That article has no links to prove Chavez did anything to turn Venezuela into a dictatorship. It's complaints from partisans about how he wouldn't let certain people grow in their business with monopoie. There are no comments about how he allowed co-ops to form in various industries, merely complaint after whining complaint about how the press is suppressed and judges are stackedagainst business interests.
But woe betide that if you do a cost-benefit analysis and found out he did a lotmore good by helping people over profit motives that worked to undermine him constantly.
Let's ignore how he blatantly told Obama that the drug war wasn't working and pushed Latin America in a more Socialist direction.
Let's ignore how he reduced poverty, created a more educated workforce, and helped show how unequal capitalism is by going in a direction that FDR was going.
Instead, one partisan article takes narrow focuses on two parts of Chavez' legacy and decides that it applies to everything he did.
And to answer your questions, he didn't penalize speech. He prevented the poor from losing their voice. That allowed more speech.
He exiled some people but he also allowed them to form their own political parties where they tried to ouster him with US backing.
America tries to bully people along with any other nation so I don't really understand the point here. Yes, he did this, but at this point he allowed the people to decide if he needed to be taken out of office democratically. So obviously, they liked him in overwhelming numbers.
Allocation of private property to public resources is a tenant of Socialism. So it seems you're bitter that he allowed the public to redistribute the wealth to help the nation prosper. That's a narrow view, don't you think?
Finally, the last two questions are repeats but America has laws similar to them like the Fairness Doctrine and the FCC who regulate the airwaves for hateful speech. You might not agree but that was their job before Reagan made up rules for monopolies to form in the broadcasting industry.
Oh, and America allowed the HSBC to launder money to Al'Qaeda and banks to do business with Iran.
Quit throwing stones when your own house is made of glass.
Amending the Constitution is one option along with the rest of the country recognizing that our government is used for public services, not as a second business option.
He ain't – wasn't – a dictator. As I said above, he was a hybrid, an elected autocrat. What that means is he won free (though not entirely fair) votes, year after year. He allowed the opposition to organise. There was a vocal privately owned media which railed against him, Fox-like. But he concentrated powers – the courts, armed forces, state oil company, national assembly, all genuflected before the voice of the comandante. Over time he became more repressive: opponents and people he didn't like were accused of corruption and banned from running for office, or jailed. Some fled. But he never became as repressive as some critics claimed. There were no gulags, no death squads, no terror. He was a bully, but not bloodthirsty.
Oh and you might want to check this out where the US had plans to overthrow Chavez that didn't work.
Just recently, the loser wanted a coup but Chavez' successor won fair and square. The same thing that Chavez did 11 times. Whether you liked him or not, Chavez is essentially the Venezuelan FDR with his popularity and he did go further to promote democracy than dampen it when his opponents worked to undermine him.
". The public sector unions run California, top to bottom, which is even worse, because public sector unions do it with taxpayer money."
btr, MY entire point is about unions on the national level. You've just self servingly limited the point that I raised which is about unions all over the country.
How many people they represent is irrelevant. It only matters how influential they are with politicians.
They aren't. You know what would have happened if there were a strong union? West Texas does not like unions and it's a great example of why regulations actually save lives.
I know you're partisan but this is ridiculous. You have to read my words five ways from Sunday to come to a tortured point when I've argued something entirely different. I haven't seen evidence of the AFL-CIO being able to gain more power because they don't have it. The money for corporations to allow unions comes from the capitalists and they don't want unions hence the 7% number. It's great that you live in California, but I'm not talking about just one state. I'm talking about the entire country.
Congratulations on making a strawman argument but the bigger picture is with the nation hence my point still stands.
What's funny is how the DMCA safe harbors came to be. It seemed that the trade organizations merely wanted to pass the DMCA without the harbors. Let's remember that they didn't go on their rampage until 2008 of suing the entire country and losing everyone.
Out of nowhere, Verizon steps in as a very concerned third party, pushing for the safe harbors.
I know AJ loves to push the idea that Google was powerful enough to push for this, but these safe harbors were a mainstay of Verizon when it was actually concerned about itself (it helped the public immensely but it didn't protect anyone more than not passing the DMCA would have done).
If letting users post without checking their post, and recursively through any links, leaves a service provider open to legal action they will change their business model or shut-down.
You're right. It's self-censorship. You should not have to check with anyone for your post to be written and now you're asking for a system where people MUST self censor in order to produce content. That is beyond absurd.
But their position is unattainable. Sure, they have 30 years of low tax rates to provide money to this project. Yes, the ISPs help to slow down the internet. But they won't ever achieve the end goal of making the internet a cable system. It's a mass communications democratic tool. Even for the politicians, they can't change this fact.
The need to regulate may be strong, but it's like dealing with lightning. Your chances of getting hit by these bolts are incredibly low.
The consequences of trying to shut off the internet will reach these people far more than anything they do to try to control it though...
Just think about it... They spend the money for their monopoly position and they ignore the competition underneath them. They ignore the Kickstarters and entertainments that people actually enjoy. They are losing more revenue by not providing the public with new services. Eventually, they will have a disruption that they've never seen coming. Whether that's from gaming companies usurping their position as the largest companies or Google Fiber creating even faster broadband without the spyware (stop laughing), the disruption will change their tune the same as a new president that doesn't take corporate bribes from being a left wing president similar to FDR.
Hmmm... It's odd... I've been studying alternative economics to Keynesian and I believe that looking at copyright in a different perspective might help. The problem is how copyright merges a number of issues into this concept of holding back a market in order to attain more profit.
If you literally run through what copyright does, it's obvious that creating a monopoly doesn't cause more work to be produced. When we look at monopolies, we are seeing an inefficient market at play. So why tolerate inefficiency when we know it makes the public worse off?
Again, the fact remains that our presidents have gotten more conservative over time thanks to the moneyed influence in our politics.
Democrats are corporate whores but Republicans are HORRIBLE. I mean, they tried to vote in Reagan a second time. Oh, I'm sorry, Mitt "I'm rich, Biatch!" Romney, the vulture capitalist that wanted to harvest companies and said anything to win.
If you had a better system that implemented third parties, I'm sure you would have a stronger democracy instead of the plutocracy that you see now.
That isn't true at all. He's controversial because he was more of a Socialist Christian and he did a lot for the people:
Despite producing more than $300 billion of oil wealth between 1958 and 1998, the equivalent of 20 Marshall Plans, the majority of Venezuelans were living in shocking slums (McCaughan, M. The Battle of Venezuela, pp. 29-32). By the 1990s, quality of life indicators for ordinary Caracas residents were slightly below Port-Au-Prince, Haiti. Between 1970-1997, workers' incomes declined by 50%, while poverty doubled between 1984-1991. There was widespread repression, with the previous 3 presidents all using censors and all suspending constitutional guarantees.
...
Given Venezuela's population, that equates to around 9 million people (1/3 of the entire population) pulled out of poverty. Both the United Nations Development Project and the World Bank agree that unemployment dropped from over 11% to under 8%.
That's a big issue. He's helped revolutionize Latin America with Socialist theories that took away austerity measures and improved the lives of millions with the production of co-ops and nationalizing the oil for the people.
What people think of Socialism (a top down organization that tells people how to live their lives) ignores how much he allowed co-ops and people to begin to change their own lives for the better.
Also, the US wanted to destabalize the region as seen here.
Finally, if you want to see what he has to say about Socialism over Capitalism, you can look it up on Youtube
" Because i have been there and have many family and friends that well be more than happy to Punch the living shit out of you for even bringing that up... Chavez is an absolute dictator with secret police, summary executions for anyone not agreeing enough, and would make Stalin blink at some of the shit he has done (it was very common for police to ask ppl questions at random on the street based on the "TV" show Chavez had weekly, get the question wrong your going to jail at a minimum) "
Chavez was elected repeatedly through large margins by fair elections that were overseen by international bodies. Either you're lying to support a political point or you are parroting news to support your own ideological beliefs.
" Next Bullshit you will pull is that Che Guevara is some great supporter of Democracy and not a butcher and madman. "
What does Che Guevara and his struggle in Cuba have to do with anything? Do you not know how much the CIA did to undermine him and Cuba during the 60s and 70s?
" Chavez didnt do a damn thing to support anything but Chavez and his buddies, and killed anyone who said different!"
Ah, so you believe the garbage from NYT & Washington Past that says he was a dictator while other news sites explain how he allowed the Carter foundationto observe the elections fairly and just ran with it.
" Unions still wield power. Look into the Local 34 at Yale."
Uh... Where. They don't wield power on the national stage as you've just pointed out. Same with the AFL-CIO who has elected to support corporate interests over the people they are paid to protect.
" All of your ranting may well be problems we have; however, the solution has nothing to do with them."
My "rant" wasn't meant to try to solve anything. It was structured to raise awareness of how little power unions have had in society in the last half-century.
" Corporatism is just simple human nature: The CEOs and the congressmen are buddies, and a likely place for them to work when if they don't get reelected. "
Corporatism is not simple human nature. It comes from an undemocratic structure that allows a select few to make decisions over the many. Before, that was called feudalism. Now, we call it a board of directors in an enterprise.
If a BoD had to live with the decisions of their choices, I'm sure they would decide differently in how they interact with the public. As it stands, the needs of the few outweigh the many and we are seeing the end results of that.
" We need to take an active interest in our government. Voting is the bare minimum; we were meant to do much more."
Interesting stance, bit I would argue that attacking the government is misguided. This is a result of thirty years of rule by the rich. If we can understand that, them we can work to change our economics and politics to a more egalitarian democracy.
Unions have NOT BEEN powerful in the US since the 30s when they influenced FDR into a more progressive stance.
Further, private sector unions make up SEVEN PERCENT of the workforce. Seven. As in, they aren't non-existent to for the majority of workers. What you're actually referring to is the public sector unions that protect the police from being fired. You know, the ones that ignore how police officers raid pensions and give themselves high bonuses? How about discussing the police state has grown under the last three presidents?
No, it's not the fault of the unions. It's a carefully manufactured support for more authoritarianism.
Finally, if the rich were providing goods and services that people want, why do you support an ideology that looks to deprive people of choices and point fingers? They don't. They look to monopolize markets to ensure that they continue to make money on the misery of others. Whether that's copyright law where people with a financial interest in more copyright make the law, patents where the most patents wins, or destroying political opponents to win elections, the root cause of this is that people at the top look to destroy those below them to ensure their own dominance. That's a dangerous position when people figure it out.
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But woe betide that if you do a cost-benefit analysis and found out he did a lotmore good by helping people over profit motives that worked to undermine him constantly.
Let's ignore how he blatantly told Obama that the drug war wasn't working and pushed Latin America in a more Socialist direction.
Let's ignore how he reduced poverty, created a more educated workforce, and helped show how unequal capitalism is by going in a direction that FDR was going.
Instead, one partisan article takes narrow focuses on two parts of Chavez' legacy and decides that it applies to everything he did.
And to answer your questions, he didn't penalize speech. He prevented the poor from losing their voice. That allowed more speech.
He exiled some people but he also allowed them to form their own political parties where they tried to ouster him with US backing.
America tries to bully people along with any other nation so I don't really understand the point here. Yes, he did this, but at this point he allowed the people to decide if he needed to be taken out of office democratically. So obviously, they liked him in overwhelming numbers.
Allocation of private property to public resources is a tenant of Socialism. So it seems you're bitter that he allowed the public to redistribute the wealth to help the nation prosper. That's a narrow view, don't you think?
Finally, the last two questions are repeats but America has laws similar to them like the Fairness Doctrine and the FCC who regulate the airwaves for hateful speech. You might not agree but that was their job before Reagan made up rules for monopolies to form in the broadcasting industry.
Oh, and America allowed the HSBC to launder money to Al'Qaeda and banks to do business with Iran.
Quit throwing stones when your own house is made of glass.
On the post: When Corruption Fails: Hollywood Has 'Turned Off The Critical Thinking Functions Of Many Democrats'
Re: Feasible?
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We're supposed to believe that the press and the courts are packed thanks to Chavez? Are you kidding me?
He was an elected autocrat:
He ain't – wasn't – a dictator. As I said above, he was a hybrid, an elected autocrat. What that means is he won free (though not entirely fair) votes, year after year. He allowed the opposition to organise. There was a vocal privately owned media which railed against him, Fox-like. But he concentrated powers – the courts, armed forces, state oil company, national assembly, all genuflected before the voice of the comandante. Over time he became more repressive: opponents and people he didn't like were accused of corruption and banned from running for office, or jailed. Some fled. But he never became as repressive as some critics claimed. There were no gulags, no death squads, no terror. He was a bully, but not bloodthirsty.
Oh and you might want to check this out where the US had plans to overthrow Chavez that didn't work.
Just recently, the loser wanted a coup but Chavez' successor won fair and square. The same thing that Chavez did 11 times. Whether you liked him or not, Chavez is essentially the Venezuelan FDR with his popularity and he did go further to promote democracy than dampen it when his opponents worked to undermine him.
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
btr, MY entire point is about unions on the national level. You've just self servingly limited the point that I raised which is about unions all over the country.
How many people they represent is irrelevant. It only matters how influential they are with politicians.
They aren't. You know what would have happened if there were a strong union? West Texas does not like unions and it's a great example of why regulations actually save lives.
I know you're partisan but this is ridiculous. You have to read my words five ways from Sunday to come to a tortured point when I've argued something entirely different. I haven't seen evidence of the AFL-CIO being able to gain more power because they don't have it. The money for corporations to allow unions comes from the capitalists and they don't want unions hence the 7% number. It's great that you live in California, but I'm not talking about just one state. I'm talking about the entire country.
Congratulations on making a strawman argument but the bigger picture is with the nation hence my point still stands.
On the post: Grooveshark Loses Latest Round In Court, In A Ruling That Could Gut The DMCA's Safe Harbors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
Out of nowhere, Verizon steps in as a very concerned third party, pushing for the safe harbors.
I know AJ loves to push the idea that Google was powerful enough to push for this, but these safe harbors were a mainstay of Verizon when it was actually concerned about itself (it helped the public immensely but it didn't protect anyone more than not passing the DMCA would have done).
On the post: Double Blow Against Freedom Of Speech For Twitter Users In Turkey
All I can think
What's next? We're going to throw people in jail for breathing too hard?
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...private sector unions make up SEVEN PERCENT of the workforce. Seven. As in, they aren't non-existent to for the majority of workers.
Here's who the unions represent from the wiki page:
▪ Age 16–24: 5.0%
▪ 25–34: 10.7%
▪ 35–44: 13.4%
▪ 45–54: 16.0%
▪ 55–64: 16.6%
▪ 65 and over: 9.0%
▪ Women: 11.4%
▪ Men: 13.4%
So I maintain my position that they represent so few Americans as to be non-existent to them.
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I notice a lot of spitfire rhetoric but a lot of ignorance on how US media demonized Chavez because they didn't get what they wanted.
On the post: Grooveshark Loses Latest Round In Court, In A Ruling That Could Gut The DMCA's Safe Harbors
Re: Re: Indefensible
You're right. It's self-censorship. You should not have to check with anyone for your post to be written and now you're asking for a system where people MUST self censor in order to produce content. That is beyond absurd.
On the post: Grooveshark Loses Latest Round In Court, In A Ruling That Could Gut The DMCA's Safe Harbors
Indefensible
The need to regulate may be strong, but it's like dealing with lightning. Your chances of getting hit by these bolts are incredibly low.
The consequences of trying to shut off the internet will reach these people far more than anything they do to try to control it though...
Just think about it... They spend the money for their monopoly position and they ignore the competition underneath them. They ignore the Kickstarters and entertainments that people actually enjoy. They are losing more revenue by not providing the public with new services. Eventually, they will have a disruption that they've never seen coming. Whether that's from gaming companies usurping their position as the largest companies or Google Fiber creating even faster broadband without the spyware (stop laughing), the disruption will change their tune the same as a new president that doesn't take corporate bribes from being a left wing president similar to FDR.
On the post: Grooveshark Loses Latest Round In Court, In A Ruling That Could Gut The DMCA's Safe Harbors
*sigh*
On the post: The Copyright Lobotomy: How Intellectual Property Makes Us Pretend To Be Stupid
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you literally run through what copyright does, it's obvious that creating a monopoly doesn't cause more work to be produced. When we look at monopolies, we are seeing an inefficient market at play. So why tolerate inefficiency when we know it makes the public worse off?
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If he were such a "dictator" why is there evidence that America tried to undermine him for going against their interests?
Further, how exactly would he be a tyrant when he ruled by popular vote?
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Democrats are corporate whores but Republicans are HORRIBLE. I mean, they tried to vote in Reagan a second time. Oh, I'm sorry, Mitt "I'm rich, Biatch!" Romney, the vulture capitalist that wanted to harvest companies and said anything to win.
If you had a better system that implemented third parties, I'm sure you would have a stronger democracy instead of the plutocracy that you see now.
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Despite producing more than $300 billion of oil wealth between 1958 and 1998, the equivalent of 20 Marshall Plans, the majority of Venezuelans were living in shocking slums (McCaughan, M. The Battle of Venezuela, pp. 29-32). By the 1990s, quality of life indicators for ordinary Caracas residents were slightly below Port-Au-Prince, Haiti. Between 1970-1997, workers' incomes declined by 50%, while poverty doubled between 1984-1991. There was widespread repression, with the previous 3 presidents all using censors and all suspending constitutional guarantees.
...
Given Venezuela's population, that equates to around 9 million people (1/3 of the entire population) pulled out of poverty. Both the United Nations Development Project and the World Bank agree that unemployment dropped from over 11% to under 8%.
That's a big issue. He's helped revolutionize Latin America with Socialist theories that took away austerity measures and improved the lives of millions with the production of co-ops and nationalizing the oil for the people.
What people think of Socialism (a top down organization that tells people how to live their lives) ignores how much he allowed co-ops and people to begin to change their own lives for the better.
Also, the US wanted to destabalize the region as seen here.
Finally, if you want to see what he has to say about Socialism over Capitalism, you can look it up on Youtube
On the post: Rep. Peter King, Mayor Bloomberg Agree: Boston Bombing Shows We Desperately Need MORE Surveillance
Re: Re: What about rights and money?
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Chavez was elected repeatedly through large margins by fair elections that were overseen by international bodies. Either you're lying to support a political point or you are parroting news to support your own ideological beliefs.
" Next Bullshit you will pull is that Che Guevara is some great supporter of Democracy and not a butcher and madman. "
What does Che Guevara and his struggle in Cuba have to do with anything? Do you not know how much the CIA did to undermine him and Cuba during the 60s and 70s?
" Chavez didnt do a damn thing to support anything but Chavez and his buddies, and killed anyone who said different!"
Ah, so you believe the garbage from NYT & Washington Past that says he was a dictator while other news sites explain how he allowed the Carter foundationto observe the elections fairly and just ran with it.
Sorry, but you've been duped.
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh... Where. They don't wield power on the national stage as you've just pointed out. Same with the AFL-CIO who has elected to support corporate interests over the people they are paid to protect.
" All of your ranting may well be problems we have; however, the solution has nothing to do with them."
My "rant" wasn't meant to try to solve anything. It was structured to raise awareness of how little power unions have had in society in the last half-century.
" Corporatism is just simple human nature: The CEOs and the congressmen are buddies, and a likely place for them to work when if they don't get reelected. "
Corporatism is not simple human nature. It comes from an undemocratic structure that allows a select few to make decisions over the many. Before, that was called feudalism. Now, we call it a board of directors in an enterprise.
If a BoD had to live with the decisions of their choices, I'm sure they would decide differently in how they interact with the public. As it stands, the needs of the few outweigh the many and we are seeing the end results of that.
" We need to take an active interest in our government. Voting is the bare minimum; we were meant to do much more."
Interesting stance, bit I would argue that attacking the government is misguided. This is a result of thirty years of rule by the rich. If we can understand that, them we can work to change our economics and politics to a more egalitarian democracy.
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Hmmm
-- Cicero
On the post: Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Further, private sector unions make up SEVEN PERCENT of the workforce. Seven. As in, they aren't non-existent to for the majority of workers. What you're actually referring to is the public sector unions that protect the police from being fired. You know, the ones that ignore how police officers raid pensions and give themselves high bonuses? How about discussing the police state has grown under the last three presidents?
No, it's not the fault of the unions. It's a carefully manufactured support for more authoritarianism.
Finally, if the rich were providing goods and services that people want, why do you support an ideology that looks to deprive people of choices and point fingers? They don't. They look to monopolize markets to ensure that they continue to make money on the misery of others. Whether that's copyright law where people with a financial interest in more copyright make the law, patents where the most patents wins, or destroying political opponents to win elections, the root cause of this is that people at the top look to destroy those below them to ensure their own dominance. That's a dangerous position when people figure it out.
Next >>