Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Chávez seeks changes allowing indefinite rule

Is Hugo Chávez becoming a dictator?


  • Total voters
    36
nosos said:
The king of thailand is ultimately wise and devoid of self-interest?

He is a very wise man, and has shown and demonstrated over many decades that he holds the interest of his nation and its people above his own. I know of no other example, save perhaps nelson mandela or the east timor lad, but they weren't kings...
 
The old monarch takes a pretty hard line on drugs, doesn't he? I wouldn't have thought you'd agree with him, Fela.
 
Irenick said:
To a degree Chávez rules by virtue of the circumstances of his birth. Coming from a primarily indigenous Indian background; he has broken the rule of the oligarch, predominantly ‘European’ Venezuelans. Hopefully, this trend can continue; and, indigenous Venezuelans can, in the future control their own destiny.

He wasn't born "into the purple". Also, as a man who comes from an indigenous Indian background, he was a member of one of the lower castes under the previous regimes. People of Spanish origin ran the country before Chavez's rise to power, in case you had forgotten. They dominated the economics and politics of the country; they controlled the wealth and they controlled the media - until fairly recently. So no, Chavez does not rule according to the circumstances of his birth...unless you're reading the Jesse Helms version of his life.
 
I'm not sure what to make of Chavez. Some of what he's done is good, and he's part of a general (and IMO encouraging) swing to the left in south America. I don't think he's much of a democrat, though. That said, however, compared with regimes in nearby countries in the recent past, often western-backed, he's not so bad. Not a man to be trusted, I think, but not a wholly bad man either.
 
I like his strategy to pull South America out of the IMF programmes but it's being replaced by economic dependency on him and Venezuela...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2144693,00.html

President Hugo Chávez has launched an intensive tour of South America to shore up Venezuela's influence over the region and to loosen the grip of western creditors. The socialist leader promised to buy up to $1bn (£500m) of Argentinian bonds and to help fund a $400m gas plant, bolstering his reputation as a benefactor of Buenos Aires's economic recovery.

Mr Chávez was expected to announce other economic and energy deals during visits to Uruguay, Ecuador and Bolivia, underlining his ambition to forge a common Latin American front under his leadership.
 
I don't think the 'common Latin American' front is a bad thing and I think much of what Chavez is doing to bring it about is creditable, but he does seem to envisage too great a role for himself. He's starting to smell of megalomania a bit IMO.
 
nino_savatte said:
He wasn't born "into the purple". Also, as a man who comes from an indigenous Indian background, he was a member of one of the lower castes under the previous regimes. People of Spanish origin ran the country before Chavez's rise to power, in case you had forgotten. They dominated the economics and politics of the country; they controlled the wealth and they controlled the media - until fairly recently. So no, Chavez does not rule according to the circumstances of his birth...unless you're reading the Jesse Helms version of his life.

I didn’t claim he’d been born ‘into the purple’. My contention is that he has reached the position of president; and, held it through 8 or 9 elections of one kind or another; in part because he is of the people - primarily indigenous Indian. He appeals to the majority of Venezuelans, through his socialist agenda; and, because he is one of them, not part of the Spanish-Venezuelan clique that you, rightly, state ran the country prior to his taking over.

Chávez is who he is, by virtue of the circumstances of his birth.

The Jesse Helms dig was quite unnecessary – you fucktard.
 
Irenick said:
I didn’t claim he’d been born ‘into the purple’. My contention is that he has reached the position of president; and, held it through 8 or 9 elections of one kind or another; in part because he is of the people - primarily indigenous Indian. He appeals to the majority of Venezuelans, through his socialist agenda; and, because he is one of them, not part of the Spanish-Venezuelan clique that you, rightly, state ran the country prior to his taking over.

Chávez is who he is, by virtue of the circumstances of his birth.

The Jesse Helms dig was quite unnecessary – you fucktard.

No, you suggested that Chavez became president by virtue of the circumstances of his birth. You said that or are you trying to say that you didn't?

To a degree Chávez rules by virtue of the circumstances of his birth.

If this were true, fucktard, Chavez would have been king/presidente a long time ago.
 
JHE said:
The old monarch (the thai King JP) takes a pretty hard line on drugs, doesn't he? I wouldn't have thought you'd agree with him, Fela.

He banned Youtube for like a year aswell because there were videos mocking him on there.

Frankly he can kiss my exposed feet, the humourless twat.

Down with all the relics of feudalism. Subjects of the World Unite!

lenin-clean.jpg
 
Roadkill said:
I don't think the 'common Latin American' front is a bad thing and I think much of what Chavez is doing to bring it about is creditable, but he does seem to envisage too great a role for himself. He's starting to smell of megalomania a bit IMO.

Yep that pretty much sums up my thoughts on this too.
 
Even tho it's paimei who said it, there was some old twunt in either the Obs or Grauniad who was banging on about how monarchies can sometimes have a role in stabilising/preserving democracies if they are stripped of everything by their symbolic role...there's probably something in the notion - shared symbols of national identity (support for this obviously applies to the world outside Urban and lefty activist politics;)) and in the UK the very clear rules about not being able to say anything about politics, but I wouldn't ever accept the notion of a hereditary ruler with any actual real power-wielding ability...
 
nino_savatte said:
No, you suggested that Chavez became president by virtue of the circumstances of his birth. You said that or are you trying to say that you didn't?



If this were true, fucktard, Chavez would have been king/presidente a long time ago.

Go fuck yourself, cuntoid.
 
nino_savatte said:
No, you suggested that Chavez became president by virtue of the circumstances of his birth. You said that or are you trying to say that you didn't?



If this were true, fucktard, Chavez would have been king/presidente a long time ago.

Only, in your understanding of things, nonce cunt.
 
Irenick said:
Only, in your understanding of things, nonce cunt.
Stop this unpleasant personal abuse please. It's not on to call anyone a 'nonce' here.

(This goes to all posters hurling around insults in this thread).

Thanks.
 
JHE said:
The old monarch takes a pretty hard line on drugs, doesn't he? I wouldn't have thought you'd agree with him, Fela.

I wouldn't at all mate! But i've never heard him talk about them, although that doesn't mean he hasn't. But the problem over here is that everything is 'drugs', and their big problem is ya baa, a kind of mad speed pill, and dope just gets caught up in it. Incidentally there was very little problem with dope until the late 90s when the european embassies started poking their noses in.
 
Roadkill said:
I'm not sure what to make of Chavez. Some of what he's done is good, and he's part of a general (and IMO encouraging) swing to the left in south America. I don't think he's much of a democrat, though. That said, however, compared with regimes in nearby countries in the recent past, often western-backed, he's not so bad. Not a man to be trusted, I think, but not a wholly bad man either.

When we look at the actions of the likes of blair or bush, then i think chavez comes across as a supremely democratic leader, never mind comparing him to his neigbhours.

As for being trusted, never trust a single politician in any country.
 
JoePolitix said:
He banned Youtube for like a year aswell because there were videos mocking him on there.

No he did not ban youtube. Be careful joe with such loose facts.

Frankly, he himself has no problems with criticisms of him, but laws in the land make that a most dodgy thing to do. Nothing to do with him though.
 
fela fan said:
No he did not ban youtube. Be careful joe with such loose facts.

Frankly, he himself has no problems with criticisms of him, but laws in the land make that a most dodgy thing to do. Nothing to do with him though.

No? Nothing?

You liked that old homophobe Mahathir as well didn't you?
 
butchersapron said:
And pretended that all the bad stuff didn't exist or came form him.

You're really rather naive aren't you fela?

Yes, if you say so butchersapron. But it's interesting to see how you think you can judge some anonymous person's character half way across the world based on what you read from them on an internet site.

That almost makes you naive as well, ironically, considering what you've just said about me. Ahh, such is the ways of judgmental persons.
 
fela fan said:
... laws in the land make that a most dodgy thing to do. Nothing to do with him though.
He could get those laws changed, could he not ?
 
TAE said:
He could get those laws changed, could he not ?

No, he can't. It's an interesting connundrum. He really has no power at all, constitutionally, except that 99% of the 60 million people love him and because of this he is afforded great power.

So, he can't get laws changed, but those with the real power can easily be usurped by the king, via people power.

I might not have made that clear, but i hope the general idea comes across. It really is a unique situation that i know of.
 
Sorry, I lost the plot there, I thought we were still talking about that South American guy.
:o
 
Back
Top Bottom