as long as Venezuela sells it's oil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

I'm not, Chavez has already used his militia to murder and beat journalists.

Unsubtantiated allegations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

That is a lie he pushed for the rewrite and his party dominated the national assembly the people had nothing to do with it.

That is a lie. The changes to the Constitution were made by the National Constituent Assembly who's members were voted for by the people and all of the changes were also given an up or down vote in a national referendum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

That is a lie if he had had the support which you claim it would have been a success and the only reason he has support now is because he has silenced all opposition through fear, coercion, vioence, murder, and draconian legislature, Venezuela is now firmly on the path to dictatorship.

That is a lie. The reason why he is so successful now is because his policies are making the Venezuelan economy boom for the first time in decades, he has reduced the poverty level by 10%, and because he approved the new Constitution which was written and approved by the people. Chavez hasn't silenced the opposition at all, in fact, the opposition has silenced themselves because they withdraw all of their candidates. Nearly every media outlet is run by the swindlers ie the opposition and they have not been silenced. It was the opposistion which brought a dictatorship to Venezuela.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

They attempted a coup because of the tyrannical actions of Chavez.

They attempted a coup because they abhored the thought of democracy in Venezuela and the idea of anything less than half of the population being in poverty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

That's a complete lie. Aside from government sanctioned violenceof against members of the press the government has also made it illegal to speak poorly about the government.

That is a complete lie. No Venezuelan law prohibits anyone from speaking out or speaking poorly of the government. The media laws do prohibit slandering, inciting violence, and inciting coups against the government. As long as the media outlets aren't doing the above then they can say anything they want. I dare you to try to proove me wrong by providing a link to the law and stating the paragraph number.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 07-17-06, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Napoleon's Nightingale

Quote:

Unsubtantiated allegations.

No sir they are not:

Quote:

377. The uninterrupted continuation of acts of aggression and intimidation directed at media workers in Venezuela reflects the deepening of the institutional and political conflict that has affected the country over the past two years. The legitimate endeavors of media workers in reporting on different situations that affect the country’s social, cultural, and economic life and, in particular, the political situation and human rights, have encouraged certain sectors to attempt, in different ways, to silence them.

378. The IACHR and the Rapporteur’s office have noted the repeated occurrence of verbal and physical attacks in recent years. There has been no end to the attacks and threats made against media workers, particularly those covering events, political gatherings, and activities relating to the security forces. Before, during, and after its on-site visit, the IACHR was told that reporters working in public spaces were the targets of attacks and harassment. The prevailing general situation in Venezuela has fueled a climate of constant aggression and threats against freedom of expression and, in particular, against the physical integrity of reporters, camera operators, photographers, and other media workers. The recorded incidents range from threats and personal injuries to violations of the right to life, such as the murder of Mr. Jorge Tortosa, a press photographer with Diario 2001, during the events of April 11, 2002.

379. A large number of cases dealing with threats and other forms of harassment against journalists have been lodged with the IACHR. On several occasions since late 2001, therefore, the IACHR has requested the adoption of precautionary measures to protect different media workers and media outlets. These include workers and/or executives with the following media companies: El Nacional, El Universal, RCTV, Globovisión, Así es la Noticia, and La Razón. As an example, the IACHR offers the following extracts from the information it has received regarding attacks on reporters: On April 11, Hugo Rafael Sánchez Uzcátegui, an RCTV correspondent in Zulia State, received numerous intimidating telephone calls, some threatening him with death, while he was covering the public gathering in front of the PDVSA building in Maracaibo. In the early morning of Friday 12, after attending a press conference called by the military high command in Zulia State at the headquarters of the 1st Infantry Division, he was persistently followed by an unidentified automobile. On April 11, members and/or supporters of the government party, the MVR, threw stones at reporter Edward Rodríguez and cameraman Hernán Terán, who were in the metropolitan area of Puerto La Cruz – Barcelona, Anzoátegui State, covering a march by the Workers’ Federation of Anzoátegui State. On April 13 they were again attacked while attempting to report on protests and looting, and violent threats were made against them.

380. In late 2002 and early 2003, the Commission received information about attacks on the following media workers: José Rodríguez of the daily El Impulso; Martín Urteaga of the daily El Informador; Miguel López of Telecentro; Clara Reverol and Gusravo Escalona of Televen; Cristián Rodríguez of Promar TV; Yleana Brett of Diario Hoy; and Julio Torres of Venevisión. All these incidents occurred while they were covering a demonstration of government supporters and opponents in the city of Barquisimeto, Lara State. In Caracas, Fernando Malavé of Diario 2001 and José Antonio Dávila of CMT. In the same city, reports indicate that the journalists Luis Alfonso Fernández of Venevisión and Aymar Lorenzo de Globovisión were beaten by police officers. Mauricio Cabal, cameraman Rubén Brito, and assistant Marcos Martínez of Venevisión were threatened at the entrance to the state-owned oil company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) in the city of Anaco, Anzoátegui State, and their vehicle was damaged. Verioska Velasco, cameraman Luis Mata, and assistant Alfonso Vásquez of Promar Televisión, and cameraman Samuel Sotomayor of RCTV were attacked in the city of Barquisimeto. On January 12, Héctor Castillo, a photographer with the Caracas evening paper El Mundo, was injured by a baton round while he was covering clashes between members of the armed forces and participants in an opposition march that was attempting to reach the Los Próceres monument, near the military base known as Tiuna Fort.

381. Mention could also be made of a number of examples that serve to indicate the continued perpetration of attacks against media workers: On January 7, 2003, a van belonging to Puerto Visión from Puerto Cabello, Carabobo State, was stoned and beaten with iron bars while it was carrying a team of reporters led by Humberto Ambrosino. On January 9, a vehicle carrying reporters from El Correo del Canoní was attacked in Puerto Ordaz, Bolívar State. On January 14, hooded individuals on motorcycles attempted to set fire to a vehicle belonging to the Televen network. In light of this, the IACHR has, on several occasions since late 2001, requested the adoption of precautionary measures to protect different media workers and media outlets. These include workers and/or executives with the following media concerns: El Nacional, El Universal, RCTV, Globovisión, Así es la Noticia, and La Razón. [177]

382. Another case worthy of note is that of the Ecuadorian journalist Mauricio Muñoz Amaya, who was hit by gunfire on November 4, 2002, in the vicinity of the National Electoral Council (CNE) during a Democratic Coordinator march carrying more than two million citizens’ signatures calling for a referendum to recall President Hugo Chávez. That same day, November 4, Héctor Castillo, a journalist-cum-photographer attached to the daily El Mundo, was beaten up by government supporters during the same event. On September 22, unidentified individuals shot firearms at the home of Carlos Barrios, the director of radio station Astro 97.7.

383. During 2002, four bomb attacks were carried out in the vicinity of the premises of the broadcaster Globovisión. The last incident took place on November 17, 2002. Later, on January 31, 2002, a bomb was thrown in front of the offices of Así es la Noticia; and, on October 19, an explosive device detonated at the premises of Unión Radio in Chacao municipality, Caracas.

384. The IACHR has also noted that sectors of the government are following a line of discourse tending toward the professional discrediting of journalists and the filing of administrative procedures that could lead to the suspension or cancellation of broadcasting licenses and/or permits.

385. To summarize, the situation described above has the effect of intimidating media workers: many are afraid to identify themselves as reporters out of fear of possible reprisals.

http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Venez...g/chapter6.htm

Quote:

They attempted a coup because they abhored the thought of democracy in Venezuela and the idea of anything less than half of the population being in poverty.

No they attempted a coup because Chavez is a tyrannical demagogue.

Quote:

That is a complete lie. No Venezuelan law prohibits anyone from speaking out or speaking poorly of the government. The media laws do prohibit slandering, inciting violence, and inciting coups against the government. As long as the media outlets aren't doing the above then they can say anything they want. I dare you to try to proove me wrong by providing a link to the law and stating the paragraph number.

You have no clue what you're talking about:

Quote:

449. Additionally, in these cases the television companies are also being accused of other violations of the Regulations, including the transmission of statements that encourage “disrespect toward legitimate authorities and institutions” (Article 53.c of the aforesaid Regulations). Imposing punishments for statements of this kind contravenes the American Convention on Human Rights; and this is a position maintained by the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights since the publication of its report on the incompatibility of desacato laws with the Convention, an issue that the IACHR has reiterated in the present report in connection with the different topics addressed.

http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Venez...g/chapter6.htm

Trajan Octavian Titus · 07-17-06, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Napolean Nightingale

That is a lie. The reason why he is so successful now is because his policies are making the Venezuelan economy boom for the first time in decades, he has reduced the poverty level by 10%, and because he approved the new Constitution which was written and approved by the people. Chavez hasn't silenced the opposition at all, in fact, the opposition has silenced themselves because they withdraw all of their candidates. Nearly every media outlet is run by the swindlers ie the opposition and they have not been silenced. It was the opposistion which brought a dictatorship to Venezuela.

No it is because Chavez through the use of his national guard and draconian legislature has silenced the opposition and the press:

Quote:

1. Desacato laws (insults to authority)

451. As was stated in the section dealing with the Supreme Court’s judgment of July 15, 2003, Venezuela’s criminal laws contain provisions that are incompatible with Article 13 of the Convention. An example of this are those laws that criminalize offensive statements made against public officials, known as desacato laws (insults to authority).

452. Venezuela’s Criminal Code contains a series of provisions that, if enforced, would restrict full enjoyment of freedom of expression by criminalizing offensive statements made about public officials. These precepts are the following:

Article 148. Any person who offends, verbally or in writing or in any other fashion, the President of the Republic or the person serving in that capacity shall be punished with a prison term of between six and thirty months, if the offense was serious, and of half that duration, if it was slight.

The punishment shall be increased by one-third if the offense was made publicly.

If the offense was made against the President of either Chamber of the Legislature or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the punishment shall be from four months to two years, if the offense was serious, and half that duration, if it was slight.

Article 149. When the actions described in the Article above are made against the Governor of one of the nation’s States, or against Cabinet Ministers, the General Secretary of the President’s Office, the Governor of the Federal District or Federal Territories, Supreme Court Justices, the Presidents of the State Legislatures, and Superior Judges, or against persons serving in those capacities, the punishment indicated in that Article shall be reduced to one-half; and, with respect to Presidents of Municipal Councils, Federal District Department Prefects, or District Civil Chiefs, it shall be reduced to one-third.

Article 150. Any person who publicly insults the Congress, the Chambers of the National Legislature, the Supreme Court of Justice, the Cabinet or Council of Ministers, any of the Legislatures or Legislative Assemblies of the nation’s states, or any of the Superior Courts, shall be punished by a prison term of between fifteen days and ten months.

Those who carry out the same acts against Municipal Councilors shall receive half that punishment.

The punishments shall be increased by one-half if the offense was made during performance of official functions by the institutions in question.

Article 151. The courts shall be responsible for distinguishing the serious and slight offenses referred to in Articles 148, 149, and 150.

Article 152. Prosecution for the actions referred to in the articles above shall not commence except at the request of the offended person or institution, lodged with the competent judge through the offices of the Public Prosecution Service.

[...]

Article 223. Any person who, by word or deed, offends in any way the honor, reputation, or dignity of a member of Congress or any public official shall be punished as indicated below, if the offense was made in the presence thereof and in connection with their functions:

1. If the offense was directed against a law-enforcement officer, with a prison term of one to three months.

2. If the offense was directed against a member of Congress or a public official, with a prison term of one month to one year, according to the rank of the person in question.

Article 224. If the action described in the Article above is accompanied by violence or threats, it shall be punishable by a prison term of between three and eighteen months.
Any person who, in another way not provided for in the cases listed in the previous chapter, makes use of violence against or threatens a member of Congress or other public official, should that act take place as a result of the victim’s functions, shall be punishable with the same punishments.

Article 225. When any of the actions described in the above articles is committed against a public official not as a result of his functions but at a moment in which he is performing them, the same punishments shall apply, with a reduction of between one-third and one-half.

Article 226. Any person who, by word or by deed, offends in any way the honor, reputation, or dignity of a judicial, political, or administrative body, if the crime is committed at a time when it is established, or any magistrate in a hearing, shall be punished with a prison term of between three months and two years.

If the perpetrator used violence or threats, the prison term shall be from six months to three years.

Prosecution shall take place only by means of a request lodged by the offended party. If the crime is committed against bodies not meeting at the time, the prosecution shall only proceed following a request made by its presiding members.

Said request shall be lodged with the Public Prosecution Service in order for the applicable steps to be taken.

Article 227. In the cases provided for in the Articles above, the guilty party shall not be allowed to admit any evidence regarding the truthfulness or notoriety of the allegations or defects with which the offended party is accused. [235]

http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Venez...g/chapter6.htm

And Chavez is destroying the economy:

Quote:

Based on his economic performance alone, Hugo Chavez is the worst president that Venezuela has ever had. On a world scale, he ranks up there with Cambodia's Pol Pot and just below North Korea's Kim Jong Il, a role model of the Chavez administration.
The consequences for the country are terrible, devastating, hard to overstate. Credible institutions like Deutsche Bank and GM are forecasting a 20% drop in GDP this year - that's almost twice as much as Argentina's contraction last year, and you know what happened to people there. In a country like Venezuela, an economic contraction on that scale simply means people go hungry. Maybe not starvation hungry, but definitely mass-scale undernourishment hungry.
It's already happening. Every month Cenda, a Think Tank associated with the Venezuelan Labor Movement, calculates the cost of a basket of basic foods. The index is made up of the basic staples in poor Venezuelans' diets. Right now, the cost for a family of five stands at $210 - well over the $125 minimum wage. In short, it takes two adults in full-time minimum-wage work to meet even the bare-bones basics of nutrition.
The problem is that households with two adults in full-time, minimum wage work are becoming a rarity here. The unemployment is running at 17% - and that's according to the usually overoptimistic official stats, private firms think 20% or more is probably closer to the mark. Worse still, just over half of working Venezuelans earn a living in the informal economy, sometimes referred to as the "gray market." Most are "self-employed" as streethawkers, odd-job repairmen, or day-laborers - they make a living entirely outside the legally sanctioned employment system. They're not covered by any of the nation's employment protection laws - they have no unemployment insurance, no legally mandated vacation, no provision in case of disability, and of course, no one to guarantee them they'll earn the minimum wage. According to a recent Catholic University study, 90% of informal workers make less than the minimum wage. To put it bluntly, millions of Venezuelan families can't afford to eat properly right now. To a huge and rapidly growing portion of Venezuelans, "food" means white rice, arepas (little corn flour patties), salt and margarine - once or twice a day. They can't afford anything else.

http://www.militaresdemocraticos.com...030315-02.html

Trajan Octavian Titus · 07-17-06, 09:59 AM

Venezuela economy continued:

Quote:

Unemployment rate:

12.3% (2005 est.)

Population below poverty line:

47% (1998 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ve.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Napolean Nightingale

That is a lie. The changes to the Constitution were made by the National Constituent Assembly who's members were voted for by the people and all of the changes were also given an up or down vote in a national referendum.

That's like saying that it would be ok if President Bush and the Republican congress rewrote the Constitution so long as 51% of the people voted for it.

It's called mob rule ie Nazi Germany they no longer have a Representative Republic in venezuela which respects the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority they now have a tyranny of the masses led by a populist demagogue. Hitler was elected too.

Arch Enemy · 07-17-06, 10:53 AM

the Venezuelians love Chavez.

Just becasue we don't doesn't mean he shouldn't be the leader.

Trajan Octavian Titus · 07-17-06, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

the Venezuelians love Chavez.

Just becasue we don't doesn't mean he shouldn't be the leader.

Ya and the Germans loved Hitler didn't make him any less of a tyrant.

Vader · 07-17-06, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus

Venezuela economy continued:

That's like saying that it would be ok if President Bush and the Republican congress rewrote the Constitution so long as 51% of the people voted for it.

It's called mob rule ie Nazi Germany they no longer have a Representative Republic in venezuela which respects the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority they now have a tyranny of the masses led by a populist demagogue. Hitler was elected too.

Good point.

I think that Chaves needs a dirt nap.

Vader · 07-17-06, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arch Enemy

the Venezuelians love Chavez.

Just becasue we don't doesn't mean he shouldn't be the leader.

1. Desacato laws (insults to authority)

451. As was stated in the section dealing with the Supreme Court’s judgment of July 15, 2003, Venezuela’s criminal laws contain provisions that are incompatible with Article 13 of the Convention. An example of this are those laws that criminalize offensive statements made against public officials, known as desacato laws (insults to authority).

452. Venezuela’s Criminal Code contains a series of provisions that, if enforced, would restrict full enjoyment of freedom of expression by criminalizing offensive statements made about public officials. These precepts are the following:

Article 148. Any person who offends, verbally or in writing or in any other fashion, the President of the Republic or the person serving in that capacity shall be punished with a prison term of between six and thirty months, if the offense was serious, and of half that duration, if it was slight.

The punishment shall be increased by one-third if the offense was made publicly.

If the offense was made against the President of either Chamber of the Legislature or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the punishment shall be from four months to two years, if the offense was serious, and half that duration, if it was slight.

Article 149. When the actions described in the Article above are made against the Governor of one of the nation’s States, or against Cabinet Ministers, the General Secretary of the President’s Office, the Governor of the Federal District or Federal Territories, Supreme Court Justices, the Presidents of the State Legislatures, and Superior Judges, or against persons serving in those capacities, the punishment indicated in that Article shall be reduced to one-half; and, with respect to Presidents of Municipal Councils, Federal District Department Prefects, or District Civil Chiefs, it shall be reduced to one-third.

Article 150. Any person who publicly insults the Congress, the Chambers of the National Legislature, the Supreme Court of Justice, the Cabinet or Council of Ministers, any of the Legislatures or Legislative Assemblies of the nation’s states, or any of the Superior Courts, shall be punished by a prison term of between fifteen days and ten months.

Those who carry out the same acts against Municipal Councilors shall receive half that punishment.

The punishments shall be increased by one-half if the offense was made during performance of official functions by the institutions in question.

Article 151. The courts shall be responsible for distinguishing the serious and slight offenses referred to in Articles 148, 149, and 150.

Article 152. Prosecution for the actions referred to in the articles above shall not commence except at the request of the offended person or institution, lodged with the competent judge through the offices of the Public Prosecution Service.

[...]

Article 223. Any person who, by word or deed, offends in any way the honor, reputation, or dignity of a member of Congress or any public official shall be punished as indicated below, if the offense was made in the presence thereof and in connection with their functions:

1. If the offense was directed against a law-enforcement officer, with a prison term of one to three months.

2. If the offense was directed against a member of Congress or a public official, with a prison term of one month to one year, according to the rank of the person in question.

Article 224. If the action described in the Article above is accompanied by violence or threats, it shall be punishable by a prison term of between three and eighteen months.
Any person who, in another way not provided for in the cases listed in the previous chapter, makes use of violence against or threatens a member of Congress or other public official, should that act take place as a result of the victim’s functions, shall be punishable with the same punishments.

Article 225. When any of the actions described in the above articles is committed against a public official not as a result of his functions but at a moment in which he is performing them, the same punishments shall apply, with a reduction of between one-third and one-half.

Article 226. Any person who, by word or by deed, offends in any way the honor, reputation, or dignity of a judicial, political, or administrative body, if the crime is committed at a time when it is established, or any magistrate in a hearing, shall be punished with a prison term of between three months and two years.

If the perpetrator used violence or threats, the prison term shall be from six months to three years.

Prosecution shall take place only by means of a request lodged by the offended party. If the crime is committed against bodies not meeting at the time, the prosecution shall only proceed following a request made by its presiding members.

Said request shall be lodged with the Public Prosecution Service in order for the applicable steps to be taken.

Article 227. In the cases provided for in the Articles above, the guilty party shall not be allowed to admit any evidence regarding the truthfulness or notoriety of the allegations or defects with which the offended party is accused. [235]

http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Venez...g/chapter6.htm

I suggest you read these rules of tyranny and opression and then quickly decide whether or not you really believe that ANYBODY loves Chavez.

Chavez is a murderous dictator who must be stopped before his bull**** spreads. Right now, Venezuela is ONE STEP from being as genocidal as Hitler's germany. I suggest you realize this fact.