Chavez vs the USA
- Thread starter Alferd_Packer
- Start date
Experts disagree with you. Do you have anything better than an appeal to ignorance to counter them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Venezuela
Blaming President Chavez or the Venezuelan government for the current bitter divisions in Venezuelan society, the bad economy, a sudden poverty growth and deaths in opposition demonstrations could result in an infraction of the law and therefore in strong penalizations (if the offense is "interpreted" or considered disrespectful towards legitimate institutions and authorities).
In other words, I could be penalized in Venezuela for saying what I am here. Do you consider that freedom? Justify, please.
McHrozni
Good, I'm glad we agree. Now please explain why do you think that can't have an effect in Venezuela, seeing as you still claim this:
I pointed this out to you before. He has a much larger share of media coverage, through his use of public airways, highly controversial media laws and state media. Obviously this has some effect, you even admitted that above. Since Chavez and his proposal typically win around 50-55% in the elections I'm quite comfortable in claiming that if the opposition was given equal chances, they would sweep him from power. Which effectively ruins your argument that the people still love him, I believe?
A challenge for you. If the people are so happy with his rule, why does he need such restrictive media laws to win the measly 55% or so of the electorate?
McHrozni
Yes, it is the main point of his criticism in this passage. That should be reasonably clear to anyone who actually reads the passage with an eye to understanding what it says.
A number of you seem to be stuck on the idea that Chavez was accusing the US of staging a military invasion and occupation of Haiti. I suspect the problem is that you began with that as a preconceived notion, and in attempting to read the passage you are to an extent ignoring what it actually says and mentally fitting the words to fit that notion.
Yes, the word occupation appears in this quoted excerpt; and the word invasion has been attributed to the passage as well, although it does not appear in the quoted excerpt. But these words have many meanings. One of these meanings is for one country to send military forces into another country with the intent of seizing power. The German invasion Poland in 1939 is an example of the word invasion used in that way; the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 is another. Another meaning of the word is an influx of visitors who overrun a place, such as an invasion of tourists or an invasion of ants. Reading Chavez's remarks, which one of these meanings seems to be closer to the one he intends?
Let me run through the Reuters' piece, sentence by sentence -- looking at it as a connected whole, and trying to understand it as a whole, rather looking only at a single word or sentence.
"I read that 3,000 soldiers are arriving, Marines armed as if they were going to war. There is not a shortage of guns there, my God. Doctors, medicine, fuel, field hospitals, that's what the United States should send," Chavez said on his weekly television show.
[1. Chavez begins by stating the theme of his remarks: the US sent more armed marines than were needed, and fewer doctors, medicine, fuel and field hospitals.]
"They are occupying Haiti undercover."
[2. I assume Chavez spoke in Spanish, not in English. I wish a complete transcript of what he said were available, and I wish someone fluent in Spanish could translate this particular sentence. But I think what he is saying in this sentence is a metaphorical allusion to the marines overrunning the country like tourists or ants. That fits thematically with the rest of what Chavez is saying -- whereas an interpretation of this as meaning that the US has staged a secret invasion and takeover of the country does not.
That, however, leaves undercover unexplained.
In segment 3, below, Chavez refers to the US troops as being out of sight, invisible. The word undercover may simply be a poor translation of invisible. I have a different theory, though -- one which, if true, considerably lowers my opinion of Chavez. So as not to derail this run-through, I'll save that and devote my next post to it.]
That, however, leaves undercover unexplained.
In segment 3, below, Chavez refers to the US troops as being out of sight, invisible. The word undercover may simply be a poor translation of invisible. I have a different theory, though -- one which, if true, considerably lowers my opinion of Chavez. So as not to derail this run-through, I'll save that and devote my next post to it.]
"On top of that, you don't see them in the streets. Are they picking up bodies? ... Are they looking for the injured? You don't see them. I haven't seen them. Where are they?"
[3. Having said the US sent too many marines, he illustrates this point by pointing out that the marines are nowhere to be seen. If armed marines were what was needed, he is saying, one would see them carrying out the relief efforts. But instead they are invisible.
Chavez promised to send as much gasoline as Haiti needs for electricity generation and transport.
[4. In segment 1, Chavez said the real need was for relief supplies, not marines. Here, he is saying that he will help out by sending such supplies. If the US won't supply the help which is needed, I will.]
A perennial foe of U.S. "imperialism,"
[5. This appears to be something the Reuters writer has interpolated into Chavez's remarks, in order to remind readers of what Chavez has said on other occasions, rather than part of what Chavez said on this occasion. This is the kind of thing which is routinely called "liberal media bias" when it is done to a conservative speaker. Unless someone can provide us with a transcript of Chavez's remarks which shows him referring to imperialism in this statement, this should be set aside.]
Chavez said he did not wish to diminish the humanitarian effort made by the United States and was only questioning the need for so many troops.
[6. This is already a paraphrase. It would be nice to see a transcript of what Chavez actually said, but I am willing to accept the Reuters' summary of the sentence as accurate. According to them, Chavez approves of the US attempting to provide relief to Haiti, but thinks it could have been done better if the US had sent fewer troops. Note that this is a restatement of the theme of the passage, as expressed in # 1 above.]
I believe that the interpretation I have given above is a reasonable fit for the transcript provided. Some of you, on the other hand, are interpreting the above differently as saying that Chavez thinks the US has invaded Haiti, overthrown the government, and is now occupying the conquered country.
I would love to see how you do it, since it seems to me you need to do an awful lot of stretching to make point 6 fit into such a view. But let's suppose you are able to go through the transcript and provide a paraphrase which makes it read as if Chavez were talking about a literal military invasion rather than a figurative ant or tourist type of invasion. How can we tell which of these two interpretations -- Chavez is saying the US could have carried out the relief effort better (my interpretation) of Chavez is saying the US has staged a military takeover of Haiti (your interpretation) -- is correct?
Here are 4 questions which I think are useful in determining the answer to that.
(1) What does Chavez say he is going to do in regards to this situation?
(2) What does Chavez call on the US to do?
(3) What does Chavez call on the citizens of Haiti to do?
(4) What does Chavez call on people of other nations to do?
(1) What does Chavez say he is going to do in regards to this situation?(2) What does Chavez call on the US to do?
(3) What does Chavez call on the citizens of Haiti to do?
(4) What does Chavez call on people of other nations to do?
(a) If Chavez believes the US has staged a military takeover, we might expect him to express his support for the resistance forces, offering to send them supplies to help with their resistance efforts, and saying he will call for the UN to intervene.
(b) If Chavez believes the US botched the relief effort, we might expect him to say what they did wrong and offer to do it better.
What Chavez actually said: that he would send gasoline to meet Haiti's electrical and transport needs.(b) If Chavez believes the US botched the relief effort, we might expect him to say what they did wrong and offer to do it better.
(2) What does Chavez call on the US to do?
(a) If Chavez believes the US has staged a military takeover, we might expect him to call for the US to withdraw.
(b) If Chavez believes the US botched the relief effort, we might expect him to suggest ways the US could do better.
What Chavez actually said: that the US should send more doctors, fuel, medicine and field hospitals.(b) If Chavez believes the US botched the relief effort, we might expect him to suggest ways the US could do better.
(3) What does Chavez call on the citizens of Haiti to do?
(a) If Chavez believes the US has staged a military takeover, we might expect him to encourage them to resist the oppressors and not to give up hope.
(b) If Chavez believes the US botched the relief effort, we might expect him to tell the Haitian people he is on concerned for their well-being and will be sending relief supplies.
What Chavez actually said: said he would send them gasoline so that they can have electricity will be able to drive around.(b) If Chavez believes the US botched the relief effort, we might expect him to tell the Haitian people he is on concerned for their well-being and will be sending relief supplies.
(4) What does Chavez call on people of other nations to do?
(a) If Chavez believes the US has staged a military takeover, we might expect him to call on people in other nations to join him in denouncing the US invasion and to join him in calling for a US withdrawal.
(b) If Chavez believes the US botched the relief effort, we might expect him to call on other countries to join him in sending relief supplies.
What Chavez actually said: nothing, at least not in this portion of the transcript. Almost as if he cared more about embarrassing the US than about helping the Haitians, but that may simply be because we don't have the full transcript.(b) If Chavez believes the US botched the relief effort, we might expect him to call on other countries to join him in sending relief supplies.
On looking at what Chavez actually said, my conclusion is that it's a pretty good fit for the believes US bungled the relief effort interpretation and a pretty lousy fit for the US staged a military takeover interpretation.
Last edited:
In post # 173 I compared Chavez's statement in which he refused to dismiss the conspiracy theories about 9/11 with statements by Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and others, in which they refused to dismiss conspiracy theories about Obama's birth certificate. I think that comparison is worth a longer look, because it relates to Chavez's statement on the Haiti relief effort.
Here's an example of Sarah Palin:
Do I think Sarah Palin is stupid enough to actually believe that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii? No. But I think she is shrewd enough to realize many people who might be willing to vote for her are stupid enough to believe it. By giving this kind of it's worth investigating answer, she makes it sound to them as if she is agreeing with them and helps bolsters her support among them.
But those aren't the only people I think she (and Bachmann and the others) are playing for suckers with that kind statement. I think she's also shrewd enough to realize that a lot of her opponents are going to take that statement and say, "See! She just endorsed that crazy Orly Taitz stuff! She's a wacko!" And her supporters -- the ones who don't believe in Birthergate or whatever it's called -- are going to look at her actual, carefully-worded statement, realize she did no such thing, and instead of having a lower opinion of Palin they will have a lower opinion of Palin's critics. The incident will serve to confirm their belief that Palin's opponents are lying about her and that the media is trying to smear her -- making them less likely to believe future criticisms of Palin.
Chavez appears to be doing the same thing in his 9/11 statement that SoT quoted. The "They are occupying Haiti undercover" sentence makes me suspect he may be doing that with the Haiti invasion statement as well.
As I hope I demonstrated in my previous post, the sentence about occupying Haiti undercover makes no sense as a statement that the US is actually engaging in a military occupation. It does make sense as a statement comparing the US to unwelcome visitors -- but it's a very peculiar way to express that sentiment.
This may simply be a poor translation. I've read translations of French graphic novels into English with similarly clunky bits of dialogue. It would be nice to be able to see a transcript of the original statement, in Spanish (assuming, as I am, that Chavez delivered this in Spanish), and to have a good translator familiar with idiomatic Spanish translate it for us.
But my (uninformed) suspicion is that Chavez may have deliberately used the invasion/occupation rhetoric for its provocativeness. While Chavez knows the US did not literally invade and occupy Haiti, he knows some of his followers hate the US enough to believe they did. By using the words invasion and occupation metaphorically, he wins their support -- the same way Palin and others wins support of birthers without actually endorsing birther views, the same way various figures win support of truthers without actually endorsing truther views.
And he may know that it's not just people who hate the US who would be stupid enough to think he meant that the US had seized control of Haiti -- that many Chavez-haters would be stupid enough to make the same mistake. The more the Chavez-haters denounce him for having said that, the more the US-haters will think Chavez is great -- and, as a bonus, Venezuelans in the middle who neither blindly hate Chavez nor blindly hate the US will realize, from having heard Chavez's words for themselves, that the Chavez-haters are a bit loony. The more often the Chavez-haters cry wolf -- falsely claiming that Chavez said the US caused the earthquake, false claiming Chavez said it was part of a plot to invade Cuba and/or Venezuela, etc. -- the more it inoculates Chavez against future attacks. Cry wolf once too often and people will ignore you when you have a legitimate concern.
If that's what Chavez was doing -- deliberately using the words invasion and occupation in his statement, knowing there are Chavez-haters who can be distracted by red-flag words into charging blindly -- then my opinion of Chavez goes down another notch. That kind of rhetorical manipulation, used to stir hate and divisiveness, is extremely low and deserves to be strongly condemned. It is wrong when Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity engage in it; it is equally wrong if Hugo Chavez is engaging in it.
Please note: This is just my uninformed suspicion. I do not know that this is what Chavez was actually doing in the Haiti statement. A copy of the complete transcript, in Spanish, would be helpful in determining that, but I am not going to spend time trying to track it down. (I am already spending way more time on this than I can afford). So I reserve judgment on Chavez, and my opinion of him remains inchoate. But I am certainly open to being persuaded that Chavez is as low or lower than Sean Hannity and deserves to be criticized at least as harshly, even by those of us who do not live in his country.
Here's an example of Sarah Palin:
Ben Smith of Politico said:
Do I think Sarah Palin is stupid enough to actually believe that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii? No. But I think she is shrewd enough to realize many people who might be willing to vote for her are stupid enough to believe it. By giving this kind of it's worth investigating answer, she makes it sound to them as if she is agreeing with them and helps bolsters her support among them.
But those aren't the only people I think she (and Bachmann and the others) are playing for suckers with that kind statement. I think she's also shrewd enough to realize that a lot of her opponents are going to take that statement and say, "See! She just endorsed that crazy Orly Taitz stuff! She's a wacko!" And her supporters -- the ones who don't believe in Birthergate or whatever it's called -- are going to look at her actual, carefully-worded statement, realize she did no such thing, and instead of having a lower opinion of Palin they will have a lower opinion of Palin's critics. The incident will serve to confirm their belief that Palin's opponents are lying about her and that the media is trying to smear her -- making them less likely to believe future criticisms of Palin.
Chavez appears to be doing the same thing in his 9/11 statement that SoT quoted. The "They are occupying Haiti undercover" sentence makes me suspect he may be doing that with the Haiti invasion statement as well.
As I hope I demonstrated in my previous post, the sentence about occupying Haiti undercover makes no sense as a statement that the US is actually engaging in a military occupation. It does make sense as a statement comparing the US to unwelcome visitors -- but it's a very peculiar way to express that sentiment.
This may simply be a poor translation. I've read translations of French graphic novels into English with similarly clunky bits of dialogue. It would be nice to be able to see a transcript of the original statement, in Spanish (assuming, as I am, that Chavez delivered this in Spanish), and to have a good translator familiar with idiomatic Spanish translate it for us.
But my (uninformed) suspicion is that Chavez may have deliberately used the invasion/occupation rhetoric for its provocativeness. While Chavez knows the US did not literally invade and occupy Haiti, he knows some of his followers hate the US enough to believe they did. By using the words invasion and occupation metaphorically, he wins their support -- the same way Palin and others wins support of birthers without actually endorsing birther views, the same way various figures win support of truthers without actually endorsing truther views.
And he may know that it's not just people who hate the US who would be stupid enough to think he meant that the US had seized control of Haiti -- that many Chavez-haters would be stupid enough to make the same mistake. The more the Chavez-haters denounce him for having said that, the more the US-haters will think Chavez is great -- and, as a bonus, Venezuelans in the middle who neither blindly hate Chavez nor blindly hate the US will realize, from having heard Chavez's words for themselves, that the Chavez-haters are a bit loony. The more often the Chavez-haters cry wolf -- falsely claiming that Chavez said the US caused the earthquake, false claiming Chavez said it was part of a plot to invade Cuba and/or Venezuela, etc. -- the more it inoculates Chavez against future attacks. Cry wolf once too often and people will ignore you when you have a legitimate concern.
If that's what Chavez was doing -- deliberately using the words invasion and occupation in his statement, knowing there are Chavez-haters who can be distracted by red-flag words into charging blindly -- then my opinion of Chavez goes down another notch. That kind of rhetorical manipulation, used to stir hate and divisiveness, is extremely low and deserves to be strongly condemned. It is wrong when Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity engage in it; it is equally wrong if Hugo Chavez is engaging in it.
Please note: This is just my uninformed suspicion. I do not know that this is what Chavez was actually doing in the Haiti statement. A copy of the complete transcript, in Spanish, would be helpful in determining that, but I am not going to spend time trying to track it down. (I am already spending way more time on this than I can afford). So I reserve judgment on Chavez, and my opinion of him remains inchoate. But I am certainly open to being persuaded that Chavez is as low or lower than Sean Hannity and deserves to be criticized at least as harshly, even by those of us who do not live in his country.
Last edited:
No, I'm not. If you're reading that into my comments, please read them again.
There are 3 separate things: criticizing, demonizing, and spouting conspiracy theories. This thread is about the claim that Chavez has been spouting conspiracy theories, and that's the topic I've been trying to address. If you're not familiar with the difference between these three things, let me attempt to clarify them.
1. To criticize is to express dislike for what others have said or done. I take it Chavez is a critic of US policies. If criticisms are reasonably expressed I have no problem with that, even if it turns out they are criticisms I disagree with. Barack Obama, for example, routinely criticizes opinions and actions he disagrees with, but does not generally demonize his opponents in doing so.
2. To demonize is to characterize those one dislikes or disagrees with in excessively hateful ways. Rush Limbaugh is a mild example of someone who does this routinely (saying, for example, that Obama is deliberately trying to destroy the US economy); Ann Coulter is an extreme example (saying that those who disagree with her are traitors, saying 9/11 widows who criticized Bush were enjoying their husbands' deaths, etc.)
I have a low opinion of people who demonize their opponents; but this is such a common practice in US politics that I don't have time or energy to jump into every thread condemning someone for demonizing opponents. If I'm in a thread, the topic comes up, I have time to post, and I don't have something else I feel it is more important to post, I'll be glad to join in condemning an act of demonization. But please keep in mind that not every criticism is a demonization.
3. To spout conspiracy theories is to put forward wild claims about what others have done. These theories may (and often do) involve demonizing, but it's the wild and irrational nature of the claims being put forward which is generally the prime focus in when one talks about people spouting conspiracy theories.
This thread began with Alferd Packer mistakenly claiming that Chavez said the US caused the Haiti earthquake; he has since realized he was mistaken, and retracted that claim.
Then Travis claimed that Chavez said the US took over Haiti as a prelude to something like invading Cuba or Venezuela. That's been shown to be false, too, but Travis is still weaseling as far as retracting the claim.
My interest in this thread is simply that I dislike seeing people claiming to be quoting people and instead presenting fabricated or distorted quotes. It especially bothers me to see that happening on a skeptical forum. It is dishonest to claim to be quoting unless one has actually read the words of the person one claims to be quoting for oneself -- not simply read or heard some third party claiming that this is what the person said.
I have no interest in defending Chavez or his policies. I do have an interest in criticizing people who post false information as if it were authoritative. I believe if you go back and re-read my posts you will see that has been the consistent thrust of my posts in this thread.
No, he does not. Nothing in his remarks indicates he thinks the US is trying to take over the country. His use of the words invasion and occupation are rhetorical. It seems clear, on actually reading the passage quoted by Reuters rather than focusing on words in isolation, that he is comparing the presence of US troops to something like an invasion of tourists or an invasion of ants rather than to an invasion of Poland or Czechoslovakia.
Yes. The idea of countries in no imminent danger of invasion of maintaining large defensive armies to prevent invasion does seem somewhat paranoid, and a poor use of resources -- especially if they have genuine problems they need to address or massive budget deficits.
Take the US. There is no one currently threatening to invade our country and no country with the financial resources to manage an occupation of the US if they were able to successfully invade and conquer. Yet we have the largest military budget in the world. As I understand it, the logic is that if we are prepared to go to war, then we will not need to.
The US has invaded two countries in the last decade, and under Bush established a policy that we could and would pre-emptively invade another country if we thought it might some time in the future present a threat. I agree that the US is unlikely to invade Venezuela. But given the Bush Doctrine, which I believe the US still has not formally renounced, it is at least as reasonable for Venezuela to fear a foreign invasion, especially if a hostile power establishes military bases on its border, as it is for the US to fear one.
So is it safe to conclude that you feel the US politicians who wish to maintain a large military and a large capability for repelling a foreign invasion are as crazy or crazier than Chavez? And are you advocating we cut from the military budget all expenditures related to maintaining a military capable of repelling a foreign invasion. That would seem to logically follow from your post.
"The best way to avoid a war is to prepare for one." That's what Chavez said. But I agree with you, that is foolish. I am happy to join you in your implied call for the US to stop spending so much on doing this.
Last edited:
Childlike Empress
Banned
Here's an interesting study that skeptics should read. DC mentioned it.
Colombia and Venezuela: Testing the Propaganda Model
Kevin Young said:
Colombia and Venezuela: Testing the Propaganda Model
I haven't read enough of Chavez's statements to know if you are correct, but from the little I have read it seems likely you are. If so, I agree with you that this is worthy of criticism. Politicians should spend less time blaming others for their problems and more time working on solving those problems.
But this thread is not about Chavez criticizing the US. It is about Chavez making bizarre conspiracy-theory statements (which is why it's in CT instead of Politics).
There is nothing particularly unusual about politicians scapegoating others for their country's problems rather than trying to fix the problems. (For instance, that could be said about virtually the entire Republican party at the moment in regards to health care and most other issues.) Political leaders who spout bizarre conspiracy theories, on the other hand, are much less common.
Initially the claim in this thread was that Chavez had said the US caused the Haiti earthquake. That claim turned out to be false, and Alferd Packer (the person who started this thread) quite honorably withdrew it. Then the claim was made that Chavez had said the US was engaging in a military invasion and occupation of Haiti as a prelude to doing something like invading Cuba or Venezuela. That claim has also turned out to be false, although Travis (the person making that claim) has not yet made a straightforward retraction of it. Sword_of_Truth then claimed that Chavez said the theory that the US government was involved in the 9/11 is plausible and should be investigated; that claim turned out to be true.
If you want to start a thread over in Politics criticizing Chavez for the approach he is taking of scapegoating the US for his country's problems, that would be fine. I likely won't post in such a thread, but if I do it would be to agree with you on that point.
As a US citizen, I am more interested in being knowledgeable about (and praising or criticizing, as appropriate) the actions of people in my own country than in praising or criticizing the actions of politicians in other countries. If a foreign figure and a US figure commit the same offense, I feel more of a responsibility to criticize the US official than to criticize the foreign one (although, time permitting, I would be happy to do both). But when a foreign figure does something grossly more offensive than a domestic figure, then it is reasonable to give a higher priority to criticizing the foreign figure than a domestic one.
Spouting outlandish conspiracy charges falls into the latter category. If Chavez really had said the US caused the Haiti earthquake, or that the US had invaded Haiti as a prelude to invading other countries, that would be significantly crazier than the statements that Republicans are making on health care. Those claims turned out to be false -- which makes it inappropriate to criticize Chavez on those two claims but highly appropriate to criticize those who spread the false claims.
In post # 123 you claimed Chavez said something significantly different than what he actually said. Since then, instead of retracting the misinformation you posted the way an honest skeptic would, you have steadfastly tried to shift the blame for this onto others. I see you are still doing that.
The problem is not that others are misreading what you wrote. The problem is that you posted misinformation.
You claimed that chavez said that
the USA was using the Haiti quake as a pretext to invade that country in order to use it as a springboard to attack Cuba, or him, or something.....
Do you still believe that is true? If so, please provide the text of the statement in which Chavez said this. If not, please retract your claim, so that others are not misled by it in the future.Yes. But you still haven't said whether your post was intended to poke fun at the people who were gullible enough to believe Chavez said the US caused the Haiti earthquake, or whether it was intended to poke fun at Chavez because you were one of the people who was gullible enough to believe that.
You left this part out of this quoting:
Would you be so kind as to explain why? You quoted all the rest without a problem.
Let's see, he spoke about US military, coming in with heavy firepower. A military invasion and military occupation is the only sensible way this can be interpreted. Thanks for making my point
Sure.
Clearly, the most obvious understanding is that he hinted at a military occupation.
Sure, go ahead.
How does: "The US is pretending to be aiding Haiti to justify their occupation of the country". Would that be a good summary of what he said? Could his words be understood in any other way?
If you think so please point out how and why.
Let's not make a phD about a single sentence. He probably wanted to say the US marines aren't doing anything (or not much) to help the people of Haiti. Would you agree with that assertion?
Okay, I suppose.
It wouldn't be his first such claim.
Short of asking him, none. However, there is ample precedents for him making such claims. At best, he made a dubious claim that could be interpreted in the same way as his other, clear, claims.
Your analysis is flawed in the following ways:
- Chavez said the occupation was undercover, secret, invisible, however you call it, therefore calls for rebels and the UN are not exactly called for
- Chavez would happily compete hand down a vast arsenal to his critics by saying he wanted US relief efforts out of Haiti and called for rebels against them
- Chavez wouldn't wait for the appropriate time for PR moves such as calls for Haitians to rebel against the US forces in their country
Basically, the only point in your analysis that I do agree with is this:
Almost as if he cared more about embarrassing the US than about helping the Haitians, (...)
No, Nova, I don't think it's because we don't have the full transcript. He most likely wanted to embarrass the US and make his image better by lecturing them. That would explain why he mentioned the occupation in the first place rather well, don't you think?
McHrozni
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
so wiki are now experts?
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
ah ok sofar he was elected without cheating, but in future he will cheat?
or what was your point?
DC
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,064
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/World_press_ranking.pdf
ok in the Wiki article were indeed experts involved, sorry for that.
but interesting is,
Colombia is ranked 147th
USA in Irak is ranked 135th
Venezuela is Ranked 96th
...............
thats exactly what Childlike Empress pointed out.
so much for the claim there is no independent media in Venezuela......
try again
ok in the Wiki article were indeed experts involved, sorry for that.
but interesting is,
Colombia is ranked 147th
USA in Irak is ranked 135th
Venezuela is Ranked 96th
...............
thats exactly what Childlike Empress pointed out.
so much for the claim there is no independent media in Venezuela......
try again
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,994
CE, Propaganda Model? Manufacturing Consent? That reads like something from Behold A Pale Horse by William Cooper or Prison Planet. What Next? Citing Infowars?
First off, Uribe and Chavez are in absolutely different situations. Uribe is trying to win a war in Colombia that has led to so much destruction. Chavez took an imperfect democracy and ruined it. According to Freedom House, Colombia's press freedom is "partly Free", while Venezuela's is "Not Free". Colombia has a score of 59 compared to Venezuela's 74.
ETA: I'm surprisingly reminded of this video
First off, Uribe and Chavez are in absolutely different situations. Uribe is trying to win a war in Colombia that has led to so much destruction. Chavez took an imperfect democracy and ruined it. According to Freedom House, Colombia's press freedom is "partly Free", while Venezuela's is "Not Free". Colombia has a score of 59 compared to Venezuela's 74.
ETA: I'm surprisingly reminded of this video
Last edited:
