Chavez vs the USA

[McHrozni]

ah ok sofar he was elected without cheating, but in future he will cheat?
or what was your point?

From the article I posted and you apparently didn't even click on:
The Board of Directors of the Electoral Council is made up of Chávez's followers, and the electoral registry is highly unreliable. 39,000 voters are over 100 years old -- one lady appears to be 175 -- and 62 persons share the same name and birth date: Jose Gregorio Rodriguez Gonzalez, born April 8, 1962.

If that's not cheating, what is?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

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

Would you please pretend to be interested in a discussion and click the link. Once you have done so, please copy the full title here to prove it. Once you have done that and if you think the matter hasn't been already addressed you may state your question again.

McHrozni

 

[DC]

and i got a RWB report from 2003

in 2009

Colombia did indeed get closer up to Venezuela

Venezuela 124th
Colombia 126th

 

[DC]

From the article I posted and you apparently didn't even click on:
The Board of Directors of the Electoral Council is made up of Chávez's followers, and the electoral registry is highly unreliable. 39,000 voters are over 100 years old -- one lady appears to be 175 -- and 62 persons share the same name and birth date: Jose Gregorio Rodriguez Gonzalez, born April 8, 1962.

If that's not cheating, what is?

McHrozni

i read the claims, but cant find the evidence.

 

[DC]

Would you please pretend to be interested in a discussion and click the link. Once you have done so, please copy the full title here to prove it. Once you have done that and if you think the matter hasn't been already addressed you may state your question again.

McHrozni

listen, my 2 posts with the RWB ranking proofs perfectly that i did not only click on your link, i even read it true and went to the original source, the RWB homepage.........

 

[NWO Sentryman]

and i got a RWB report from 2003

in 2009

Colombia did indeed get closer up to Venezuela

Venezuela 124th
Colombia 126th

So that means Colombia has an improving press rights record whereas Venezuela's is taking a nose dive

 

[DC]

So that means Colombia has an improving press rights record whereas Venezuela's is taking a nose dive

yes, RCTV and other laws have sure had an impact on the ranking, which is well deserved and i hope they improve it soon.
But you cannot say they have no independt media anymore.

other countrys are much worse but there we do not hear about in our media. But we do like to make bussines with them.

how often have you read about colombias problems with freedom of press and how often about Venezuela?

 

[NWO Sentryman]

DC. Two completely different Contexts. Colombia is in a state of Civil War, and it is understandable that they would have tighter controls on the press.

Abraham Lincoln shut down many papers during the ACW on suspicions of confederate sympathies. Does that make him as bad as Chavez?

Besides, many other countries never really had a free press, so when an albeit imperfect democracy's press freedom takes a nose dive, it is much more prominent. It's like a medium sized candle going out, significantly darkening the room a lot more than smaller candles going out.

 

[McHrozni]

other countrys are much worse but there we do not hear about in our media. But we do like to make bussines with them.

When exactly did you get the idea that freedom of the press is the only reason we have issues with Venezuela?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

listen, my 2 posts with the RWB ranking proofs perfectly that i did not only click on your link, i even read it true and went to the original source, the RWB homepage.........

And yet you still couldn't understand the claim?

Geez.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

i read the claims, but cant find the evidence.

This tells much more about your research skills (or lack thereof) than anything else. There is even a link on wikipedia, ffs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Electoral_Council_(Venezuela)

McHrozni

 

[Nova Land]

You left this part out of this quoting:

"They are occupying Haiti undercover."

Would you be so kind as to explain why? You quoted all the rest without a problem.

Your post is time-stamped 12:22 (Central Standard time, which is the time-zone I'm in; adjust these times to your own time settings). Mine is time-stamped 11:44, last edit 11:45.

The line you mention as being missing is in there -- both in my posting of the full text of Chavez's remarks printed in the Reuters' item (which I did towards the top of the post) and in my line-by-line run-through (which I did farther down the post).

I first quoted the Reuters' item in post # 127 -- my first post in this thread. There, too, I quoted the full text of Chavez's quoted remarks. The line you imply I am trying to conceal for some unspecified reason is in there as well.

Just as it should be clear to anyone who learned in elementary school how to comprehend what they are reading that Chavez was not talking about a military takeover of Haiti in the passage quoted in Reuters, and that the passage taken as a whole makes no sense if one reads it that way, it should also be clear that I have made no attempt to conceal the line you think is missing or any other part of the Reuters' transcript.

Others in this thread have quoted the Reuters item selectively, omitting three key parts:

"There is not a shortage of guns there, my God. Doctors, medicine, fuel, field hospitals, that's what the United States should send.

Chavez promised to send as much gasoline as Haiti needs for electricity generation and transport.

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.

Grizzly Bear omitted all three of those in post # 174; McHrozni (hmm, why does that username sound familiar?) omitted two of them in post # 176. If you want to accuse people of trying to conceal part of the transcript, you should address your comments to them.

(In Grizzly Bear's defense, s/he was using the Daily News as a source, and they had already selectively edited out much of the text.)

Since I had already posted the full transcript of Chavez's quoted remarks from the Reuters' item in my first post, I did not see a great problem with the two of you editing portions out. Others who took the time to read the thread would already know the full text; and I was free to continue to remind you of those portions.

I will assume you made the accusation that I had edited that line out due to carelessness on your part and an inability to read clearly, rather than out of some conspiratorial motive on your part.

 

[McHrozni]

I will assume you made the accusation that I had edited that line out due to carelessness on your part and an inability to read clearly, rather than out of some conspiratorial motive on your part.

Conspirational motive?
You're accusing everybody of ignoring the context of what Chavez said and support that in part by ignoring a part of his context. Which part here requires a conspiracy again?

McHrozni

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I will assume you made the accusation that I had edited that line out due to carelessness on your part and an inability to read clearly, rather than out of some conspiratorial motive on your part.

Whaaa...? Why would you attribute those things to McHrozni when it was you who left out that line? Was it his alleged "carelessness" or alleged "inability to read clearly", or a conspiracy on his part, that caused you to omit that particular sentence? How would that even work?

 

[Nova Land]

Whaaa...? Why would you attribute those things to McHrozni when it was you who left out that line?

Please look at the post in question. The line is not left out.

It appears twice: once, at the top of the post, and again in my line-by-line run-through of the Chavez quotes from the Reuters' item.

Was it his alleged "carelessness" or alleged "inability to read clearly", or a conspiracy on his part, that caused you to omit that particular sentence?

No, since the line was not omitted. Rather, it was his "carelessness" or his "inability to read clearly" which caused him to post that the line was omitted when it was not.

How would that even work?

How would McHronzi post a comment claiming a line was omitted? You'd have to ask McHrozni. The most obvious explanation is that McHrozni does not read very carefully, posts in haste, and does not bother to check on details of things in the post to make sure the post is accurate. Little details such as making sure a line the post says has been omitted is not, in fact, plainly in sight in the post being referred to.

You certainly are! Not only did you fail to check the post in question (which would have cleared this up for you), you also apparently either failed to read or failed to comprehend the portion of the the post you were responding to in which I said:

Your post is time-stamped 12:22 (Central Standard time, which is the time-zone I'm in; adjust these times to your own time settings). Mine is time-stamped 11:44, last edit 11:45.

The line you mention as being missing is in there -- both in my posting of the full text of Chavez's remarks printed in the Reuters' item (which I did towards the top of the post) and in my line-by-line run-through (which I did farther down the post).

The reason I mentioned the time-stamping, in case you don't understand, is to make it clear this was not a case of my having edited the post after McHrozni had responded and accused me of omitting the line.


(There is one minor error in my post, though, which I see now in re-reading and might as well correct in this post. I wrote that the line McHrozni somehow missed seeing is in the post twice -- which it is. But my description of the two places in which it appears is flawed. The first appearance is not in a full-text reprinting of the Chavez quotes from the Reuters' item; it is a full-text reprinting of the Chavez quotes from a McHrozni post I was responding to. Since he had deleted several lines of what Chavez said, my quoting of his post is also missing those lines.)

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Grizzly Bear omitted all three of those in post # 174; McHrozni (hmm, why does that username sound familiar?) omitted two of them in post # 176. If you want to accuse people of trying to conceal part of the transcript, you should address your comments to them.

(In Grizzly Bear's defense, s/he was using the Daily News as a source, and they had already selectively edited out much of the text.)

Since I had already posted the full transcript of Chavez's quoted remarks from the Reuters' item in my first post, I did not see a great problem with the two of you editing portions out. Others who took the time to read the thread would already know the full text; and I was free to continue to remind you of those portions.

You can include what I supposedly left out, but the article I linked to had included other statements which dealt with his criticism over the use of resources for relief efforts. I would have assumed you'd have paid more attention to that article, I link to the articles for a reason, I don't assume people reading my responses can't find the quotes themselves or the context.

You're suggesting Chavez had no ulterior motives for making his statement however, and while criticism of how the relief efforts are being handled are one part of it, he makes very clear he has other reasons for justifying the criticism, and I don't see how you'd be interpreting it otherwise. It was apparently explained to you in the previous page.

 

[McHrozni]

No, since the line was not omitted. Rather, it was his "carelessness" or his "inability to read clearly" which caused him to post that the line was omitted when it was not.

Hm, the line is there now. It's possible I missed it, it's also possible you didn't put it there the first time for whatever reason, gone back and edited, while I wrote the reply in the meantime.

Alas, I fail to see why you'd be making such an uproar about one line and ignoring the rest of the reply if you actually had a valid rebuttal.

McHrozni

 

[Locknar]

Given there was little to no conspiracy, thread moved from Conspiracy Theory to Politics.

Posted By: Locknar

 

[funk de fino]

they should have thought about that before the cooperated with the coup plotters that toppled a democratic elected government.

i wonder if CNN would still be on air if they cooperated with a group of people that capture Obama and take over the government.

Same old lies and the constant use of the two wrongs make a right arguments?

You need a new act.