Venezuela hits BP with back-tax bill

[In Bloom]

Sorry son i just have .....and iv`e tought you where some reganite tosser..but what you actually said is about the accumilation of power within one indivudal/institution.apoligies

Fair dos, I probably didn't come off too well on here yesterday, I was having a bit of a nic fit

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

You have my sympathies, IB. Not an easy one to kick. (I haven't).

-

To return, for a moment, to the salient point raised earlier...

Checks and balances exist for a reason: to stop any branch of government from wielding too much power.
Whether you agree with the government in question is not the issue.

On reflection, I couldn't agree more.

Top U.S. court being asked to curb Bush's powers
Last Updated Tue, 28 Mar 2006 07:47:16 EST
CBC News

The Supreme Court of the United States was set to hear oral arguments Tuesday in a case that may determine what limits, if any, should be placed on the wartime powers of an American president.

The case involves an al-Qaeda member from Yemen, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who once worked as a driver and bodyguard to Osama bin Laden.

He is incarcerated at an American military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and faces trial before a Pentagon-controlled military commission.

His lawyers are asking the country's top court to ban such commissions and curtail the powers of the president who created them.

"The laws of war were set up to get rid of the idea that to the victor went everything," said Lt.-Cmdr Charles Swift, the U.S. navy lawyer assigned to defend Hamdan.

He said the military commission that is supposed to try his client is not a legitimate court because President George W. Bush created it on his own, without the participation of Congress.

The Pentagon wrote its rules, and the judge, jury, prosecution and defence are all military personnel.

There's also no external judicial review if a defendant wants to appeal.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/28/guantanamo-powers060328.html



This might be a good point at which to remind ourselves of how Hitler - sorry, Chavez dealt with the 2002 coup participants:

Criminal penalties for coup participants

Under the 1999 Constitution, military officers are entitled to a pre-trial hearing before the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice to rule on whether they should be charged with a crime. In such a hearing on August 14, 2002, the Tribunal ruled by an 11-9 margin (with two justices recused) that four high-ranking military officers charged with rebellion should not stand trial, arguing that what took place was not a "coup" but a "vacuum of power" that had been generated by the announcement of Chávez's resignation made by Gen. Lucas Rincón Romero.[8] On March 12, 2004, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled that the recusals were unconstitutional, the hearing was invalid, and the military officers (by then retired) may stand trial.

On November 18, 2004, leading state prosecutor Danilo Anderson was assassinated, shortly before he was scheduled to bring charges against 400 people who participated in the coup.

Meanwhile Carmona and several other consiprators fled overseas. After Chávez announced there would be no witch hunt, Ortega and several of his co-conspirators came out of hiding in Venezuela.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezu...2002#Criminal_penalties_for_coup_participants



Now... what was all that about 'authoritarian activities' and 'totalitarian dictatorships' with 'questionable attitudes to democracy'?

When a politician subverts a democratic system to gain dictatorial powers, do you not find it worrying?

Um... Gee... I guess...


Do you?

 

[Xipe Totec]

So it seems he has actually dispersed power, rather than consolidated.

There is nothing wrong with the system.
Dispersing government power amongst five branches is a structurally sound, and Chavez deserves credit for introducing it.
However some of these branches of these branches are supposed to be independant.
But they are headed by allies of the president, and act accordngly.

So, to return to your theme, what happened when Chavez lost (or more accurately - was robbed of) power to someone I 'fundamentally disagree with' - US lacky and corporate cock-gobbler Pedro Carmona?

As you say, the elected president was robbed of power in a coup.
Why is this relevent to Chavez`s actions now?
If anything, it shows why a stable and democratic political system is so important for Venezuela.

Information on why you feel that Chevez is a bad person, why you think that his country is not safe while he is in power

I have not made either of these claims.

anything that could support why you are so concerned.

I would be concerned by any similar actions by any political figure/party in any country.
Take the US for example: should US citizens be worried that one party controls the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government?
That the president has previously acted above the law, and can do so again in the future?

 

[Xipe Totec]

Now... what was all that about 'authoritarian activities'

Opposition parties have claimed they are subject to disrimination and harrassment from the government.

and 'totalitarian dictatorships'

This was my description of Cuba. Do you disagree?

with 'questionable attitudes to democracy'?

The acquisitian of power by the government should not be questioned?

 

[spring-peeper]

I would be concerned by any similar actions by any political figure/party in any country.
Take the US for example: should US citizens be worried that one party controls the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government?
That the president has previously acted above the law, and can do so again in the future?

I, too, am worried about the United States.

I think that Venezuela took into account the problems with the US system and adjusted theirs in a way to compensate for any flaws.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

There is nothing wrong with the system.
Dispersing government power amongst five branches is a structurally sound, and Chavez deserves credit for introducing it.
However some of these branches of these branches are supposed to be independant.
But they are headed by allies of the president, and act accordngly.

Independent of what, exactly? Good sense? Morality? The democratically expressed wishes of the Venezuelan people???

If they are not to be 'headed by allies of the president', then by whom, exactly?

Logically, since Chavez has set himself against the economic imperialism and neo-liberal wouldbe-rapists (and their bitches), one who is not considered his 'ally' would have to be a US lacky and corporate cock-gobbler!

BTW, your exact words were:

Chavez, a man with very questionable attitudes to democracy, will have the entire apparatus of the state at his disposal

We've already established that his actions amount to a dispersal of power, so your remark regarding questioning 'acquisitian of power' is null.

Let's take a step back to one of your earlier posts:

The entire state apparatus - judiciary, armed forces, state enterprise, audit office and, since the last elections, the national parliment - are all under the control of Chavez supporters. No checks to the presidents power remain: he can pass any law, or alter the constitution as he pleases.
True, he has not acted on his new powers yet. But in a politically turbulent country like Venezuela, shouldn`t curbs on the state`s power be of the highest importance?

Certainly, the Chavez regime touts "participatory democracy" as one of it`s principal goals.
Yet only 20-25% of the electorate voted in the last election.

There are many Latin American societies following progressive and viable policies at the moment.
However, the cheap populism of Chavez is not amongst them.

We've established that the first part of this post is not based in reality - but where on earth did you get the '20-25%' figure from?

As I understand it, in the 2004 recall referendum 69.92% of registered voters cast a vote, in the July 2000 Presidential 56.63% voted and in 1998 it was 63.76%.

To be honest, I find your entire argument, posting style and general manner to be somewhat insidious while at the same time completely lacking in substance, factual basis or even entertainment value.

I suggest you take a long, hard look at the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. You may learn something yet.

 

[Xipe Totec]

Independent of what, exactly? Good sense?

I should hope not.

Morality?

Hmm...

The democratically expressed wishes of the Venezuelan people???

Exactly.

If they are not to be 'headed by allies of the president', then by whom, exactly?

People whose primary interests are to serve the public rather than the president.

Logically, since Chavez has set himself against the economic imperialism and neo-liberal wouldbe-rapists (and their bitches), one who is not considered his 'ally' would have to be a US lacky and corporate cock-gobbler!

Logically? No, the conclusion does not follow from the premise. What you have there is a bunch of logical fallacies, and a couple of phallacies.

We've already established that his actions amount to a dispersal of power,

We have?

so your remark regarding questioning 'acquisitian of power' is null.

Which of my arguments have been nulled?

where on earth did you get the '20-25%' figure from?

The 25% is CNE`s figure for voter turnout from the elections in December.
Observers and the opposition put it at about 20%.

As I understand it, in the 2004 recall referendum 69.92% of registered voters cast a vote, in the July 2000 Presidential 56.63% voted and in 1998 it was 63.76%.

I was citing the last elections only.

To be honest, I find your entire argument, posting style and general manner to be somewhat insidious while at the same time completely lacking in substance, factual basis or even entertainment value.

<edit - FM - 375K is way too large for an embedded image, and, come to think of it, this is the politics forum, we shouldn't be having random images here in the first place>

 

[editor]

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h238/fitzsij/rhino.jpg

<editor: image removed>

Please read the FAQ. Huge, pointless images do nothing but slow the boards down for no good purpose.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

The 25% is CNE`s figure for voter turnout from the elections in December.
Observers and the opposition put it at about 20%.


I was citing the last elections only.

Fair enough, you were talking about the Parlimentary elections, as opposed to the Presidentials.

Venezuelan_parliamentary_election,_2005

On December 4, 2005, five of Venezuela's major opposition parties boycotted the elections (half of the candidates of these five parties actually withdrew from the elections, representing 10% of the total number of candidates), charging that they were not being administered fairly; a random verification of 45% of the electronic votes (verified open source software was used) with paper ballots proved that the results of these elections were accurate. The last opinion polls prior to the elections had indicated that the Chávez alliance would have won around 150 of the 167 seats in the National Assembly, an indication that the opposition may have tried to avoid an historical defeat. As a result of the partial boycott and the opinion polls, these parliamentary elections were marked by a low voter turnout of 25% (estimated 3 out of 14 million registered voters), compared to an historical turnout figure of around 45% in such elections, parliamentary elections being held separately from presidential elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_political_events_of_Venezuela#Parliamentary_elections_of_2005

Which of my arguments have been nulled?

Oh, only the ones where you try to portay Chavez as some sort of power crazed, anti-democratic dictator - eg "No checks to the presidents power remain: he can pass any law, or alter the constitution as he pleases", "a man with very questionable attitudes to democracy"... That sort of thing.

Were you making any others?

 

[JoePolitix]

To be honest, I find your entire argument, posting style and general manner to be somewhat insidious while at the same time completely lacking in substance, factual basis or even entertainment value.

I suggest you take a long, hard look at the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. You may learn something yet.

Keep holding the fort BB!

 

[spring-peeper]

Keep holding the fort BB!

He's very good at this, isn't he?

 

[Xipe Totec]

Please read the FAQ. Huge, pointless images do nothing but slow the boards down for no good purpose.

Apologies.

Oh, only the ones where you try to portay Chavez as some sort of power crazed, anti-democratic dictator - eg "No checks to the presidents power remain: he can pass any law, or alter the constitution as he pleases", "a man with very questionable attitudes to democracy"... That sort of thing.

I see.
Perhaps you could point out exactly where these statements have been disproved? And where we agreed they were disproved?

I will withdraw my assertion about altering the constitution though.
I did not realise changes were made by referendum when I made it.

Were you making any others?

Yes
I have tried to raise a far more important point, and you have repeatedly missed it.

 

[spring-peeper]

I have tried to raise a far more important point, and you have repeatedly missed it.

What is your "far more important point"?

 

[JoePolitix]

Apologies. I see.
Perhaps you could point out exactly where these statements have been disproved? And where we agreed they were disproved?

Oh for God's stake, your entire arguments have been systematically demolished time and again. Having to respond to your non-stop self-denial is rather like wading through treacle - hard work and a complete waste of time!

 

[Xipe Totec]

What is your "far more important point"?

You already picked up on it

Checks and balances exist for a reason: to stop any branch of government from wielding too much power.
Whether you agree with the government in question is not the issue.
You may not see a problem now.
But what if Chavez loses the election next year (or in 2013, 2019 etc.) to someone you fundamentally disagree with? Who uses the power Chavez has consolidated to push a completely different agenda?
When a power grab such as this occurs, you must imagine your greatest political opponant holding the position to see if it is justified.

Oh for God's stake, your entire arguments have been systematically demolished time and again.

Then it should be easy to point out where.

Easier, at the very least, than getting angry on a message board and posting pointless ad hominem like...

Having to respond to your non-stop self-denial is rather like wading through treacle - hard work and a complete waste of time!

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Perhaps you could point out exactly where these statements have been disproved?

"IN REALITY"

 

[spring-peeper]

Oh for God's stake, your entire arguments have been systematically demolished time and again. Having to respond to your non-stop self-denial is rather like wading through treacle - hard work and a complete waste of time!

Xipe Totec - you have lost.

Try again on a different thread.

 

[JoePolitix]

Could have been on slightly shakey grounds with that similee actually. Some scientists reckon that that the higher viscosity of treacle might actually give swimmers a forward boost in the same way a stiff rope ladder allows a climber to ascend faster than a limp one. Swimming trough treacle may actually be easier than swimming through water! But the point still stands!!!

 

[JoePolitix]

Two interesting news events have emerged from Venezuela in recent days. They rather bring into question Xipe's assertions that the Electoral Council is simply a Chavez front and that Venezuela has no checks or balances on the use of power:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1927

Caracas, Venezuela, March 27, 2006—

In the latest electoral concession to the opposition, Jorge Rodríguez, the president of the Venezuelan Electoral Council (CNE), announced on Friday not to seek another term.

“[The opposition] will have to find another excuse for not participating in the electoral calendar,” Rodríguez told a press conference.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1928

Venezuela’s Supreme Court Rules Vice-Minister Cannot Exercise Public Office
Caracas, Venezuela, March 28, 2006—

The constitutional chamber of Venezuela’s Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Mari Pili Hernandez, the Vice-Minister of Foreign Relations for North America, cannot exercise public office because of alleged irregularities she committed while she was a Caracas city council member. Whether this means that she must be removed from her current post as vice-minister was not immediately clear.

 

[Xipe Totec]

IN REALITY

Somehow I think your interpretation of reality is slightly different to mine...

Xipe Totec - you have lost.

Try again on a different thread.

If you say so, my liege.
Still, I gave it my best shot...

Could have been on slightly shakey grounds with that similee actually. Some scientists reckon that that the higher viscosity of treacle might actually give swimmers a forward boost in the same way a stiff rope ladder allows a climber to ascend faster than a limp one. Swimming trough treacle may actually be easier than swimming through water!

So the viscosity of a fluid, while causing increased drag, also allows a body to exert greater thrust?
Very interesting. Do you have a link?

Could have been on slightly shakey grounds with that similee actually.

I think a metaphor involving a wade through the dense Venezuelan rainforrest would have a bit more panache, not to mention more relevance.

But the point still stands!!!

I respect a man of principle.
Even if the principle is quite silly.

 

[JoePolitix]

So the viscosity of a fluid, while causing increased drag, also allows a body to exert greater thrust?
Very interesting. Do you have a link?

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040920/pf/040920-2_pf.html

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Somehow I think your interpretation of reality is slightly different to mine...

At last! Something I can wholeheartedly agree with.

What I think you completely fail to comprehend is what I'll call the 'rational basis' behind the general direction Venezuela is moving, as reflected in the rejection of 'The Washington Consensus' and Neo-liberal ideas.

This 'rational basis' is spelled out fairly well in an article posted on another thread ('World Bank dissidents'): Here.

I don't expect you to be able to understand the 'reality' spelled out in that article without suffering a fair amount of cognitive dissonance, as I'm sure it's the anathema to your current beliefs.

But it's also 'reality'. Good luck!

 

[Xipe Totec]

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040...40920-2_pf.html

Thanks

At last! Something I can wholeheartedly agree with.

That was my intention. I`m glad you picked up on it.

What I think you completely fail to comprehend is...

Don`t be such a square, dadeo.
The Backatcha Bandit I have come to know and, yes love, would not engage in stuffy 'debate'.
He would instead post illogical and ill thought-out ramblings, bearing no relation to what I say.

...the 'rational basis' behind the general direction Venezuela is moving, as reflected in the rejection of 'The Washington Consensus' and Neo-liberal ideas.

An extended strawman. Better.

I don't expect you to be able to understand the 'reality' spelled out in that article without suffering a fair amount of cognitive dissonance

Tedious insults as well? Excellent.

I'm sure it's the anathema to your current beliefs.

There you go again, attempting to 'argue'.
Where have I stated my beliefs? Why do you think I support the Washington Consensus?

But it's also 'reality'.

"I also hope that my truth pleases you, because there are many truths, many truths.
It`s up to you to decide which is the true truth and analyse it afterwards."
Ronaldo Luís Nazário de Lima

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Where have I stated my beliefs?

Where, indeed?

Is (s)he a yankee imperialist or an anarcho "libertarian" type though? Its hard to tell at first on a Chavez thread...

Good question, Joe.

You see things differently than I do. My take on the situation is very different. Could you link me to some sites that explain your position?

Still a good question...

What kind of information are you looking for?

Yes, let's get some clarification...

Information on why you feel that Chevez is a bad person, why you think that his country is not safe while he is in power, anything that could support why you are so concerned.

All I'm finding is good stuff.

That's a fairly clear...

Anything that supports/clarifies the 'point' you are attempting to make?

Clearer...


Well..?

What is your 'reality', Xipe? What are you trying to say? Every 'point' you appear to have tried to make has been blown out of the... er.. treacle.

Or are you just here on a clandestine freep mission to waste our time? If that's the case, I can assure you we don't need your help.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Where, indeed?

Good question, Joe.

Still a good question...


Yes, let's get some clarification...


That's a fairly clear...

Clearer...


Well..?

What is your 'reality', Xipe? What are you trying to say? Every 'point' you appear to have tried to make has been blown out of the... er.. treacle.

Or are you just here on a clandestine freep mission to waste our time? If that's the case, I can assure you we don't need your help.

Clandestine?

I don't think so.

 

[Xipe Totec]

What is your 'reality', Xipe? What are you trying to say?

I have tried to raise a far more important point, and you have repeatedly missed it.

I have said that how much you or I love/hate Hugo Chavez is completely irrelevent.
Was this too subtle for you?
If not, why do you continue to continue to make the quality of his leadership the main thrust of your argument?
Attacking Chavez`s opposition does nothing to refute what I say.

Every 'point' you appear to have tried to make has been blown out of the... er.. treacle.

When you drop all pretexts of argument and instead post inane nonsense (I refer you to message #106) it is usually a sign you intend to drop out of the debate.
This is not a problem.
You have not approached the issue with an open mind, and it is unlikely you will contribute anything positive.
But you have stated my claims have been demolished a number of times, and pointedly refused to say where.

If you want me to engage with you any further you can answer my question:
Exactly where have my arguments been disproved?
Otherwise don`t respond.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Exactly where have my arguments been disproved?

State your argument clearly and concisely, then I will attempt to disprove it, if I can.

Continue slip-sliding around, making insinuations and being generally *a bit creepy* and I'll just subject you to puerile abuse. Deal?

 

[Xipe Totec]

State your argument clearly and concisely, then I will attempt to disprove it, if I can.

Continue slip-sliding around, making insinuations and being generally *a bit creepy* and I'll just subject you to puerile abuse. Deal?

Since you asked so nicely, here is my message in all it`s glory:

Checks and balances exist for a reason: to stop any branch of government from wielding too much power.
Whether you agree with the government in question is not the issue.
You may not see a problem now.
But what if Chavez loses the election next year (or in 2013, 2019 etc.) to someone you fundamentally disagree with? Who uses the power Chavez has consolidated to push a completely different agenda?
When a power grab such as this occurs, you must imagine your greatest political opponant holding the position to see if it is justified.

You replied to this by describing the structure of the Venezuelan government, particularly how it is split into five discrete branches.
You also said that Chavez`s actions don`t really matter anyway because you agree with the general direction he is taking the country.

However, these form a non-sequiter.
Chavez introduced Venezuela`s constitution, and deserves credit for an honourable adherance to it.
He has also brought about many progressive policies, and improved the lot of the poorest in his society.

But what have they to do with the appointment of Chavistas to important judicial, ombudsman and civil service positions?
The system is based on the principle that these institutions are independant.

To take another example, I think there are many parallels between the actions of the Bush administration and that of Chavez`s.
One party currently controls the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the US government.

If a republican supporter says to you that all is well because the US of the constitution and because Bush is a decent guy, would you accept that?
Or would you say that his attemps to increase his powers should be challenged and stringently questioned?

As I have said before, my opinions on actions such as this are consistant no matter what the party/figure or what the country.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Chavez introduced Venezuela`s constitution, and deserves credit for an honourable adherance to it.
He has also brought about many progressive policies, and improved the lot of the poorest in his society.

But what have they to do with the appointment of Chavistas to important judicial, ombudsman and civil service positions?

Everything.

If the majority of the people of Venezuela are dissatified with the appointments as made by the President, or any other aspect regarding the way presidential power is being used or abused, they have recourse to affect change enshrined within the constitution.

This mechanism was tested in the 2004 recall referendum.

How many citizens of other countries have such democratic rights?

 

[spring-peeper]

Somehow I think that if the people of Venezuela had a problem with their government, they would just overthrow it. And look - now the government has given them shiney new guns.