• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chavez's cancer has 'entered the end stage'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I dont' know about cuba, but Venezuela cut poverty in half, increased democratic participation, increased health care coverage and so on and so forth ....
You couldnt go anywhere but up from the conditions Venezuela was in. Well thats not true there is rock bottom. But Venezuela isnt as good as it could be at this point. Try telling those that are still in poverty that things are better. Try telling the people rationing water and power how great things are. Chavez has had plenty of time to make huge changes in terms of poverty yet poverty is still high in Venezuela. Cutting poverty in half isnt good enough. I would say at best that his efforts have been half ass.



Well your gonna need military vehicles to actually be able to keep power in check ... As you said was the point of firearm rights.
I said that politically that firearms can keep the government in check. Every vehicle has a potential to be a military vehicle. We do not need to keep tanks or fighter jets in our garages. Come on be serious.



But you claim it leads to it.
Again I said that it is a element not the entire method, give upo your line of strawman argument no matter how much you try you wont convince me that I asserted something that I did not.



My point was asking whether or not Venezuela is a great example of democratic socialism is a stupid question.
That is because Venezuela is not a great example of democratic socialism, right? But a shining example of a type of Marxism? Which would be a bit further Left than democratic socialism, right?



Yeah ... Its a representative democracy ... but its not 95% of the government ....



You havn't shown that Venezuela is anything more or less politically than a representative democracy, that happens to enact socail-democratic reforms.

thats an great appearance, but in reality the same people have been in control of the country for over a decade. IMHO a democracy demands that the people representing the people of the country do not hold on to that power for decades. Obviously this means that I am not happy with our own democracy here in the US. So forget coming back with some assertion about our own failures. I am not claiming that the US is perfect. In fact I am just making the observation that the people of Venezuela are in grave danger of being trapped in a system that will not allow them the freedoms that all humans require to live happy.

When you guys stand in solidarity with Hugo Chavez you will be just as guilty ethically with each injustice that Venezuelans must endure. Why stand with an faction that does no effect you personally? Why cant you just be skeptical of Hugo Chavez's authority? If things turn out good then there was no loss by me not trusting Chavez. But if things turn out bad your movement has signed itself to a tyrant. Think about the logic in that. Are you willing to have socialism related to a tyrant? How far are you setting back socialism by refusing to accept that Hugo Chavez is not a saint out to help his people? The 130m dollar mausoleum should be enough to show you that. 130m spent on a building to house a dead guy when over 30% of the population is at risk? Perhaps the homeless people should take it over and occupy it? Who does it belong too the people or the government?

Here is Venezuela Flickr: Search Venezuela


"I am also a Trotskyist! I follow Trotsky's line, that of permanent revolution'." Hugo Chavez

For those that do not know what the Trotsky's line is read this:

"With regard to countries with a belated bourgeois development, especially the colonial and semi-colonial countries, the theory of the permanent revolution signifies that the complete and genuine solution of their tasks of achieving democracy and national emancipation is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat as the leader of the subjugated nation, above all of its peasant masses.

"Not only the agrarian, but also the national question assigns to the peasantry - the overwhelming majority of the population in backward countries - an exceptional place in the democratic revolution. Without an alliance of the proletariat with the peasantry the tasks of the democratic revolution cannot be solved, nor even seriously posed. But the alliance of these two classes can be realized in no other way than through an irreconcilable struggle against the influence of the national-liberal bourgeoisie.

"This in turn means that the victory of the democratic revolution is conceivable only through the dictatorship of the proletariat which bases itself upon the alliance with the peasantry and solves first of all the tasks of the democratic revolution.

"The dictatorship of the proletariat which has risen to power as the leader of the democratic revolution is inevitably and, very quickly confronted with tasks, the fulfilment of which is bound up with deep inroads into the rights of bourgeois property. The democratic revolution grows over directly into the socialist revolution and thereby becomes a permanent revolution". Trotsky


But what is this about a dictatorship of the proletariat? Well any Marxist will tell you that Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky that it did not mean Authoritarianism. What they would say though is that it would "create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority." Or in other words a dictatorship by the majority.
Minorities have no power in a Marxist government. You either join the majority or you do nothing.

Bu then Hugo Chavez isnt a a real Trotsky either since he would have to abide by these constraints:

1) Free and democratic elections with the right of the electors to recall every and any official.

2) No official to receive a wage higher than that of a skilled worker.

3) No standing army but an armed people.

4) Gradually, all administrative tasks will be performed by everyone in turn, that way when "everyone is a bureaucrat no one is a bureaucrat".


Now hy would Chavez push for no term limits when everyone is supposed to become a bureaucrat? Remember the catch phrase power to the people! ? Well Chavez doesnt appear to believe in that ethic. Instead he wants to retain his power. Why cant the revolution survive without him in office? Why cant he show the people that they are the ones in power by stepping down especially since he has cancer? If he was sincere he would make a speech and hand his position over to the people and abolish the presidency position altogether. Why do the people need a leader?


I do not think that you are looking at this logically at all. All I want is justice and the required freedoms that Venezuelans deserve not some politician that wants to be president for the rest of his life. If Chavez wins this election it puts him in office for a total of 20 years at the end of his term. Hugo would be 63 by the time the next elections come up. The life expectancy in Venezuela is 73. so hes two terms away from being a leader for the rest of his life, well unless he dies from cancer then he was.
 
You couldnt go anywhere but up from the conditions Venezuela was in. Well thats not true there is rock bottom. But Venezuela isnt as good as it could be at this point. Try telling those that are still in poverty that things are better. Try telling the people rationing water and power how great things are. Chavez has had plenty of time to make huge changes in terms of poverty yet poverty is still high in Venezuela. Cutting poverty in half isnt good enough. I would say at best that his efforts have been half ass.

So improving a ton isn't good enough for you, unless it becomes perfect its a failure ...

Well I suppose you think going back to a neo-liberal govenrment would be better, how it was before ...Jesus christ your disingenous.

Chavez made huge improvements, but becasue of your ideology he's still a failure, because its not perfect, and neo-liberalism would be better, even though it wasn't.

I said that politically that firearms can keep the government in check. Every vehicle has a potential to be a military vehicle. We do not need to keep tanks or fighter jets in our garages. Come on be serious.

.... Yeah, serious, so get your SUV out and your shotgun and lets take on the US military ....:lol:

That is because Venezuela is not a great example of democratic socialism, right? But a shining example of a type of Marxism? Which would be a bit further Left than democratic socialism, right?

Marxism is positive economics not normative economics.

I'm saying Venezuela has a much better system than before and a much better system than the neo-liberal program.

thats an great appearance, but in reality the same people have been in control of the country for over a decade. IMHO a democracy demands that the people representing the people of the country do not hold on to that power for decades. Obviously this means that I am not happy with our own democracy here in the US. So forget coming back with some assertion about our own failures. I am not claiming that the US is perfect. In fact I am just making the observation that the people of Venezuela are in grave danger of being trapped in a system that will not allow them the freedoms that all humans require to live happy.

No more than any other representative democratic system ....

Your juts making assertations ..

When you guys stand in solidarity with Hugo Chavez you will be just as guilty ethically with each injustice that Venezuelans must endure. Why stand with an faction that does no effect you personally? Why cant you just be skeptical of Hugo Chavez's authority? If things turn out good then there was no loss by me not trusting Chavez. But if things turn out bad your movement has signed itself to a tyrant. Think about the logic in that. Are you willing to have socialism related to a tyrant? How far are you setting back socialism by refusing to accept that Hugo Chavez is not a saint out to help his people? The 130m dollar mausoleum should be enough to show you that. 130m spent on a building to house a dead guy when over 30% of the population is at risk? Perhaps the homeless people should take it over and occupy it? Who does it belong too the people or the government?

A: I actually thing chavez should step down
B: I'm saying its a much better system than the neo-liberal one, no more no less.

BTW, I don't care if he's a troskiest or not, I care about what he does, he also is a christian.

Now hy would Chavez push for no term limits when everyone is supposed to become a bureaucrat? Remember the catch phrase power to the people! ? Well Chavez doesnt appear to believe in that ethic. Instead he wants to retain his power. Why cant the revolution survive without him in office? Why cant he show the people that they are the ones in power by stepping down especially since he has cancer? If he was sincere he would make a speech and hand his position over to the people and abolish the presidency position altogether. Why do the people need a leader?

As I said I think he should step down, but just because he wants to keep running doesn't make him a dictator ....

I do not think that you are looking at this logically at all. All I want is justice and the required freedoms that Venezuelans deserve not some politician that wants to be president for the rest of his life. If Chavez wins this election it puts him in office for a total of 20 years at the end of his term. Hugo would be 63 by the time the next elections come up. The life expectancy in Venezuela is 73. so hes two terms away from being a leader for the rest of his life, well unless he dies from cancer then he was.

I am looking at this logically ... You just seam to be against anything that calls itself anti-capitalist.

again. I dont' care about Chavez, I care about good policies.
 
true it wasn't until about 52 when the law included term limits. But there was an ethics code that most politicians followed that barred them to only two terms.
The only "code" was that George Washington served two terms

Since it was the framers original intention to have term limits

It was???
If it was why not put it in the constitution when they had a chance?
They had a huge debate on it in the convention.

we latter actually made it Constitutional law.
That we did

The main reasoning was that if there was the possibility that a president could run for life that there was also the possibility of tyranny as well.
That is terrible reasoning.
Just because a president keeps on getting reelected does not mean magically tyranny would form. In a democracy such as ours "tyranny" would not come from one man.

So we fixed something that should have been fixed from the start. But it was an hard dell to the Federalists, since the Federalists wanted to return to a monarchy. But they faded and never gained that kind of control..
Well thats good.


I will post my PM i sent to a user earlier tonight about term limits when he PM's me back cuz for some reason my PM folders wont let me see sent items..


My point still stands though that the judicial system is not intact in Venezuela.
How is it "not intact"?



Did the people know what they were voting for?
I hope so.
Do you have information that they didnt?
I have proof that they did on one of Chavez referendums to the Constitution in 2007: Chavez loses constitutional vote - World news - Venezuela - msnbc.com

So i kinda think they know what they are voting for...
It is widely known that the education system in Venezuela sucks and it really sucked when that vote was made.
Venezuela actually has a pretty darn good educational system for being in Latin America
11ioklg.png

List of Latin American countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The example they give is a very big problem.
"Afiuni was judging a financier named Eligio Cedeño who was involved in several corruption cases. He was initially charged with embezzlement of millions of dollars from banking institutions, essentially stealing the money from customers. Another charge against him was that he and an accomplice deceived CADIVI, our office of currency control, by ostensibly buying computers for almost US $30 million but bringing only empty containers to the country. The financier’s accomplice was arrested in Panama more than a year and half ago, and after being turned over to the authorities of Venezuela confessed the whole scheme. His lawyers delayed the trial with legal maneuvers, until about six months ago, when Judge Afiuni herself walked Mr. Cedeño out of the courtroom and escorted him with two other employees of her court to the internal parking lot for judges, where Cedeño boarded a motorcycle that was let into the lot by Afiuni’s instruction.Then Afiuni returned to the courtroom to write the ruling with the decision to liberate Cedeño and afterwards she sat down and said loud and clear that she would sit where she was to wait for the suspension letter to arrive from her superiors.
The usual legal practice is that whenever an inmate is freed by ruling of a judge, he is taken back to prison where he waits for the arrival of the release order signed by the judge, something that usually happens in a matter of one or two hours. This was violated by Afiuni to be sure Cedeño would get away."
A Few Facts about the Case of Judge A

Also the same report has been under heavy criticism by scholars: More Than 100 Latin America Experts Question Human Rights Watch's Venezuela Report | venezuelanalysis.com


Presidents dont usually totally reorganize a country as policy.
I never said they did. I said they run on the position of past policies and furutre policies they want to inact.

The power of the people does not revolve around one individual.
It doesnt in Venezuela
Venezuelan Communal Councils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And what countries would that be?
Japan
UK
Australia


Earlier you admitted that Chavez was no angel.
Ok how does this play into this period of the debate?
I dont think he is an "angel" i dont think anyone is an "angel". But i think he is a great leader and the best for Venezuela and i support him

No population keeps a ruler for too long unless they are forced.
That isnt true at all especially when you have the power of the vote
Lets see how this election goes.
Lets see.

It is those community leaders that should be given the chance to move up. No term limits denies those people the liberty to run on good faith.
They have the right to if they want...


Why promote a policy that would deny the common people a chance to run for office? How can a school teacher in Venezuela compete with Chavez?
No term limits does not deny the people the right to run for office...
Please show the logic behind this..



One that favors him.
Cool. They won on a democratic vote.
Why is it a problem that party he belongs to is the most popular in the country currently?

In other words its an one man Revolution.
Maybe maybe not. We wont know until Chavez is gone.

Well of course his brother will step up to the plate.
Maybe maybe not. If he does he has to win elections.

Hugo seems like he is able to do whatever he wants. Like build a 130million dollar resting place for Simon Bolivar. 130m could have done a lot for the poor people of Venezuela. Perhaps it will be Chavez's resting place? Again we will wait and see. Venezuela: Why the big mausoleum, Mr. Chavez? | GlobalPost
Shocker he built a monument... :roll:
How evil....
 
Here was my PM about term limits:

"I believe they (term limits) are pointless. If people like you and you are a good leader and you are operating in free and fair elections the people can no longer vote for who they want. You also loose leaders, and experienced government officials. They are undemocratic. Plus democratic elections also are basically a sort of limit, they are a structural limitation, hense you have to win if you want to hold power.
More reasons include if you cannot run for a position because of a term limit and a new leader is elected that person who previously held the position takes all the experience and essential skills and work experience, and when a new leader comes in they will have to develop this from scratch. Also leaders who have reached a term limit are more likely to ignore the will of the people and the promises they promised on the campaign since they wont face a electorate after their last term.
They also serve little to no purpose. If you are popular amongst your people why should something such as a term limit hold your back for running again? It slows down democracy, and government."
 
I dissagree, it can become very easy, without term limits and serious checks, for one person to game the system, in an uncorruptable system fine, but thats impossible.
 
Here was my PM about term limits:

"I believe they (term limits) are pointless. If people like you and you are a good leader and you are operating in free and fair elections the people can no longer vote for who they want. You also loose leaders, and experienced government officials. They are undemocratic. Plus democratic elections also are basically a sort of limit, they are a structural limitation, hense you have to win if you want to hold power.
More reasons include if you cannot run for a position because of a term limit and a new leader is elected that person who previously held the position takes all the experience and essential skills and work experience, and when a new leader comes in they will have to develop this from scratch. Also leaders who have reached a term limit are more likely to ignore the will of the people and the promises they promised on the campaign since they wont face a electorate after their last term.
They also serve little to no purpose. If you are popular amongst your people why should something such as a term limit hold your back for running again? It slows down democracy, and government."

Here's mine:

A democratic government is served best not by professional politicians whose goal it is to hold on to power at all costs and find ways of enriching themselves on the public dime, but by citizen legislators whose goal is to do some good for the country in a limited term of public service, and then go back to a real career.
 
Yeah, I think we should extend that philosophy to all careers. No point in having people in jobs who have actual experience, especially in politics where we can just turn the whole thing over to unelected bureaucrats.

'Citizen Legislators'? Jesus, what is this -1792?
 
Last edited:
will be apprehensive about who emerges to fill the soon to occur power void

Interesting comment. It's not one you hear very often in a democracy.
 
Here was my PM about term limits:

"I believe they (term limits) are pointless. If people like you and you are a good leader and you are operating in free and fair elections the people can no longer vote for who they want. You also loose leaders, and experienced government officials. They are undemocratic. Plus democratic elections also are basically a sort of limit, they are a structural limitation, hense you have to win if you want to hold power.
More reasons include if you cannot run for a position because of a term limit and a new leader is elected that person who previously held the position takes all the experience and essential skills and work experience, and when a new leader comes in they will have to develop this from scratch. Also leaders who have reached a term limit are more likely to ignore the will of the people and the promises they promised on the campaign since they wont face a electorate after their last term.
They also serve little to no purpose. If you are popular amongst your people why should something such as a term limit hold your back for running again? It slows down democracy, and government."

Being the President or holding public office is a privilege and a duty not a career. There are many qualified people that can be politicians. Its not like these citizens are stupid idiots that can do the job. In fact that is what you are saying what Hugo Chavez is saying when publicly prays to god to stay alive so he can remain president. Hugo Chavez obviously thinks that only he can save the country which is certainly not even close to being true. but Chavez has manipulated the masses to get them to believe that he is Simon Bolivar incarnate. Which was not really that hard since the education system before he took office was almost nonexistent. The people are being indoctrinated in typical Leninist style schools.

And yes it was a bad thing to spend hundreds of millions on a monument when a portion of your people are sleeping the streets, starving, lacking clean drinking water, and having rolling black outs.
Where is the compassion the equality? Why build a monument to a dead guy when living people are suffering for the want of what they should already have in a Socialist country? What happened to the rights oof those citizens? Dont you find building a 130m dollar building just a tad bit corrupt? Or are you idolizing Hugo Chavez and believe that he cant do no wrong? One day he is not perfect and the next you are assuming that he would never abuse his power and when I show you an obvious abuse of power you shrug it off while ignoring the plight of the common citizen.

Again my concerns are with the people of Venezuela not a ruler that wants to keep his power. You seem hell bent on keeping a single person in power. Why is that what is so great about Hugo Chavez that makes him better than anyone else in Venezuela? Why should Chavez sleep in a palace when a large portion of the population lives in third world conditions? Come on man is your ideology so important that you put a tyrant up on a pedestal while ignoring the fact that people in Venezuela are suffering despite Chavez being in control for 14 years? How many people have died waiting for Chavez to save them? How much longer must the people wait for oil money to pay for their rights?

Speaking of oil, its safe also to say that Chavez is not at all concerned with the environment. Not once has he even suggested any green technologies.
 
Death threats! :lamo :lamo

Unlike you I don't assume all conservatives are pathological liars, just the crazy ones. Of course you know I never threatened you. You really should see someone for help before you go farther off the edge.

I implore the moderators to look at my postings, including my PM's and yours. You are the one who stepped over the line, not me. What is odd is all I did was report you breaking the rules, nothing personal. Now you fabricate all this stuff. You might really need some professional help before you start pulling the wings off flies or doing unmentionable things to cats and dogs.

Like ALL LIBERALS , you're are lying to deny the vile disgusting death threats and other psycho threats that you keep spamming my PM box. You really should seek some help.
 
This is a lie. Here is my PM:

I am reporting your infraction concerning the Chavez thread. You really should learn to temper what you say. You don't have to attempt to be the tough guy with every posting.

Yes that's part of the truth. I give you credit for admitting that you're a forum snitch that whines and cries to mods whenever someone posts something that you agree with but you've gone too far with your additional pms containing death threats. ... seek some help.
 
This reporter has been told that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma, an aggressive cancer that has "entered the end stage". The information and the quote come from a highly respected source close to Chavez and who is in a position to know his medical condition and history. This source says the prognosis is dire and that Chavez is now not expected to live "more than a couple of months at most." Chavez is running for re-elec tion in Venezuela but several sources--including the one who revealed the exact kind of cancer-- have told me that they believe it is doubtful the dictator will live to see the results.


Report: Chavez's cancer has 'entered the end stage' - Yahoo! News

Damn, that really blows. Despite my personal feelings concerning Chavez, I don't wish cancer on anyone.
 
Moderator's Warning:
This thread is also closed pending mod review.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom