Hugo Chavez Loves Free Speech...

[DC]

According to the speech, militia and military is to sweep the "bourgeoisie" away.



Why is that? Suppose a disgruntled former shopkeeper, whose shop was expropriated without compensation by Chavez were to shoot him on his own accord. Why would you consider that impossible?

McHrozni

possible, but he better should go to the courts and demand compensation like the others also got compensation.

 

[McHrozni]

possible, but he better should go to the courts and demand compensation like the others also got compensation.

Of course. But we aren't talking about whether or not the assassination would be justified, but would the ordered automatic purging of "bourgeoisie" and "class enemies" be an appropriate response.

Your argument was that it would be, because any assassination of Chavez would come as a part of a coup. Since you agree now that this is not the case, do you also agree your statement was incorrect and his blanket orders are not justified at all?

McHrozni

 

[DC]

Of course. But we aren't talking about whether or not the assassination would be justified, but would the ordered automatic purging of "bourgeoisie" and "class enemies" be an appropriate response.

Your argument was that it would be, because any assassination of Chavez would come as a part of a coup. Since you agree now that this is not the case, do you also agree your statement was incorrect and his blanket orders are not justified at all?

McHrozni

i still think that an assasination will be followed by a coup. no mather if the assasin was a lonely nut or organized by coup plotters.

and i dont think that going against the upper class is an acceptable way to go and i never claimed it.

this is also the main reason i see Che as a Fascist and not as a Socialist.

 

[McHrozni]

and i dont think that going against the upper class is an acceptable way to go and i never claimed it.

No, you just very strongly hinted it and derailed the discussion entirely when it came up. Which amounts to the same thing - indiscriminate defense of Chavez and his actions. You simply don't want anything bad about Chavez to be discussed openly, do you.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

No, you just very strongly hinted it and derailed the discussion entirely when it came up. Which amounts to the same thing - indiscriminate defense of Chavez and his actions. You simply don't want anything bad about Chavez to be discussed openly, do you.

McHrozni

then i would not take part in the Chavez debates here, because they are all bad for Chavez.

 

[McHrozni]

then i would not take part in the Chavez debates here, because they are all bad for Chavez.

This is consistent with your behavior - you consistently seek to derail such discussions and try to find excuses for his behavior, or point to problems with his opponents.

You just can't stand the fact your hero isn't all that heroic at all.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

This is consistent with your behavior - you consistently seek to derail such discussions and try to find excuses for his behavior, or point to problems with his opponents.

You just can't stand the fact your hero isn't all that heroic at all.

McHrozni

my Hero lol.

anti chavista went totaly OT here, no problem, when i go OT, oh big problem......

the Venezuelan people are my heros, not Chavez.

 

[DC]

and if i want to prevent bad things about Chavez beeing discused. i would simply not post in those topics.

there are not much anti chavista here active, such a topic would slip on page 2 in a few hours after the usual anti chavista posted their stuff. , would i not post on those topics.

 

[DC]

DC, you never answered my question.

In the video Chávez clearly says to his militia : "Simply take all power in Venezuela, absolutely all, sweep away the bourgeoisie from all political and economic spaces, deepen the revolution"

Doesn't that worry you?

If you were worried about Cheney based on false information, isn't there cause for concern about Chávez, based on good information (his own words).

here, Pardalis went OT, i just answered, would i not answer i would be atacked about it.

but when a Anti Chavista goes Ot, its fine........

 

[Pardalis]

It wasn't off-topic a few days ago... but now that the question is embarrassing for you, it's off -topic.

But anyway, I got what I wanted. You just admitted you're OK with Chavez' militia taking over all powers and freedoms after even an attempted coup against him.

This explains everything.

 

[McHrozni]

It wasn't off-topic a few days ago... but now that the question is embarrassing for you, it's off -topic.

But anyway, I got what I wanted. You just admitted you're OK with Chavez' militia taking over all powers and freedoms after even an attempted coup against him.

Or an assassination attempt not connected to any plot. Don't forget that

McHrozni

 

[DC]

It wasn't off-topic a few days ago... but now that the question is embarrassing for you, it's off -topic.

But anyway, I got what I wanted. You just admitted you're OK with Chavez' militia taking over all powers and freedoms after even an attempted coup against him.

This explains everything.

the topic is not freedom of speech in venezuela anymore?

and ffs, it was not me that cried OT, it was McHrozni.............

i just pointed out that you started this OT.

and strange stuff you interpret into my posts, it isnt what i said, nor is it what Chavez said,

lol cheap attempt, try again.

 

[DC]

depends, if they set elections for a new president in case of assasination.
and also in a coup, i think its better than giving the power to the Fedecámaras like in the 2002 coup.

what would happen in your country in such a case?

here is what i really said about it.

but Pardalis sure had to interpret into it far more.......

 

[Pardalis]

I don't think it's off-topic at all, it ties in pretty well with what you had previously admitted on the "Defamation-of-the-state" law:

But what would happen if some TV stations would conspire and report false stuff that finally leads to a coup off the elected government?

i think thats what Venezuela tries to prevent with this law.
just like we try to stopp the Nazi and Holocaust denial propaganda by banning it. Instead of confront it and debunk it.

alot if not most other countrys follow a diffrent philosophy in that regard.
one of the point most countrys can learn from the USA.

Again, you admitted you were OK with Chavez closing news media if he thought they were spreading misinformation about his government, and if he thought they were a threat to his government.

And now you're OK with his militia taking over if he thought an assassination coup was imminent or in the works.

 

[DC]

I don't think it's off-topic at all, it ties in pretty well with what you had previously admitted on the "Defamation-of-the-state" law:



Again, you admitted you were OK with Chavez closing news media if he thought they were spreading misinformation about his government, and if he thought they were a threat to his government.

And now you're OK with his militia taking over if he thought an assassination coup was imminent or in the works.

no thats not what i said.

 

[Pardalis]

here is what i really said about it.

but Pardalis sure had to interpret into it far more.......

You said "depends", which is the same as saying you'd be OK with it, at least in part.

Unless you were referring to the adult diaper brand.

 

[Pardalis]

no thats not what i said.

You said:

"But what would happen if some TV stations would conspire and report false stuff that finally leads to a coup off the elected government?

i think thats what Venezuela tries to prevent with this law."

What does that mean then if not that you're OK with the Defamation Law?

 

[DC]

1. abouot false information via Media.
i never said its OK when Chavez thinks they spread false info. its up t courts to decide what is false and what not.

2. im not OK with it when Chavez thinks there is a coup attempt on the way. nor is it what he said.......

 

[DC]

You said:

"But what would happen if some TV stations would conspire and report false stuff that finally leads to a coup off the elected government?

i think thats what Venezuela tries to prevent with this law."

What does that mean then if not that you're OK with the Defamation Law?

this post only shows that i think to know what Venezuela wants to archieve with the law, it doesnt judge the law itself.

try less interpretation and just read what i actually wrote.

 

[Pardalis]

1. abouot false information via Media.

And who is to determine what is false information?

Are you saying the State should have dominion on the Truth?

Wouldn't most news outlets and websites be illegal (just think of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Prison Planet, and the Onion)?

And what if they spread bad information by accident? Doesn't this happen all the time?

i never said its OK when Chavez thinks they spread false info. its up t courts to decide what is false and what not.

Then it should be a civil law, not a criminal law. Chavez is using this to imprison people he doesn't like.

im not OK with it when Chavez thinks there is a coup attempt on the way. nor is it what he said.......

So does that mean you're OK with the militia taking over if there is a coup or even an attempted coup?

Answer truthfully. And don't answer with another question or I'll consider it a "yes".