Hugo Chavez Loves Free Speech...

[DC]

You provide nowhere near that standard of evidence for any of your claims.
Remember when you were a truther and I sent you scans of my documents from the Military because you wanted evidence? You said they were not good enough. While you post links to venezuelaanalysis.com and think that is enough even though they are deliberately bias and their sponsors admit as much. You even linked the CIA documents but completely misread what they contained and made false statements about them. There are posts where you accuse RCTV of encouraging people to violence and telling them to to go support the coup, yet you supply nothing to back this up.

Nothing is good enough for you when it goes against what you want. And remember you are the guy who couldnt find an English version of the Constitution.

and how manytimes has my "evidence" been accepted? 0

the case with your Documents. i explained it already, but once again.
they convinced me. i accepted it, but then you said to another Truther, ask DC he knows i am a RAF expert for planes. and then i said, moment. the evidence is good enough for me, but i can not check if they are real if it are yours etc etc. i didnt want to confirm to others that you are what you claimed. because i cannot knew good enough to confirm it to others.
but i personally still accept it. but i still would not confirm it to others because i still cannot check back if that are your documents or if they are real. i dont even know your real name.

maybe you have noticed already, i try to not use Venezuelanalysis as source.
because i know how much hated it is here. while nobody ever showed lies from them. they clearly are biased indeed, they pik all the good news about Bolivarianism and try to defend the Bolivarian movement against accusations.

but when you are honest, western press is also biased in the other direction. they pik all the bad news from Venezuela and leave away the good things.
there are very few, almost non private owned news outlet in the west that would report on positive developements in Venezuela.
there is no balanced reporting on Venezuela. so you have to use both kind of source to come to a conclusion.

the CIA case, Eva Golinger atleast provide the documents that she belives is backing up her claims. and the Documents do atleast show foreknowledge of the 2002 coup, and no warning to the Venezuelan government. But not even that is accepted as evidence.
But when Columbia claims to have evidence and is not presenting it, i must belive it soley on their claim and a report that even says it does not confirm it is evidence, they only confirm that they found no wrongdoing with the electronic devices. there i have to accept it as evidence.

and nice you bring up my 9/11 trutherism. Would anyone in that subforum accpet a claim that someone has evidence against the US government for Inside job, evidence that will be withold and not presented? (Truthers excluded)

and what has my google skill to do with it? nothing.

its easy to claim someone is a Hypocrit, but realizing your own Hypocriticy is hard. and something you are not able to, nobody of the JREF anti Chavista.

and i on the other hand admit beeing wrong from time to time. would any of you ever? no you just disapear from the topic....

I also debate about points that are real points against Chavez. But i have seen how many of you are able to debate anything that is positive about Bolivarianism. you was the only one that aknoledged atleast one improvement.

 

[funk de fino]

but when you are honest, western press is also biased in the other direction. they pik all the bad news from Venezuela and leave away the good things.
there are very few, almost non private owned news outlet in the west that would report on positive developements in Venezuela.
there is no balanced reporting on Venezuela. so you have to use both kind of source to come to a conclusion.

I have used sources not from westen press and you handwave them. Do you think the BBC has bias against him.

the CIA case, Eva Golinger atleast provide the documents that she belives is backing up her claims. and the Documents do atleast show foreknowledge of the 2002 coup, and no warning to the Venezuelan government. But not even that is accepted as evidence.

I suggest you read them again. They do not say what you say they say.

But when Columbia claims to have evidence and is not presenting it, i must belive it soley on their claim and a report that even says it does not confirm it is evidence, they only confirm that they found no wrongdoing with the electronic devices. there i have to accept it as evidence.

OT again.

its easy to claim someone is a Hypocrit, but realizing your own Hypocriticy is hard. and something you are not able to, nobody of the JREF anti Chavista.

Point it out.

and i on the other hand admit beeing wrong from time to time. would any of you ever? no you just disapear from the topic....

Only when forced to and its plain to see. Show me something I got wrong.

I also debate about points that are real points against Chavez. But i have seen how many of you are able to debate anything that is positive about Bolivarianism. you was the only one that aknoledged atleast one improvement.

The positives never seem to be brought here but if you read the thread, the report I gave had positives also and I mentioned that. You didnt even want to read it and then totally schoolboyed on a source from it.

 

[DC]

BBC is not private owned media......

and play your silly OT game with someone else.

its only OT because you are wrong about it.

bye bye

 

[DC]

Point it out.

you bring up CIA documents, you bring up my ex trutherism.

but when its about the alleged evidence of the 300m Farc dollars. then its OT.

you are atleast as hypocritical as i am.

 

[JihadJane]

you bring up CIA documents, you bring up my ex trutherism.

but when its about the alleged evidence of the 300m Farc dollars. then its OT.

you are atleast as hypocritical as i am.

But without the self-awareness!

 

[funk de fino]

But without the self-awareness!

At least DC is not a coward who runs when he gets trounced.

 

[funk de fino]

BBC is not private owned media......

What has private go to do with it? You said western press. Are the BBC bias. This thread is about freedom of press is it not?

and play your silly OT game with someone else.

see above.

its only OT because you are wrong about it.

I proved you wrong in the other thread abut it. Start a new thread.

bye bye

ta ra

 

[funk de fino]

you bring up CIA documents, you bring up my ex trutherism.

Those were examples of your hypocrisy you asked for.

but when its about the alleged evidence of the 300m Farc dollars. then its OT.

Start another thread.

you are atleast as hypocritical as i am.

No, I am not.

 

[DC]

almost non private owned news outlet in the west

.....................

when you proved me wrong in the other thread, why do you need a new one?

 

[DC]

ok thats it, on ignore you end up.

 

[DC]

But without the self-awareness!

wasnt sure, but he confirmed it, sad.

 

[funk de fino]

ok thats it, on ignore you end up.

So lets get this. You get given evidence in this thread and refuse to read it, then when you claim there are no sources and are then given those sources, you then say the sources are not evidence, then you read the source wrong and make a very stupid and laughable mistake. Then you have to keep an off topic derail going to avoid your mistakes or the reports. A derail that you could have started another thread for if you could not find the thread which discussed it already. Then you ask me for something and when I give it to you, you claim I am off topic. Then you put me on ignore?

Very mature I must say.

 

[Pardalis]

In recent news:

http://www.startribune.com/world/90805309.html

If they were to do it ... you know what you would have to do. Simply take all power in Venezuela, absolutely all, sweep away the bourgeoisie from all political and economic spaces, deepen the revolution [...]

Chavez thrives on confrontation and has repeatedly accused his opponents of trying to overthrow or kill him.

Same ammo as all the other tinpot dictators. Make sure any dissenting voice is labeled a "threat to national security".

You know DC, for someone whose username was once "Dictator Cheney", your pal Chávez is doing the exact same thing you were fearing Dick Cheney was doing (which he ultimately wasn't).

Why were so so apprehensive of Cheney but not of Chávez?

 

[funk de fino]

but when you are honest, western press is also biased in the other direction. they pik all the bad news from Venezuela and leave away the good things.
there are very few, almost non private owned news outlet in the west that would report on positive developements in Venezuela.
there is no balanced reporting on Venezuela. so you have to use both kind of source to come to a conclusion.

I'll answer this if it makes you feel better. I do not use biased sources if I can help it, yet you have accused me of doing so in the past even when I used Al Jazeera. I agree that the US press does not give Chavez a break with a lot of things but there is only one person to blame for that. Chavez. He gives them the ammunition they need by being an idiot. A lot of the press there is biased to anyone not just Chavez. Its stupid to complain about that.

I gave you a link to a report which had positive things in it and you refused to read it and disuss this. How can you accuse others of not looking at positives if you dont take the chance yourself when I give it?

 

[Pardalis]

Also this:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/04/MN981CPFG6.DTL

When Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni issued a ruling in December that irked President Hugo Chavez, he did little to contain his outrage. The president, contending on national television that she would have been put before a firing squad in earlier times, sent his secret intelligence police to arrest her.

[...]

Since Afiuni's imprisonment, a dizzying sequence of other high-profile arrests has taken place, pointing to Chavez's recent use of his security and intelligence apparatus to quash challenges to his grip on the country's political institutions. The arrests have taken aim at some of Chavez's most prominent critics ahead of legislative elections in September, and they illustrate Chavez's attempts to tighten control over institutions like the judiciary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_of_Maria_Lourdes_Afiuni

Judges can't even speak in Venezuela.

You don't find that worrying DC?

 

[DC]

In recent news:

http://www.startribune.com/world/90805309.html




Same ammo as all the other tinpot dictators. Make sure any dissenting voice is labeled a "threat to national security".

You know DC, for someone whose username was once "Dictator Cheney", your pal Chávez is doing the exact same thing you were fearing Dick Cheney was doing (which he ultimately wasn't).

Why were so so apprehensive of Cheney but not of Chávez?

back then when I choosed my Forum name, it was pretty wel confirmed that Cheney was the Mastermind behind 9/11. It was only later it turned out that the "Intel" i gathered wasnt as good as i belived it to be.

cant watch the video you linked, but i guess its the speach he held resently.
the speach where he claimed "i am the people" and al that stuff.
and a few days back i already posted that i hope the Bolivarian movement brings up an alternative to Chavez.

i saw Chavez on the road of Socialism, really wanting to help the people, we could debate how good that road is to help people, but i still belive socialism is a good road. But it seems that Chavez left that road and is indeed heading down the road to Totalitarianism. And how i understood the Bolivarian movement, that wasnt the road they wanted and i hope the voters are remembering that in the next elections.
i think for them a Reformist like Lula is the way to go now. and not a Revolutionary (or Totalitarian now) like Chavez. they have a pretty good Constitution and should build up on that, improve it and especialy work on actually following it.

 

[McHrozni]

back then when I choosed my Forum name, it was pretty wel confirmed that Cheney was the Mastermind behind 9/11. It was only later it turned out that the "Intel" i gathered wasnt as good as i belive it to be.

Does this qualify as a stundie?

McHrozni

 

[DC]

Does this qualify as a stundie?

McHrozni

i dont think so, but please nominate me if you feel like.

 

[McHrozni]

i dont think so, but please nominate me if you feel like.

It depends a lot on whether the apperent stupidity in what you wrote stems from poor English skills (which is understandable) or just plain stupidity.

Would you please choose which of these two would be a better match for what you wanted to say:

When I choose my Forum name, it was certain that Cheney was the mastermind behind 9/11. Only later it turned out that the intel I gathered wasn't as good as I now believe is.

or

Back when I choose my forum name, I thought it was confirmed that Cheney was the mastermind behind 9/11. Only later I realized that the intel I gathered wasn't as good as I had believed it was.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

back then when I choosed my Forum name, it was pretty well confirmed that Cheney was the Mastermind behind 9/11. It was only later it turned out that the "Intel" i gathered wasnt as good as i belived it to be.

missed a D