Cheers, Red!

Translation: a litany of documentary evidence demonstrating the achievements of the Bolivarian revolution won't get in the way of Octavious continuing to make shit up about it.

The papers cover it, obviously, but the amount of time and effort dedicated to it is minimal (maybe that looks like a lot by US standards... I don't know). Besides, I hardly see how the Independent's article that draws attention to Capriles' alleged mob connections and links with violent protests can be considered anti-Chavez :p

Because the independent only speaks of this opposition march and says no a word about the massive pro-Chavez rally that occurred. This is the same paper that is always claiming Chavez has lost his popularity and is on the brink of defeat. It portrays Capriles as widely popular when he isn't.

The telegraph article I linked was a lengthy *interview* with Capriles, which of course they did not dare do with Chavez. How many British newspapers do you know sit down and have lengthy interviews with say, Peruvian opposition candidates?

Putin, I talk to local people who live there that I know well and trust. They are my Venezuelan news source. An online source written by a Liverpudlian left winger, the editor of "Boliviar Rising", and a member of the "Australian Socialist Alliance" (to name the first three) doesn't really carry the same weight. Hell, it doesn't carry any weight.

What is it with rightwingers who think that admitting that they rely on nothing but anecdotal personal connections with the exile community makes them have a pulse on the country? Data? Who needs that. Evidence? Irrelevant.

We can both play this "people we know" game. My wife actually visited Venezuela and did a human rights tour of the country, visiting the barrios, the clinics, meeting with women's groups, and talking with actual impoverished Venezuelans who aren't rich enough to get on speaking terms with British Tories to whom they badmouth their own country. Come up with something better. Next youll me Cuba is a horrible place because some Gusano friends of yours connected to the Miami mafia told you so.

Lol!

Go on then, Putin. Prove to me you're not a hypocrite and tell me that you consider Redhouse's http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/07/what-has-hugo-chavez-done-for-venezuela news site to be a far better source on Venezuela than the irrelevant anecdotal accounts of your wife who merely went there and met people. Go on, you know you want to!

I *never* rely on anecdotal accounts for anything. It's a pet peeve of mine I've always had. She also went to Colombia on that trip and he took me a long while, and much research, before I came around to her opinions on what is going on there. Anecdotes are completely unaccountable, at least you can verify any data Reason produces and see if it's actually accurate. But, like your story of the 2 pickpockets who made you condemn gypsies as a whole, you're content with believing whatever a handful of people tell you.

*it

...wow... that must be one hell of a relationship...

Mrs Putin "I say, dear, you'll never believe what I saw in Colombia"
Mr Putin "No, dear. I won't. Unless I get it independently verified!"

Sorry. Getting a bit out of line there. In many ways I will admit to having a certain admiration for your determination to stick to your principles... But by god, it sounds weird to my ears.

I seem to recall in that distant gypsy conversation I made a point of my admiration for British gypsies as a whole whilst you were insistant on telling our resident British gypsy exactly why his views were wrong and why he should change...

I think Putin has said it all, and your bias is stopping you accepting the good of the worlds most famous truly socialist leader

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=896903

The highlights:

"I've only ever had attempts to steal my wallet twice in my life, and both times it was by gypsies in continental Europe. It's as if they don't consider theft as immoral. Gypsy camps in Britain are safer than most cities, but I wouldn't go near one in Europe if you paid me."

You know, disagreeing with a political opponent to most people in my world, SD, means that said political opponent is "an idiot" or in one great man's words, a "fucktard" - hence why I distance myself from American politics as much as I can. Putin's right; I didn't like him but his relationship with the USA doesn't mean you can make up bullshit.

I'm confused by that post ^

Lol me too. There's a lot of stuff in that one :-)

Considering that Chavez is dying from cancer, it seems it was highly irresponsible of him to even run again. Surely there's someone else in his party who could pursue the same loony socialist policies. Twenty years in power is too long for anyone.

He may have been cured, and may not be dying. Also he had the best chance of winning out of any of the socialists and is entitled to run if he wants. His policies aren't loony and even if they are that is irrelevant to your points.... And twenty years is neither too much nor too little inherently, in that democracy, democracy is enacted, and someone is a legitimate leader as long as the people elect them - the fact he keeps getting re-elected shows he has not been in long enough yet according to the people he represents.

No, it is too long inherently. It's dangerous for the state itself to become as closely identified with one man as Chavez has become with Venezuela, and just makes the INEVITABLE transition to someone else's time as president more difficult. If the socialist project is all about Chavez then when he dies (which seems likely in the next six years) there's a much greater chance of unrest and even civil war in the subsequent transition. Chavez himself even alluded to in this campaign by saying his supporters and the army wouldn't tolerate an opposition win. Now suppose that including the opposition you have at least two factions from his own party struggling for control. He could have pulled a Putin and stepped aside, but his vainglory prevented it and it will hurt the country in the long run.

Obviously we have someone here who is not very keen on a liberal democracy - 'you can vote for who you want, except for these people' - a very nice position to have, and a nice slippery slope to throw yourself on. And if the person is the best person for the job then it is a tautology that they are the person that should lead, if you want the president to be the person that would be president the best. Chavez is trying to put the country in the best place to run after he dies (hopefully not in the next six years).

So I guess you're against term limits? I guess you'd have been fine with Reagan running in 1988 and 1992, then. He was still popular enough to win.

I am, and although I think Reagan to be a despicable person, I think he should have been able to run if he so wished.

Well, at least you're consistent in your absurd views.

They are not absurd, but thanks for appreciating the consistency ;) I feel my position is much more consistent than a position that limits who the people can elect, yet still claims to be democratic in the conventional liberal sense. Don't get me wrong, I see the pros of it, yet the cons outweigh it (in terms of both being able to prevent the best leader from leading, and also from going against the idea the the people can choose their leader - you're basically saying 'you can pick your leader, except you can't pick the leader you wont who represents your viewpoint best, they can't be leader, you've got to pick someone else)

There is a venezuelan host brother living with me at the moment, of course he is anti-Chavez. He claims Chavez had great aims, in the beginning did very well as a President, but got corrupt.
Apparently he and his government really are fucking corrupt, they fire people that support the opposition, and don´t allow men from the opposition in the army. And how can they be that rich?
Me personally, being a rather left-winged, appreciate a democratically elected socialism, you know, supporting the education and health care system, but then again, my host-brother lives there and has good reasons not to like Chavez. He cannot handle the inflation at all, and environmental pollution and crime are actually really big problems there.

Corruption is inevitable when a person, or even party, is in power too long. If the people of Venezuela want Chavez-style socialism then fine, but Chavez himself should have given up personal power to a successor at this election. If anything that would have cemented his revolution even further, since it's inevitable that he will die or leave power in old age so the revolution ought to be depersonalized so it could survive him.

I'm in touch with a lot of Venezuelan foreign exchange students who are all deeply upset that Chavez won. Again, since these people aren't exactly poor, their opinions don't matter to some people on this site, but what I've gotten from them is an overwhelmingly negative opinion of Chavez. That and the fact that Chavez has single-handidly wrecked the nation's oil industry. Its sitting on the largest reserves *in the world* and production has declined 30% since nationalization and Venezuela has to import gasoline for its own consumption now.

A very interesting article from 2007 on how Chavez has destroyed democracy in Venezuela. Printed in a well respected journal, by a well respected professor. I'm only a few pages in at the moment. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jod/summary/v018/18.2corrales.html

The one Venezuelan student I know feels the same way..

It's not that their opinions don't matter, but it's like saying the minority Assad belongs to wants him in power, ergo he should be in power - you are focusing on the minority that will obviously have a certain view point.

No, Socrates Dissatisfied, it is in fact nothing like that.