Hugo Chavez Loves Free Speech...

DC said:
even if they are forced to show every sunday a 7 hour marathon of Chavez rhetoric, that still leaves alot time for the oppositional propaganda and rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Except that the private TV station still needs to live on something, so it needs to spend a good amount of time and money on programs that will attract audience and on ads, that will generate revenue.

there are also in the UK telecommunication laws, and when you dont follow those, you get in trouble.
Click to expand...

Wait, you're saying because UK has telecommunication laws that must be followed, all Venezuelan telecommunication laws should be followed, no matter how unfair they are?

Suppose Venezuela would pass a law mandating anyone who doesn't vote for Chavez is to be killed immediately. Since UK also has election laws, would upholding this law be also necessary, according to you?

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
Oh, certainly, but only one side is using the law as an excuse to stifle the other side. Notice how I didn't actually complain about the rhetoric, but about abuses of power by your hero, Hugo Chavez.



You'd be very surprised by how much can constant bombardment with false information change your opinion. Chavez knows this, and uses it to further his own power.



If you ignore certain aspects, of course, such as the before mentioned constant bombardment of people with one-sided information by the government, persecution of opposition figures, abusing the power of state organs to force votes, vote-buying schemes among the poor, etc.

Do you really think the Venezuelan voters are free to choose their best candidate, based on unbiased, freely available information on all candidates?

McHrozni
Click to expand...

what false information is he spreading?

who is a better candidate than Chavez? the Opposition isnt bringing up solutions nor a real alternative.
i personaly hope the Bolivarian movement finds a socialist alternative to Chavez, one that is more like Lula, and less like Chavez. but it seems the Venezuelans want a guy like Chavez.
 
Last edited:
McHrozni said:
Except that the private TV station still needs to live on something, so it needs to spend a good amount of time and money on programs that will attract audience and on ads, that will generate revenue.



Wait, you're saying because UK has telecommunication laws that must be followed, all Venezuelan telecommunication laws should be followed, no matter how unfair they are?

Suppose Venezuela would pass a law mandating anyone who doesn't vote for Chavez is to be killed immediately. Since UK also has election laws, would upholding this law be also necessary, according to you?

McHrozni
Click to expand...

unfair laws should be chelleanged and they should use the democratic tools they have to change them, but just not following them was never a good idea.
 
DC said:
what false information is he spreading?
Click to expand...

That he's not abusing power, for one?

who is a better candidate than Chavez?
Click to expand...

At this point almost anyone would be the better choice.

i personaly hope the Bolivarian movement finds a socialist alternative to Chavez, one that is more like Lula, and less like Chavez. but it seems the Venezuelans want a guy like Chavez.
Click to expand...

Why do you ignore all the points made before? Just because the guy wins an election doesn't mean the people want him. If he's abusing the state apparatus to ensure his reelection and is able to scrape 55% or so, do you honestly believe he would almost certainly win a free and fair election?

unfair laws should be chelleanged and they should use the democratic tools they have to change them, but just not following them was never a good idea.
Click to expand...

Unconstitutional laws can be ignored in an civilized society. Of course, the problem in Venezuela is also that Chavez and his clique have already rewritten the constitution to their bidding. This too is one of the hallmarks of dictatorship.

McHrozni
 
DC said:
nothing has been proven, alot claims from both side has been brought up, but no evidence so far.

even if they are forced to show every sunday a 7 hour marathon of Chavez rhetoric, that still leaves alot time for the oppositional propaganda and rhetoric.

there are also in the UK telecommunication laws, and when you dont follow those, you get in trouble.
Click to expand...

Read the report, it has sources. It is a report from the OAS, an orgnaisation who set up the IAHR as a independent organisation. If you believe the claims they are reporting are untrue then you have to refute them not just cry about it.

You claimed it was only 60 mins a week and you were wrong. Your defence of this is pathetic. Who cares about the UK, you are making a two wrongs make a right argument and not even getting that right. Show me where there is a law forcing TV companies in the UK to show govt propoganda whenever they want to.
 
DC said:
and was this "evidence" ever presented ? no. and interpol was looking if the laptop was manipulated, and didnt find anything, nothing about the evidence itself, no word of what it shows or proofs.
Click to expand...

I have been through that report with you before. I proved your claims wrong on that.
 
McHrozni said:
That he's not abusing power, for one?



At this point almost anyone would be the better choice.



Why do you ignore all the points made before? Just because the guy wins an election doesn't mean the people want him. If he's abusing the state apparatus to ensure his reelection and is able to scrape 55% or so, do you honestly believe he would almost certainly win a free and fair election?



Unconstitutional laws can be ignored in an civilized society. Of course, the problem in Venezuela is also that Chavez and his clique have already rewritten the constitution to their bidding. This too is one of the hallmarks of dictatorship.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

the new constitution is a big step forward, and it was not Chavez and his clique, it was a constitutional assembly formed by a popular referendum.

according to the groups that watched the elections, they are free and fair.
or are the Eu and US groups also in on it?

he has won several free and fair elections, no matter how many times you want to claim they are not. those claims belong in the CT subforum.

when he is not the guy they want, why would they elect him, and even confirm him in his office.
 
funk de fino said:
I have been through that report with you before. I proved your claims wrong on that.
Click to expand...

what? the interpol did not judge the evidence, they merely searched for doctored stuff, and didnt find any. but they even pointed out that their job is not judging the files if they are evidence or not, their job was to find altered files and didnt find any.
 
DC said:
according to the groups that watched the elections, they are free and fair.
or are the Eu and US groups also in on it?
Click to expand...

One of those US groups is the OSA. You have just handwaved a report from one of their sub committees. Are they OK to use or not?
 
DC said:
what? the interpol did not judge the evidence, they merely searched for doctored stuff, and didnt find any. but they even pointed out that their job is not judging the files if they are evidence or not, their job was to find altered files and didnt find any.
Click to expand...

Take it to the other thread where I made a fool of you on it. The computers were evidence that you asked for in support of Wildcats accusations.
 
funk de fino said:
Read the report, it has sources. It is a report from the OAS, an orgnaisation who set up the IAHR as a independent organisation. If you believe the claims they are reporting are untrue then you have to refute them not just cry about it.

You claimed it was only 60 mins a week and you were wrong. Your defence of this is pathetic. Who cares about the UK, you are making a two wrongs make a right argument and not even getting that right. Show me where there is a law forcing TV companies in the UK to show govt propoganda whenever they want to.
Click to expand...

it contains claims, and its not up to me to disprove them, its up to them to prove them.

you should have learned that in the 9/11 CT section.
 
funk de fino said:
Take it to the other thread where I made a fool of you on it. The computers were evidence that you asked for in support of Wildcats accusations.
Click to expand...

not according to the Interpol.........

The verification of the eight seized FARC computer exhibits by INTERPOL does not imply
the validation of the accuracy of the user files, the validation of any country’s interpretation
of the user files or the validation of the source of the user files. It is well established that for
law enforcement purposes, factual findings concerning the truth or accuracy of the content of
any item of evidence are made in the context of a judicial process at the national or
international level and/or by a specially appointed commission with jurisdiction over the
matter in dispute.
In addition to this public report, INTERPOL has provided a classified technical report to the
Colombian authorities in conformity with the Technical Assistance Agreement. This
classified report includes electronic copies of all of the user files on the eight seized FARC
computer exhibits. It also contains a detailed comparison of 18 documents provided by
Colombia to the two INTERPOL experts as hard copies and 41 additional documents given
in electronic format.
Finally, INTERPOL’s CompFor IRT has identified a number of issues with regard to the
conduct of international computer forensic examinations and with regard to the handling of
electronic evidence by law enforcement officials, especially those who are the first to
respond to a crime scene. These issues are not only directly relevant to Colombia but also for
law enforcement officers in all of INTERPOL’s 186 member countries. Addressing them
effectively requires INTERPOL and its member countries to develop a number of initiatives
which are explained in detail in Part 6 (“Recommendations for INTERPOL and its member
countries”) of this report.
Click to expand...


http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2008/pdfPR200817/Default.asp
 
DC said:
it contains claims, and its not up to me to disprove them, its up to them to prove them.

you should have learned that in the 9/11 CT section.
Click to expand...

So are you saying they are lying about how much broadcasts were shown by the govt?

You ask for sources and evidence and then you just handwave it away. The report has sources. You have to prove those soures are no good. I backed up my claims. You have to disprove them. If you cannot then my claims stand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom