Hugo Chavez Loves Free Speech...

[DC]

That is not the Bolivar way. Chavez disagrees with you. Good job you do not own a bank in Venezuela eh?

so? you got actually a point?

 

[funk de fino]

Ok I get it, you jumped on the bandwagon in error and are now agreeing that Stalin comparisons are a bad fit for Chavez. Peer pressure works in mysterious ways..

I suggest you substitute Stalin with Kermit the Frog in my post and see if you then get the point of the post. Just about any muppet would do.

If you had deigned to actually read the post I said he was not Stalin yet.

I will repeat this just in case.

No one is serioulsy saying he is Stalin yet.

Spelling mistake inc.

It was to make a point, not compare him to Stalin.

Now if you really really want me to, I can compare them if it will make you feel better? I'd rather not because that was not the point of my post.

 

[funk de fino]

so? you got actually a point?

Yes, your view on this is against Chavez. I feel it is hypocritical. You either believe in Nationalisation or you dont. Banking is a key sector and you said that it was mostly a good thing to nationalise these key sectors. Why is it different for Switzerland than it is for Venezuela?

What key sectors should Hugo leave alone?

 

[DC]

Yes, your view on this is against Chavez. I feel it is hypocritical. You either believe in Nationalisation or you dont. Banking is a key sector and you said that it was mostly a good thing to nationalise these key sectors. Why is it different for Switzerland than it is for Venezuela?

What key sectors should Hugo leave alone?

wow, your most stupid post untill now.

So i have to agree with chavez on every single point, or i am not a socialist?

What do you count as Key sectors?

 

[funk de fino]

wow, your most stupid post untill now.

So i have to agree with chavez on every single point, or i am not a socialist?

Is it not one of his key policies? Nationalisation.

You think he is wrong when he tries to nationalise banks then?

What do you count as Key sectors?

You tell me, you brought it up.

 

[DC]

Is it not one of his key policies? Nationalisation.

You think he is wrong when he tries to nationalise banks then?



You tell me, you brought it up.

It depends on the Bank.

I personally belive Banking sector should be mixed. Private owned Banks and Public banks. And if Chavez has a diffrent oppinion in this regard, i dont care.

here some sectors i belive should be mainly in Public hands.

Water
Electricity
Telecomunications
Natural resources (Oil etc)
Partially food production
Healthcare (Hospital's)
Schools
News (atleast one public owned media outlet)

 

[Meed]

A mixture of snarkiness and the fact there are noddy guides out there in googleland that show you how to download it and use it for all sorts. It has data about salaries, social security numbers and classifies you as a pro or anti govt amongst other things. Throws up some interesting facts about govt employees salaries.

My question was just about where the names on the list came from. My assumption was that they came from the petition signatures rather than the recall election. If people can't vote in elections anonymously then it's obviously a much bigger deal (although I dislike it either way).

No, I do not think you support the shooting of protestors. I asked you a question.

Okay fair enough.

You imply that by supporting the protests the media supported a coup.

I haven't said that. I don't know whether they knew the coup was coming or not. But they helped it happen whether intentionally or not. And once it did happen, they clearly supported it.

Chavez has even accused them of organising the coup. Do you think supporting protests aginst the govt are reasons to be chucked off air? Thats what they did and thats why Chavez is hounding them.

Supporting protests is fine, as long as they're complying with media laws and not engaging in sedition. I think they engaged in non-overt sedition (or something close) from the time period of the coup to Chavez's reinstatement even if not before, which I'd have to research more.

Their bias is comparable. While you are at it why dont you bring the evidence that RCTV did anything wrong.

Okay, correct me if you think I have any of this wrong. I'm going by memory for the most part and it's possible my memory contains information from bad sources: Chavez said he would resign, at gunpoint essentially, on four conditions (e.g. being able to address the nation on TV etc). This resignation was accepted and announced (covered on RCTV obviously). The conditions were not lived up to and Chavez was imprisoned until further notice, but he managed to get a message out saying that he did not resign. Media such as RCTV suppressed this information. And I don't just mean they didn't decide to cover it, but when a Chavez loyalist general tricked them by pretending he was going to announce his own resignation live and then starting to announce instead that Chavez had not resigned, he was cut from broadcast immediately. After that, the successful counter-takeover by Chavez supporters was not covered at all. Both of these things work to the advantage of the coup and surely made it more difficult for a counter-attack to succeed if some people don't know that A) Chavez is claiming not to have resigned and B) There is a counter attack going on. One coup leader also thanked a media station (not RCTV in this case) for being their "deadly weapon". Another (or possibly the same one) said ""I must thank Venevisión and RCTV."

So if you were a Venezuelan who believed in Democracy, how would you feel about RCTV's behavior throughout that incident?

Fox has never suppressed any hugely important information in the manner described above, AFAIK. Here's how they would be more comparable: Imagine if after they announced "Bush Wins" in the 2000 election, Fox News declined to cover the fact that Florida went on to become contested and immediately cut from any live broadcasts that mentioned it. A silly example in that that would have been incredibly dumb of them, but you get the idea.

It's nothing alike. It covers specific things that the Chavez law does not. During elections. Not all the time. On a whim.

I don't know all the specifics on the law (article 192 I think) in Venezuela, but it does seem similar in my mind. They are both cases in which a media station is forced to provide coverage of a person and their message who they may not want to cover. One is just more limited in applicability.

What was the reason you brought a quote that did not support your arguments? Maybe you just thought we were too stupid to realise. If it is just that you thought I was too stupid then I apologise if I intimated it was dishonesty. I am not too stupid to realise your quote was irrelevant to this discussion though.

Posting a bad argument, because I think you're too stupid to realize it would be dishonesty in my mind. It's important to me that I not do things like this.

Why did I bring the quote? Because it seemed there was some confusion over what the US law actually entailed.. or you thought I was confused about what it entailed. E.g. you were asking "do you think Glenn Beck can be arrested?" etc. So I layed it out specifically.

And I do think it supports that the US law has similarities with the Venezuelan article 192, BTW.

I dont think you are stupid. Why would I call you socialist scum? I do not even know your political affiliations and it seems you have jumped to conculsions about mine.

I wasn't trying to suggest you've called me these things, I'm just saying I'd prefer them to being called dishonest (unless I'd actually been dishonest of course).

 

[funk de fino]

My question was just about where the names on the list came from. My assumption was that they came from the petition signatures rather than the recall election. If people can't vote in elections anonymously then it's obviously a much bigger deal (although I dislike it either way).

It has everyones name on it who is registered to vote.

I haven't said that. I don't know whether they knew the coup was coming or not. But they helped it happen whether intentionally or not. And once it did happen, they clearly supported it.

Someone on here tried to claim they did know it was coming and failed dismally. You think it is wise for media to always back the govt?

Supporting protests is fine, as long as they're complying with media laws and not engaging in sedition. I think they engaged in non-overt sedition (or something close) from the time period of the coup to Chavez's reinstatement even if not before, which I'd have to research more.

They engaged in bias which is not illegal.

Okay, correct me if you think I have any of this wrong. I'm going by memory for the most part and it's possible my memory contains information from bad sources: Chavez said he would resign, at gunpoint essentially, on four conditions (e.g. being able to address the nation on TV etc). This resignation was accepted and announced (covered on RCTV obviously). The conditions were not lived up to and Chavez was imprisoned until further notice, but he managed to get a message out saying that he did not resign. Media such as RCTV suppressed this information. And I don't just mean they didn't decide to cover it, but when a Chavez loyalist general tricked them by pretending he was going to announce his own resignation live and then starting to announce instead that Chavez had not resigned, he was cut from broadcast immediately. After that, the successful counter-takeover by Chavez supporters was not covered at all. Both of these things work to the advantage of the coup and surely made it more difficult for a counter-attack to succeed if some people don't know that A) Chavez is claiming not to have resigned and B) There is a counter attack going on. One coup leader also thanked a media station (not RCTV in this case) for being their "deadly weapon". Another (or possibly the same one) said ""I must thank Venevisión and RCTV."

You've got some of it right along with the exagerrated govt stuff. If they were involved in the coup then why were they not thrown in jail. Why were they not thrown off the air imediately for thir crimes. Why did they wait until license renewal and get the state media dept to not renew a license? Why have govt officials said it was not because of support for the 2002 coup that they were taken of air.

Why does the govt feel they can force private media to show govt propoganda?

So if you were a Venezuelan who believed in Democracy, how would you feel about RCTV's behavior throughout that incident?

Same way I feel about Fox news. Bias rubbish.

Fox has never suppressed any hugely important information in the manner described above, AFAIK. Here's how they would be more comparable: Imagine if after they announced "Bush Wins" in the 2000 election, Fox News declined to cover the fact that Florida went on to become contested and immediately cut from any live broadcasts that mentioned it. A silly example in that that would have been incredibly dumb of them, but you get the idea.

No, I do not get the idea. "Hugely important"

I don't know all the specifics on the law (article 192 I think) in Venezuela, but it does seem similar in my mind. They are both cases in which a media station is forced to provide coverage of a person and their message who they may not want to cover. One is just more limited in applicability.

One forces media to show equal airtime for all political candidates during elections. one allows the govt to force media to show govt propoganda. It does nothing for opposition parties. It is not just for election broadcasts. ou are wrong on this unless your version of similar is different to mine.

Posting a bad argument, because I think you're too stupid to realize it would be dishonesty in my mind. It's important to me that I not do things like this.

Bad is not false.

Why did I bring the quote? Because it seemed there was some confusion over what the US law actually entailed.. or you thought I was confused about what it entailed. E.g. you were asking "do you think Glenn Beck can be arrested?" etc. So I layed it out specifically.

And I do think it supports that the US law has similarities with the Venezuelan article 192, BTW.

see above.

I wasn't trying to suggest you've called me these things, I'm just saying I'd prefer them to being called dishonest (unless I'd actually been dishonest of course).

Called is not call. Get your tenses straight. Why would you think I would call you them?

 

[Meed]

It has everyones name on it who is registered to vote.

Does it say who they voted for? That's what I've been getting at, but I've been wording it poorly.

You think it is wise for media to always back the govt?

No. I do think it's unwise to back insurrection against a democratic government though. I realize you may disagree about the 'democratic' part, but that is my opinion.

You've got some of it right along with the exagerrated govt stuff.

Which parts are the exaggerated govt stuff (and exaggerated in what way)?

If they were involved in the coup then why were they not thrown in jail. Why were they not thrown off the air imediately for thir crimes.

Because they weren't directly involved in the coup or at least there's no evidence indicating such. The account I described strikes me as borderline sedition, but nothing so blatant that a witch burning would be expedient (just speculating).

Why did they wait until license renewal and get the state media dept to not renew a license? Why have govt officials said it was not because of support for the 2002 coup that they were taken of air.

Possibly to avoid controversy and/or, because there's not enough evidence of actual laws being broken by RCTV during the coup. I have no idea, though.

No, I do not get the idea. "Hugely important"

Do you think Fox News has done anything comparable to the account described? I provided the hypothetical of suppressing that the 2000 presidential election was contested in Florida for a significant period of time after having projected Bush as the winner as something that might be comparable.

One forces media to show equal airtime for all political candidates[' propoganda] during elections. one allows the govt to force media to show govt propoganda. It does nothing for opposition parties. It is not just for election broadcasts. ou are wrong on this unless your version of similar is different to mine.

Bolded added by me. It's all "propoganda", isn't it? My "version of similar" is different than yours I guess, but it depends how much time per day it can be utilized, how much it's actually utilized and other specifics.

Bad is not false.

I'm aware of that... Intentionally making an invalid argument with the hopes that the other guy will be suckered in by it falls under my concept of "dishonest". Are you claiming I did that?

Called is not call. Get your tenses straight. Why would you think I would call you them?

I was trying to illustrate that I don't like being called dishonest by contrasting it with stupid, etc. I wasn't saying I expect you to make those other attacks. I also wasn't making assumptions about your political leanings. They were just a few hypothetical insults I thought up off the top of my head. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[funk de fino]

Does it say who they voted for? That's what I've been getting at, but I've been wording it poorly.

It states if they are pro govt or anti govt.

No. I do think it's unwise to back insurrection against a democratic government though. I realize you may disagree about the 'democratic' part, but that is my opinion.

What about Chavez attempted coup?

Which parts are the exaggerated govt stuff (and exaggerated in what way)?

Look, I am not spelling everything out for you. Go read blogs, go speak to people there. Thats what I do.

Because they weren't directly involved in the coup or at least there's no evidence indicating such. The account I described strikes me as borderline sedition, but nothing so blatant that a witch burning would be expedient (just speculating).

It may strike you all you want but you only see one side of it. Bolded for clarity.

Possibly to avoid controversy and/or, because there's not enough evidence of actual laws being broken by RCTV during the coup. I have no idea, though.

No evidence.

Do you think Fox News has done anything comparable to the account described? I provided the hypothetical of suppressing that the 2000 presidential election was contested in Florida for a significant period of time after having projected Bush as the winner as something that might be comparable.

Watch Glen Beck and his 912 junk. Hypothetical is irrelevant. Fox can do what they want and could have done what they wanted. You have yet to prove anything was suppressed by RCTV. You just wrote some words.

Bolded added by me. It's all "propoganda", isn't it? My "version of similar" is different than yours I guess, but it depends how much time per day it can be utilized, how much it's actually utilized and other specifics.

Do you watch the Hello President show? What else is being forced to show OLD speeches supposed to do?

I'm aware of that... Intentionally making an invalid argument with the hopes that the other guy will be suckered in by it falls under my concept of "dishonest". Are you claiming I did that?

Being a sucker does not mean you are stupid. Being stupid does not mean you are a sucker.

If you made an invalid argument then live with it.

I was trying to illustrate that I don't like being called dishonest by contrasting it with stupid, etc. I wasn't saying I expect you to make those other attacks. I also wasn't making assumptions about your political leanings. They were just a few hypothetical insults I thought up off the top of my head. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

You like hypos eh?

 

[Meed]

It states if they are pro govt or anti govt.

Based on their voting record?

Look, I am not spelling everything out for you. Go read blogs, go speak to people there. Thats what I do.

I didn't pull that account out of my ass. If you don't want to tell me which parts you think are inaccurate then that's your choice.

It may strike you all you want but you only see one side of it. Bolded for clarity.

In your opinion.

Watch Glen Beck and his 912 junk. Hypothetical is irrelevant. Fox can do what they want and could have done what they wanted. You have yet to prove anything was suppressed by RCTV. You just wrote some words.

That's a non-answer. And you're right I did just write some words, I have a bad habbit of doing that on discussion forums. **** me I'm still doing it. Better get used to it?

Do you watch the Hello President show? What else is being forced to show OLD speeches supposed to do?

Sorry? I don't see how that's a relevant response. I've seen Hello President clips as shown by the PBS documentary on it.

If you made an invalid argument then live with it.

I don't give a crap if I made an invalid argument. I don't think I did, but that's beside the point. You implied I did so intentionally and it looks like you're not budging from that, despite receiving a completely reasonable elaboration that shouldn't even have been necessary in the first place. Confirm?

 

[funk de fino]

Based on their voting record?

Google is your friend. It's not based on their shoe size though.

MAISANTA database.

I didn't pull that account out of my ass. If you don't want to tell me which parts you think are inaccurate then that's your choice.

Wait a minute. Your post quite clearly said it was from memory.

Okay, correct me if you think I have any of this wrong. I'm going by memory for the most part and it's possible my memory contains information from bad sources:

Bolded

In your opinion.

My opinions are based on more than the bias crap or hero worship some are. I have friends and work colleagues in Venezuela. I get stuff direct from them. I do not have to blame all media for being biased against Chavez when he rolls in the military to take over private companies. I have seen al jazeera being cast as bias. All the time the usual suspects use the venezuelanalysis.com bias rubbish that is supported by bias organisations and rumoured to have funding from the govt. I am not saying Chavez is a devil (although he is allowed to call Bush a devil and say that Obama has the same stench). I am not saying he is a despot murdering dictator. I am saying that he is not what he protrays himself as and he is on a slippery slope to becoming worse. The no limits to terms was one prime example. He changed the constitution when he came to power and then tried to get it changed to keep him in power. When that failed he changed the wording and and put it to vote again in the same parliamentary session even though this was not permitted by the constitution. It's all very well to believe in what he is saying he is trying to do for the country, and in some cases is doing for the country, but when people make valid criticisms of some of his excesses people should not give him a pass and accuse others of bias for attacking him.

I admit there is some rabid bias against him here but it works both ways. This is the politics section after all. My problem is I believe in a lot of what he says he is trying to do for the poor, but when you look closely and scratch the surface he is not the man to do it.

That's a non-answer. And you're right I did just write some words, I have a bad habbit of doing that on discussion forums. **** me I'm still doing it. Better get used to it?

See the other thread. You avoided Glenn Beck again.

Got anything on RCTV? Do you think it is acceptable for them to have been thrown off cable and satellite for refusing to show Hello President or any other stuff that Chavez wants to see on a whim?

Sorry? I don't see how that's a relevant response. I've seen Hello President clips as shown by the PBS documentary on it.

Are they forced to show them?

I don't give a crap if I made an invalid argument. I don't think I did, but that's beside the point. You implied I did so intentionally and it looks like you're not budging from that, despite receiving a completely reasonable elaboration that shouldn't even have been necessary in the first place. Confirm?

Not budging? I said sorry. That law in the US is for specific times and for specific reasons. The venezuela one is so that Chavez can put out his stuff unfettered. Is the article there to allow everyone equal airtime or not?

 

[DC]

Got anything on RCTV? Do you think it is acceptable for them to have been thrown off cable and satellite for refusing to show Hello President or any other stuff that Chavez wants to see on a whim?

Is this the official reason?
when not, what evidence do you have that this was the reason?

 

[Meed]

Google is your friend. It's not based on their shoe size though.

Okay, I searched one more time and I'm now confident that my original interpretation was correct that the list was constructed based on petition signatures. Not sure why you kept telling me to look it up when I had it right in the first place.

Wait a minute. Your post quite clearly said it was from memory.

Memory = out of my ass? Obviously the memory is based on reading things. I had re-researched it briefly before making the post too, my disclaimer was just that I may be off on some small detail or that some of my sources may have given inaccurate information.

So would you like to share what you think the exaggerated parts are? If not fine, but the condescending "go read blogs" type response isn't necessary.

My opinions are based on more than the bias crap or hero worship some are. I have friends and work colleagues in Venezuela. I get stuff direct from them. I do not have to blame all media for being biased against Chavez when he rolls in the military to take over private companies. I have seen al jazeera being cast as bias. All the time the usual suspects use the venezuelanalysis.com bias rubbish that is supported by bias organisations and rumoured to have funding from the govt.

I can respect that. But you really think Chavez is my hero and that I only see one side of things? I have criticisms of Chavez. I disagree with the recent arrest that took place and I strongly disagree with the Maisanta database, although I don't think it "destroyed democracy" since electoral votes are still anonymous. I also think he has an embarrassing personality for a head of state and is overly enamored with Castro, which could certainly provide the temptation to move in more totalitarian directions.

Not to dismiss the "I have friends there" thing, but I wouldn't put a lot of stock in, for example, someone's opinion of an American politician based on talking with friends who are Americans. I'm certain there are some Venezuelans who would agree with your friends and others who wouldn't.

I am not saying Chavez is a devil (although he is allowed to call Bush a devil and say that Obama has the same stench). I am not saying he is a despot murdering dictator. I am saying that he is not what he protrays himself as and he is on a slippery slope to becoming worse. The no limits to terms was one prime example. He changed the constitution when he came to power and then tried to get it changed to keep him in power. When that failed he changed the wording and and put it to vote again in the same parliamentary session even though this was not permitted by the constitution.

Shady, yes. But there are worse things. The term limits thing only allows him to stay in power as long as he is voted for by a majority of the voting population.

It's all very well to believe in what he is saying he is trying to do for the country, and in some cases is doing for the country, but when people make valid criticisms of some of his excesses people should not give him a pass and accuse others of bias for attacking him.

Agreed. However, I think a lot of the criticisms ITT were not valid. Some were.

I admit there is some rabid bias against him here but it works both ways. This is the politics section after all. My problem is I believe in a lot of what he says he is trying to do for the poor, but when you look closely and scratch the surface he is not the man to do it.

That's cool. I somewhat agree, I'd rather see him replaced by someone who believed in the same ideals, but had a better head on their shoulders and a less bombastic personality. I do think Chavez has done more good than harm though, in contrast to the state of the country before-hand.

See the other thread. You avoided Glenn Beck again.

What do you want to know? I've explained pretty well why I don't think it's comparable. Is 912 something Glenn Beck did that you think is comparable to RCTV's actions from the coup onward?

Got anything on RCTV? Do you think it is acceptable for them to have been thrown off cable and satellite for refusing to show Hello President or any other stuff that Chavez wants to see on a whim?

I posted my account of things RCTV has done that I take serious issue with already. Were they thrown off cable and satellite for refusing to show Hello President? Source? It seems their license was not renewed and the coup is a big part of the reason for that.

Are they forced to show them?

RCTV? I don't know, are they?

Not budging? I said sorry. That law in the US is for specific times and for specific reasons. The venezuela one is so that Chavez can put out his stuff unfettered. Is the article there to allow everyone equal airtime or not?

"If it is just that you thought I was too stupid then I apologise if I intimated it was dishonesty."

I hate to nitpick further, but that was a conditional apology and the condition was not met. You made it sound like either I was dishonest or I intentionally posted something invalid because I thought you were stupid to realize it (and as I've explained a couple times I'd still consider that to fall under "dishonest").

Moving on...

 

[funk de fino]

Is this the official reason?
when not, what evidence do you have that this was the reason?

Look up google for RCTV thrown off cable and satellite in January 2010. Look at the reasons given in the reports you see. They refused to show Chavez programming.

 

[funk de fino]

Okay, I searched one more time and I'm now confident that my original interpretation was correct that the list was constructed based on petition signatures. Not sure why you kept telling me to look it up when I had it right in the first place.

Think about it.

Memory = out of my ass? Obviously the memory is based on reading things. I had re-researched it briefly before making the post too, my disclaimer was just that I may be off on some small detail or that some of my sources may have given inaccurate information.

So would you like to share what you think the exaggerated parts are? If not fine, but the condescending "go read blogs" type response isn't necessary.

I've already told you. If you took it from probably biased sources then try and find some that aren't and read about it.

I can respect that. But you really think Chavez is my hero and that I only see one side of things? I have criticisms of Chavez. I disagree with the recent arrest that took place and I strongly disagree with the Maisanta database, although I don't think it "destroyed democracy" since electoral votes are still anonymous. I also think he has an embarrassing personality for a head of state and is overly enamored with Castro, which could certainly provide the temptation to move in more totalitarian directions.

Then we agree on somethings. You will see very little of that from some Chavistas on here.

Not to dismiss the "I have friends there" thing, but I wouldn't put a lot of stock in, for example, someone's opinion of an American politician based on talking with friends who are Americans. I'm certain there are some Venezuelans who would agree with your friends and others who wouldn't.

If they were all saying the same thing? The same thing you could read about in blogs and in news? When I was in Libya most guys there told me Gaddafi was a bad man and they hated him. based on what i have seen in he past i tend to think they were not bullcrapping me. Same with Chavez. I have collegues from Colombia who feel the same about him.

Shady, yes. But there are worse things. The term limits thing only allows him to stay in power as long as he is voted for by a majority of the voting population.

Very shady. A sign of power grabbing and not wanting to let go. This is a slippery slope.

Agreed. However, I think a lot of the criticisms ITT were not valid. Some were.

I agree. Valid ones are poo poo'd also. You must be some kind of rabid right winger with a bias against socialism if you attack him seems to be the crux of it. Like I said, it works both ways.

That's cool. I somewhat agree, I'd rather see him replaced by someone who believed in the same ideals, but had a better head on their shoulders and a less bombastic personality. I do think Chavez has done more good than harm though, in contrast to the state of the country before-hand.

If you look at his falling numbers then some may disagree.

What do you want to know? I've explained pretty well why I don't think it's comparable. Is 912 something Glenn Beck did that you think is comparable to RCTV's actions from the coup onward?

Beck is a pretty nasty piece of work from what I can see and is using his fame to power a movement that is calling for the overthrow of Obama. lets not pretend this is just Fox news but it is an epecially disgusting part ofFox that is no worse than nything I see fom RCTV or Globo. Now I do not agree with everything that RCTV or Globo do but the charges against Globo are trumped up and politically motivated an you do not see that happening to Glenn Beck. The witchhunt against critical media is what it is all about regardless of what the Chavez cronies say.

I posted my account of things RCTV has done that I take serious issue with already. Were they thrown off cable and satellite for refusing to show Hello President? Source? It seems their license was not renewed and the coup is a big part of the reason for that.

They have twice been dealt with. Once after the coup attempt. The official line was not anything to do with the coup support. If it was they could have taken then off straight away and charged them. They waited until license renewal time and refused it on other grounds. Chavez posturing line was it as because of the coup. But he also lied about the involvement as well. officials havbe confrimed it was not because of the coup.

The second time this year was when they were kicked off cable and satellite for refusing to show Chavez programming.

RCTV? I don't know, are they?

See above, thats why they were thrown off cable and satellite this year. Refused to show Chavez programming.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7000341.ece

"If it is just that you thought I was too stupid then I apologise if I intimated it was dishonesty."

I hate to nitpick further, but that was a conditional apology and the condition was not met. You made it sound like either I was dishonest or I intentionally posted something invalid because I thought you were stupid to realize it (and as I've explained a couple times I'd still consider that to fall under "dishonest").

Moving on...

Ok. Sorry. Is that OK?

 

[Meed]

I've already told you. If you took it from probably biased sources then try and find some that aren't and read about it.

I said possibly inaccurate, not "probably". You told me to read blogs and those would also be possibly inaccurate as well, obviously. Also, since you haven't told me which parts you think were correct and which were exaggerated you're essentially asking me to research every detail and figure it out for myself, whereas I'd have a much easier job if you were at least somewhat specific.

If they were all saying the same thing? The same thing you could read about in blogs and in news?

Are all Venezuelans saying the same thing? In regard to what? It seems Chavez has both supporters and detractors.

I agree. Valid ones are poo poo'd also. You must be some kind of rabid right winger with a bias against socialism if you attack him seems to be the crux of it. Like I said, it works both ways.

Indeed. Actually my first post in the other thread is an example of that.

Beck is a pretty nasty piece of work from what I can see and is using his fame to power a movement that is calling for the overthrow of Obama. lets not pretend this is just Fox news but it is an epecially disgusting part ofFox that is no worse than nything I see fom RCTV or Globo.

That he is. But he hasn't aided a coup by actively suppressing information. I guess I'll just have to disagree with you that they are equivalent.

That said, I do support tougher media laws in the US.

They have twice been dealt with. Once after the coup attempt. The official line was not anything to do with the coup support. If it was they could have taken then off straight away and charged them. They waited until license renewal time and refused it on other grounds. Chavez posturing line was it as because of the coup. But he also lied about the involvement as well. officials havbe confrimed it was not because of the coup.

The second time this year was when they were kicked off cable and satellite for refusing to show Chavez programming.

See above, thats why they were thrown off cable and satellite this year. Refused to show Chavez programming.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7000341.ece

Okay, but that doesn't say anything about the show Hello President, it mentioned a speech. The coup may not have been an official reason, but considering RCTV's behavior during the coup I don't have much sympathy for them being taken off the air. They broke a law and that was used as the official line, but the larger context is also relevant.

I'm on the fence regarding the law that was broken. I'd like to know more specifics of what it entails and how/how-often it's utilized. I'll look more into that some time, when I get a chance.

Ok. Sorry. Is that OK?

Yes, sir. Thank you.

 

[funk de fino]

I said possibly inaccurate, not "probably". You told me to read blogs and those would also be possibly inaccurate as well, obviously. Also, since you haven't told me which parts you think were correct and which were exaggerated you're essentially asking me to research every detail and figure it out for myself, whereas I'd have a much easier job if you were at least somewhat specific.

I repeat my previous post on this. I do get fed up going through hoops in the past for information that is out there from both sides of the argument only for it to be handwaved or ignored. Sorry if that seems harsh but I have gone though this stuff before and do not have much time left this week before I head to mexico.

I would say something here. Ignore venezuelaanalysis. If you do want to use it then look to another opposite bias and use thedevilsexcrement. Ignore most of the US reporting on it and look to other media such as the BBC.

I am not opposed to what Chavez wants to do for the country I am opposed to how he is doing it. The OP says it all. Closing down opposition media is not acceptable.

Are all Venezuelans saying the same thing? In regard to what? It seems Chavez has both supporters and detractors.

I am saying that all the one I speak to say it. If we use your example of the US, then that is not what happens there. I get many mixed views in the US from feins and colleagues. Soem love Obama, some hate him. Some loved Bush, some hated him. In Venezuela, 100% of the people I have spoken to about it do not like him. Smaller sample size but telling all the same. Similar to my Libya experience. One similarity was the fact that it was not something that was talked about too openly. They know what can happen to you when you are seen as opposition.

He has supporters right enough but his numbers are falling and only govt ones seem to give him large support recently and even they are falling.

Indeed. Actually my first post in the other thread is an example of that.

It did, however, make unsupported accusations against Globo.

That he is. But he hasn't aided a coup by actively suppressing information. I guess I'll just have to disagree with you that they are equivalent.

You have yet to support this either. Not reporting something is immediately suppressing something? In that case why did the Venezuela State TV ignore the earthquake that hit? The one that Globo got into trouble for reporting.

Were they suppressing it?

That said, I do support tougher media laws in the US.

I do not. I find the two sides very amusing when I am over there.

Okay, but that doesn't say anything about the show Hello President, it mentioned a speech.

When I ask a question it is not neccassarily a specific claim. They have been taken off air for refusing to show govt programming. What is the OP about again?

The coup may not have been an official reason, but considering RCTV's behavior during the coup I don't have much sympathy for them being taken off the air. They broke a law and that was used as the official line, but the larger context is also relevant.

Yes, no freedom of speech. Govt interference in media programming outside emergency situations or election times.

I'm on the fence regarding the law that was broken. I'd like to know more specifics of what it entails and how/how-often it's utilized. I'll look more into that some time, when I get a chance.

I do not like it when a station can be forced to show anything from the govt if the same rights are not given to opposition. Excepting in emergency situations.

Yes, sir. Thank you.

No problem. At least you do not descend into the usual "evidence?" single word posts that get increasingly specific and end up as requiring proof to court standards rather than admitting a wrong. They also love the two wrongs make a right arguments. I prefer the two wrongs make a wrong if you know what I mean.

 

[WildCat]

I didn't say "the same laws" I said similar laws. The laws in both cases aren't about being "supportive", they're about providing air time.

The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. This means, for example that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate on the prime time, it must do the same for another candidate.

However, there are four exceptions: if the air-time was in a documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast or an on-the-spot news event the equal-time rule is not valid. Since 1983, political debates not hosted by the media station are considered news events, thus may include only major-party candidates without having to offer air time to minor-party or independent candidates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

You read it, you didn't comprehend it.

The rule you cite applies only if a station gave free air time to a particular candidate, no station is under any obligation to give free air time to any candidate nor does it require them to have equal coverage of any candidate or party. They can be as biased as they like.

 

[WildCat]

aka Nationalisation.
a good thing mostly.

Until you run out of companies to steal. Then what? No company is rushing to do business in Venezuela, this will not help the poor one bit.