Hugo Chavez Loves Free Speech...

Usually, coups are not organized solely through and by the media. The media is one expression of it.

Besides, how is a government supposed to discern between good and false information, and what false information is aimed at fueling a "coup"?

Take the Onion for example, it's all deliberate false information. Would you ban it?

This "it could potentially lead to a coup" bullcrap is just an excuse to stifle free speech. It's an easy excuse used by all dictatorships: Ban those who disagree with you and accuse them of fueling unrest and conspiracy to overthrow the gorvernment.

This is exactly what's going on in Venezuela and Iran, and you're condoning it.

Then you are against free speech.

Since when is the free exchange and free debate of ideas a bad thing?

Are you so afraid of debate that you want the government to stop it before it starts?

I'm not afraid of truthers or Holocaust deniers, I'm confident enough that they can be succesfully debunked with evidence without the government interfering.

You have no idea of what you are saying. You are rejecting the very thing America is all about.

Free speech is paramount in the US. Even unsavory and potentially revolutionary speech is allowed. You on the other hand want to ban it.

I especially said, leave away your prejudice about me.

and you didnt, and what happened, you understood my post totaly wrong.

when i talked about the US freedom of Speech, and called it a shining example. that was something positive. i think my country can learn from the USA in that regard. the USA is doing it very good. (this is possitive) i hope you uinderstand unless your prejudice about my anti-americanism........

reread my post and answer again. you have some good points.
 
DC, Freedom House and Human Rights watch have pointed out xtreme concerns WRT freedom of the press in Venezuela.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=251&year=2009

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/25/venezuela-end-prosecutions-dissenters

Hitler won referenda and free elections, as did Nguema, milosevic, and the Axs Japanese Junta, and they were fair and square. does that mean they were good?

as for the venezuela elections, there was a LOT less coverage than 2004 in the US and you ahve not shown anything from 2009. So epic fail.

look, when you claim cheated elections, it is you that has to bring up evidence. not me.
either bring up evidence, or post in the CT section, OK?
 
If that's the criterion, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot were not really dictators, since some people in their respective countries managed to tell jokes or join the opposition against them and escape jail.

when you have evidence , post it.
or go to the CT section.
 
well false information led to a coup in 2002.
people thought the Chavistas are shooting the non Chavistas, while they didnt, they shot at snipers. this false Information led alot of people in the military to turn against the government.
 
look, when you claim cheated elections, it is you that has to bring up evidence. not me.
either bring up evidence, or post in the CT section, OK?

Where did i EVER say that chavez rigged elections?

I was talking about freeodm of the press.

And DC, your suggestion that the State WRT venezuelan media should be arbiter of truth is something out of 1984. :eek:

So as long as lying is for the revolution, i guess its okay. :rolleyes:
 
Where did i EVER say that chavez rigged elections?

I was talking about freeodm of the press.

And DC, your suggestion that the State WRT venezuelan media should be arbiter of truth is something out of 1984. :eek:

So as long as lying is for the revolution, i guess its okay. :rolleyes:

no it isnt
 
1It's the same old story, isn't it?

Dictator takes over country, jails those who disagree with him, destroys free press, closes down television stations who dare to criticize his policies, changes constitution to allow himself to be re-elected indefinitely (i.e., in effect, declaring himself dictator-for-life), destroys the economy by the usual inefficient, kleptocratic "socialist" nationalization (read: "let me and my close associates steal the assets of foreign companies and move them to Swiss bank accounts"), etc., etc.

The usual gang declares that (because the dictator is a "socialist") that we don't really have evidence he's a complete dictator yet, that they are sure the elections were totally fair and it's so nasty to think otherwise, that the dictator is just executing the "will of the people" and those newspapermen or opposition leaders he arrested surely had it coming for "lying" about him, etc., etc.

The next step is usually claiming that those nasty claims about famine (USSR, China) or genocide (Cambodia) or unapologetic police state (Cuba), etc., are totally exaggerated, due to paranoia and conspiracy theories by right-wing loonies who just hate the thought that socialism has been so wonderfully successful in those countries, and besides, if it is true, it's probably the nasty ol' USA's fault anyway.

We've seen this all before, numerous times. Eventually, the usual gang confesses that they were wrong -- but it usually takes years, and only happens after the lives of millions of ruined, and only when there's some other "socialist" dictator to glorify.

Otherwise, you see, they would have to admit they were wrong and naive yet again about yet another "socialist utopia", which, surprise surprise, turns out to be a corrupt kleptocratic dictatorship; and what are the lives and misery of millions compared to their precious sense of self-importance and being on the "correct" side of history -- that of victorious socialism, as opposed to the evil "late capitalism", which is sure to completely collapse by 1920, I mean 1930, I mean 1960, I mean 1980, I mean 2020, as the world realizes that Russia, I means the USSR, I mean China, I mean the communist Block, I mean Venezuela, is the way of the inevitable just and wonderful future?
 
funny it is the Capitalist and former President that sold State Companys and was corrupt and stole the people's money. wich then led to violance and coup attempts, wich led to the election of Chavez.......

and about no term limits.

Dictator Angela Merkel is also Dictator for life?

nor do i see Sceptic call Silvio Berlusconi a Dictator for Live.

its only dangerous when its not a capitalist, isnt it?
 
Last edited:
so now you agree that the Elections are cheated.......

you joned the CT fraction?

No, I have never claimed that even if you want me to It seems to be all you want to talk about.

Try again.
 
funny it is the Capitalist and former President that sold State Companys and was corrupt and stole the people's money. wich then led to violance and coup attempts, wich led to the election of Chavez.......

and about no term limits.

Dictator Angela Merkel is also Dictator for life?

nor do i see Sceptic call Silvio Berlusconi a Dictator for Live.

its only dangerous when its not a capitalist, isnt it?

God god. Stop it with the two wrongs make a right act. It's boring.
 
well false information led to a coup in 2002.
people thought the Chavistas are shooting the non Chavistas, while they didnt, they shot at snipers. this false Information led alot of people in the military to turn against the government.

Thats one side of it of course eh?
 
Why dont you show me where I claimed stolen elections first?

If you cannot then apologise. Then we can move on.

why change topic? you answered about the events leading to the coup.

whats the other side of it? the Snipers on the roofs?
 
thats your oppinion, its not mine.
i have no problem with Angela nor with Silvio.

So why mention it in an argument against someone who is against term limits?

Silvio is a bad man. You support him eh?
 
why change topic? you answered about the events leading to the coup.

whats the other side of it? the Snipers on the roofs?

No, you changed the subject. You made a false claim about me. Take it back and we move on.
 

Back
Top Bottom