Backlash's Hero, Chavez the Dictator, is at it again

[Atlanteax]

(Courtesy of STRATFOR)

Again, bolding for emphasis...

.

Venezuela's Chavez Pushes Last-Minute Legislation

Summary

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez this week is pushing a series of bills through the National Assembly designed to enhance his executive powers while marginalizing his opposition. As pressures continue to pile on the government, these moves are critical to the president’s preparation for what is shaping up to be a troubled year ahead.
Analysis

Venezuela’s National Assembly, set to adjourn Dec. 15, will hold extra sessions through the end of the week as the ruling Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV) tries to push through as much legislation as it can before its majority is diluted when the assembly reconvenes in 2011. The bulk of the legislation, including one law that will allow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to rule by executive decree for the next year, is designed to enhance the authority of the executive and undercut Chavez’s opposition.

Though PSUV will still have 98 seats (compared to its previous 137 seats) in the 165-seat National Assembly, Chavez appears to be doing everything he can to concentrate power in his hands while he still has the political means to do so. The urgency in pushing through this legislation can be understood in light of rising pressures on the regime stemming from the country’s economic decay, internal political struggles, the Walid Makled threat and growing demands of Venezuela’s allies, most notably Cuba, Iran and China.

The following is a summary of the most critical legislation under review.

Enabling Law for Special Presidential Powers

Summary: This law will provide the president with the power to pass laws by executive decree for a period of up to 12 months. Discussion of this law was mostly kept quiet for the past few months, likely out of a desire by the president to deny his opposition the time to mobilize against it. Under the law, the president would be able to unilaterally issue legislation that falls under the ambiguous categories of national security and defense, national emergencies, natural disaster relief, the use and development of urban and rural land, territorial organization, citizen and judicial security, infrastructure, public transport and services, and financial and housing sectors, among other areas. Since taking office in February 1999, Chavez has held special presidential powers on three occasions. The first time was in April 1999 for six months, then in November 2001, and most recently in February 2007 for 18 months when he began a campaign of nationalizations.

Status: Approved in first discussion, pending second discussion.

Communal Economic System Law

Summary: This law is part of a package of “Popular Power” legislation designed to empower thousands of local communes comprised of mostly PSUV sympathizers. By devolving power to the local level and increasing local funding at the expense of state governors and municipal officials, Chavez aims to undercut his opposition and widen the number of Venezuelans dependent on him for their livelihood. This law details how the executive authority will be able to transfer funds directly to the communes for local projects. It also attempts to stem rampant money-laundering rackets that have debilitated state firms by promoting non-monetary trading through an exchange, which allows for the bartering of goods. However, such a system is unlikely to resolve Venezuela’s corruption ailments.

Status: Passed Dec. 13, the last piece of Popular Power legislation to be approved.

Law on Political Parties, Public Meetings and Demonstrations

Summary: This law threatens punishment for politicians that:

* vote against the platform they have presented to voters
* ally themselves with political positions or platforms opposed to what they have presented to voters or the National Electoral Council
* enter alliances with parties opposed to what has been presented to voters or the National Electoral Council as their platform
* attempt to defect from their party

This appears to be an attempt by the PSUV to prevent large-scale defections, like the one earlier in the year when Lara State governor Henri Falcon left the PSUV to form the Patria Para Todos (PTT) in the opposition.

Status: Approved in first debate, awaiting second debate.

Reforms to the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television (colloquially known as Ley RESORTE) and Organic Telecommunications Law

Summary: These laws aim to expand the state’s authority over Venezuelan media. Many of the new regulations extend current censorship to Internet service providers and electronic media and specify punishment for media outlets that “disrespect or delegitimize public power and institutions.” The telecommunications law would create a single Internet access point for the state to regulate content. Though the state says this will allow for faster Internet access, critics fear it will expand the state’s monitoring authority over Internet-based communications. The law also prohibits owners of radio and television stations from owning shares in more than one media outlet, a reform that follows the government’s decision in early December to acquire a 20 percent stake in Globovision, the last local television station in Venezuela that presents news critical of the Chavez government.

Status: Approved in first discussion, pending second discussion.

Oil Service Company Regulation Law

Summary: This law would enable the government to bypass parliament when it wishes to nationalize the assets of oil and natural gas firms. According to the draft text, “… oil and gas operation assets can be subjected to measures of protection, insurance, requisition and expropriation when the continuity of work is affected …” The law would allow the government to set tariffs for companies, prohibit the relocation of assets outside the country without state permission and prevent recourse to international arbitration in disputes. The law also requires workers at oil facilities to receive permission from the Venezuelan Ministry of Energy to strike and forbids local, state or regional governments from issuing permits for protests within 10 kilometers of oil installations, thereby mitigating the threat of disruption to oil production. Such measures are becoming critical for the Venezuelan government to maintain its oil revenues as PDVSA is finding it increasingly difficult to pay the salaries of contract workers who would be prone to striking and halting oil production altogether.

Status: Under debate.

[Firestorm Killa]

Pretty much what Obama and the Dems have done in the past couple years. Now the Legislative branch has less power, while the Executive have more then ever.

[Tgo01]

Pretty much what Obama and the Dems have done in the past couple years. Now the Legislative branch has less power, while the Executive have more then ever.

Care to cite any particular examples?

[Firestorm Killa]

Care to cite any particular examples?

Like the FCC going ahead with net neutrality next week even though Congress voted them down, and the Supreme court called it unconstitutional. TARP gives the president power to make money in a nutshell. The EPA pushing Cap and Trade even though it has been shot down. The Health Care bill grants power to the president to create a Military force. But thats just a few things. My sources are reading the bills passed, CSPAN, FOX News, Walstreet journal, New york times, etc. So if you want links go find em yourself I'm not researching for you Libtards.

[Rinualdo]

Like the FCC going ahead with net neutrality next week even though Congress voted them down, and the Supreme court called it unconstitutional. TARP gives the president power to make money in a nutshell. The EPA pushing Cap and Trade even though it has been shot down. The Health Care bill grants power to the president to create a Military force. But thats just a few things. My sources are reading the bills passed, CSPAN, FOX News, Walstreet journal, New york times, etc. So if you want links go find em yourself I'm not researching for you Libtards.


Bonus points to anyone who reads this and doesn't go

"lol, wut?"

[Firestorm Killa]

Bonus points to anyone who reads this and doesn't go

"lol, wut?"

Prove it wrong if you wanna post BS bitch. Prove it wrong.

[Atlanteax]

Prove it wrong if you wanna post BS bitch. Prove it wrong.

Why not prove it "right" ?

[Firestorm Killa]

Why not prove it "right" ?

I gave you guys some of the sources, I am not gonna post quotes for you so, look it up. Or you too busy eating cheetos and workin on making cap for the 100th time?

[Firestorm Killa]

Why not prove it "right" ?

Here is one piece, now find the rest you lazy fucks.

http://www.fcc.gov/

EDIT: Another link to help you retards out.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-303205A1.pdf

[Keller]

Welcome back, Crackbaby.

[TheEschaton]

Net neutrality prevents the internet from becoming a corporate oligarchy. It doesn't put anything in the hands of the government, it merely prevents corporations from putting the internet in their own hands. Being against net neutrality is like, the most anti-libertarian thing ever.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Net neutrality prevents the internet from becoming a corporate oligarchy. It doesn't put anything in the hands of the government, it merely prevents corporations from putting the internet in their own hands. Being against net neutrality is like, the most anti-libertarian thing ever.

-TheE-

So, for 20 years the Evil Corporate Menace hasn't been able to take over the Internet.. but we should put Government in charge of it on the off chance the ECM wants to make it into a corporate oligarchy?

By the way.. libertarians do not believe that the government should run everything, that's the socialists and communists.

[TheEschaton]

Errr, A) the government won't be in charge of the internet under net neutrality, and B) the corporations were already implementing the idea for cost-based routing, and were stopped by internet activists who brought this to the government's attention.

[Rinualdo]

Erm, its a government takeover of the internet (healthcare) and there will be regulation (death panels).

Also, FK- lol, wut?

[pabstblueribbon]

Like the FCC going ahead with net neutrality next week even though Congress voted them down, and the Supreme court called it unconstitutional. TARP gives the president power to make money in a nutshell. The EPA pushing Cap and Trade even though it has been shot down. The Health Care bill grants power to the president to create a Military force. But thats just a few things. My sources are reading the bills passed, CSPAN, FOX News, Walstreet journal, New york times, etc. So if you want links go find em yourself I'm not researching for you Libtards.

They will?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/12/senator_kay_bailey_hutchison_r.html?hpid=moreheadl ines

[Kuyuk]

I fed Chavez.

Like, last month.

That is all.

[pabstblueribbon]

Like the FCC going ahead with net neutrality next week even though Congress voted them down, and the Supreme court called it unconstitutional. TARP gives the president power to make money in a nutshell. The EPA pushing Cap and Trade even though it has been shot down. The Health Care bill grants power to the president to create a Military force. But thats just a few things. My sources are reading the bills passed, CSPAN, FOX News, Walstreet journal, New york times, etc. So if you want links go find em yourself I'm not researching for you Libtards.


Just curios but.. you do know what Net Neutrality means for the consumer right? And you do know what will happen should it not pass?

Please tell me you aren't this mis-informed..

[pabstblueribbon]

So, for 20 years the Evil Corporate Menace hasn't been able to take over the Internet.. but we should put Government in charge of it on the off chance the ECM wants to make it into a corporate oligarchy?

By the way.. libertarians do not believe that the government should run everything, that's the socialists and communists.

Keep watching that Fox news buddy.

[Warriorbird]

Anybody who thinks that net neutrality means 'government control of the Internet' clearly hasn't seen much of the Internet.

[pabstblueribbon]

Hmm.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/carriers-net-neutrality-tiers/

[Warriorbird]

So, for 20 years the Evil Corporate Menace hasn't been able to take over the Internet.. but we should put Government in charge of it on the off chance the ECM wants to make it into a corporate oligarchy?

By the way.. libertarians do not believe that the government should run everything, that's the socialists and communists.

It might've, oh shit, had something to do with the fact that these rules were in place.

[Parkbandit]

Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.

How did the FCC get here?

For years, proponents of so-called "net neutrality" have been calling for strong regulation of broadband "on-ramps" to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.

Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being "data driven" in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.

It wasn't long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet's privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are.

Last year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski started to fulfill this promise by proposing rules using a legal theory from an earlier commission decision (from which I had dissented in 2008) that was under court review. So confident were they in their case, FCC lawyers told the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., that their theory gave the agency the authority to regulate broadband rates, even though Congress has never given the FCC the power to regulate the Internet. FCC leaders seemed caught off guard by the extent of the court's April 6 rebuke of the commission's regulatory overreach.

In May, the FCC leadership floated the idea of deeming complex and dynamic Internet services equivalent to old-fashioned monopoly phone services, thereby triggering price-and-terms regulations that originated in the 1880s. The announcement produced what has become a rare event in Washington: A large, bipartisan majority of Congress agreeing on something. More than 300 members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, contacted the FCC to implore it to stop pursuing Internet regulation and to defer to Capitol Hill.

Facing a powerful congressional backlash, the FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of Internet regulation. Curiously, the commission abruptly dissolved the talks after Google and Verizon, former Internet-policy rivals, announced their own side agreement for a legislative blueprint. Yes, the effort to reach consensus was derailed by . . . consensus.

After a long August silence, it appeared that the FCC would defer to Congress after all. Agency officials began working with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules. No Republican members endorsed the measure. Later, proponents abandoned the congressional effort to regulate the Net.

Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a "choice" between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC's action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of "reasonable" network management for years to come. How's that for regulatory certainty?

To date, the FCC hasn't ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.

On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023452250748540.html

[Rinualdo]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=20438

[Cephalopod]

Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however.

As someone who works in telecommunications (on the side opposite Comcast), I can tell you this statement marks the author as flat-out ignorant or, as is more likely the case, in the pocket of Comcast and Verizon: a great place for an FCC commissioner to be. The rest of the article is filled with fanciful distortion of facts that are common in McDowell's pro-carrier/anti-user history.

Think regulating carriers to force them to ensure net neutrality will stifle innovation? Check out the lawsuits up in the air right now dealing with issue, and let me know how you see innovation faring if they fall on the side of large carriers.

[Cephalopod]

By the way, you can watch the FCC hearing live (http://reboot.fcc.gov/live/).

[Cephalopod]

I should also add that I sure as hell hope the proposal the FCC is considering today is markedly changed, because it is shit.

[~Rocktar~]

Think regulating carriers to force them to ensure net neutrality will stifle innovation?

It will stifle free speech and communication of ideas. After all, how can you declare neutrality if one idea or position overwhelms another by simple popularity except by trying to contain or limit one or artificially inflate the other. We have seen this done in the past by both sides using the Fairness Doctrine. Free speech means the government can't limit your speech, it does not guarantee equal time, representation or audience and this is exactly what has been attempted with the Fairness Doctrine which is the basis of the speech/communication part of this bullshit.

[pabstblueribbon]

Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.

How did the FCC get here?

For years, proponents of so-called "net neutrality" have been calling for strong regulation of broadband "on-ramps" to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.

Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being "data driven" in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.

It wasn't long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet's privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are.

Last year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski started to fulfill this promise by proposing rules using a legal theory from an earlier commission decision (from which I had dissented in 2008) that was under court review. So confident were they in their case, FCC lawyers told the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., that their theory gave the agency the authority to regulate broadband rates, even though Congress has never given the FCC the power to regulate the Internet. FCC leaders seemed caught off guard by the extent of the court's April 6 rebuke of the commission's regulatory overreach.

In May, the FCC leadership floated the idea of deeming complex and dynamic Internet services equivalent to old-fashioned monopoly phone services, thereby triggering price-and-terms regulations that originated in the 1880s. The announcement produced what has become a rare event in Washington: A large, bipartisan majority of Congress agreeing on something. More than 300 members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, contacted the FCC to implore it to stop pursuing Internet regulation and to defer to Capitol Hill.

Facing a powerful congressional backlash, the FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of Internet regulation. Curiously, the commission abruptly dissolved the talks after Google and Verizon, former Internet-policy rivals, announced their own side agreement for a legislative blueprint. Yes, the effort to reach consensus was derailed by . . . consensus.

After a long August silence, it appeared that the FCC would defer to Congress after all. Agency officials began working with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules. No Republican members endorsed the measure. Later, proponents abandoned the congressional effort to regulate the Net.

Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a "choice" between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC's action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of "reasonable" network management for years to come. How's that for regulatory certainty?

To date, the FCC hasn't ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.

On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023452250748540.html

Nice spin. Too bad its downright wrong.

"inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices"

Same ol' Repubs trying to convince the populace that night is day. Net neutrality are just measures so that corporations don't get greedy and start charging us with tiered services.

All you have to do is see who the biggest corporate contributors and lobbying group in Washington is to see why. The telecoms pay to play more money than ANYBODY. Now, with Supreme Court backing, they'll also be able to do it secretly.

PB, you really need to read up on what net neutrality is buddy.

[Parkbandit]

As someone who works in telecommunications (on the side opposite Comcast), I can tell you this statement marks the author as flat-out ignorant or, as is more likely the case, in the pocket of Comcast and Verizon: a great place for an FCC commissioner to be. The rest of the article is filled with fanciful distortion of facts that are common in McDowell's pro-carrier/anti-user history.

Think regulating carriers to force them to ensure net neutrality will stifle innovation? Check out the lawsuits up in the air right now dealing with issue, and let me know how you see innovation faring if they fall on the side of large carriers.

:rofl:

Yea.. you clearly know more about the FCC than this author does. McDowell is only on the FCC Commission and worked in telecommunications .. and you have that 6 month stint at a Radio Shack.

I would take your word and experience over his ANYDAY! Forget being against Net Neutrality.. you talked me into supporting it!

[Parkbandit]

Nice spin. Too bad its downright wrong.

"inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices"

Same ol' Repubs trying to convince the populace that night is day. Net neutrality are just measures so that corporations don't get greedy and start charging us with tiered services.

All you have to do is see who the biggest corporate contributors and lobbying group in Washington is to see why. The telecoms pay to play more money than ANYBODY. Now, with Supreme Court backing, they'll also be able to do it secretly.

PB, you really need to read up on what net neutrality is buddy.

Oh shit.. another Radio Shack alumni that knows more than someone on the FCC Commission.

My bad. I hadn't realized we amassed such talent, experience and intelligence on this subject. NOW I'm REALLY convinced.

[TheEschaton]

You are literally obtuse.

[Parkbandit]

You are literally obtuse.

You are literally a naive hippie who lives in a fantasy world with very few principles that are grounded in reality.

[~Rocktar~]

You are literally a naive hippie who lives in a fantasy world with very few principles that are grounded in reality.

With his parents and unemployed.

[Parkbandit]

With his parents and unemployed.

WB is going to be pissed if you take the title of "Most wrong posts in a row" from him.

He doesn't live with his parents and he isn't unemployed.

[TheEschaton]

You are literally a naive hippie who lives in a fantasy world with very few principles that are grounded in reality.

But at least my knowledge of net neutrality is grounded in reality, unlike your bizarro fantasy view of it.

[~Rocktar~]

WB is going to be pissed if you take the title of "Most wrong posts in a row" from him.

He doesn't live with his parents and he isn't unemployed.

Bullshit, last he posted about it, he was talking about how he didn't take some legal jobs in Boston or some crap cause he wanted to do more peacenick work or something. Of did I get him confused with some other flaming ass Liberal Socialist moron lawyer on this board?

Now Keller is employed so I am not sure who I might have confused him with.

[TheEschaton]

Well, you don't follow the WoW threads. ;)

Otherwise you'd know I'm in Denver currently, working with kids with Aspergers Syndrome.

[~Rocktar~]

Ok then and no, I don't.

[Revial]

Rocktar, have you been mugged by poor people before? You seem to just really hate them.

[Back]

To start a couple of points about the title of this thread...

A) Yes, I think what Chavez has done for the people of his country is heroic. Everyone in his country, and mostly the middle and lower classes, have benefitted from his nationalization of the countries natural resources. It makes sense to me that a nation’s peoples should share the wealth of the nation’s natural resources.

I could expand on that further and say that all of Earth’s resources should be for all of Earth’s people but thats another debate.

B) He has been democratically elected. In his defense, by a large margin. So it is curious to me to see people from another democratic society villainize him the way they do. Truth of the matter is that anti-Chavez propaganda starts from the glass towers, not the streets. It is the wealthy and powerful who oppose Chavez, not the poor or even the middle class.

On to the post...

Yes, I do believe that power has gone to his head over the years. I disagree with control of the media. I disagree with supreme executive power. While I found him heroic in the past I can recognize when he has gone to far. Venezuela is better off now than it was without him, however.

[Tgo01]

B) He has been democratically elected.

Well it is kind of hard to beat him when he puts his political opponents in jail and all.

[Rinualdo]

Venezuela is better off now than it was without him, however.

they would be in much better shape if they took some of their oil revenue and reinvested it domestically instead of going on a massive military spending spree.

[Back]

Well it is kind of hard to beat him when he puts his political opponents in jail and all.

Check your facts.

[Back]

they would be in much better shape if they took some of their oil revenue and reinvested it domestically instead of going on a massive military spending spree.

Again, check your facts. Plus, how can you criticize a nation for spending on defense when most of our, and other major nations, spending goes towards it?

[Tgo01]

Check your facts.

Just google 'Political prisoners Chavez' and pick any random link to read up on it. It's not some sort of obscure knowledge that only special people are privy to, he is well known for putting people in jail who oppose the government or his ideologies.

[Parkbandit]

:rofl:

Backlash defending Chavez = +5 stars to this thread.

[Warriorbird]

The especially awesome bit about PB's quite "wrong" defense of the destruction of net neutrality? It might very well stifle small business. It's awesome when Republicans get people to work against their own interests.

I think the combination with Backlash's dictator defense makes a hilarious point/counterpoint.

We all need to keep an eye on both our business and our government.

[Rinualdo]

Again, check your facts. Plus, how can you criticize a nation for spending on defense when most of our, and other major nations, spending goes towards it?

Exactly which facts (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58E60S20090915) do you wish me to check?

[~Rocktar~]

Rocktar, have you been mugged by poor people before? You seem to just really hate them.

Your assertion is simply false as well as your basis for it. I don't hate poor people, I hate those that try to "take care" of them or anyone else "for their own good" because in the end, it is primarily a bid for power and to further economically enslave the poor. When you hurt those that employ people, you don't hurt the employer so much as the employees that get fired. I can assure you that the CEO of any major business is hurt far less in the wallet when taxes go up and the company sheds jobs in response than the people who's jobs are lost. A small business owner that is unduly saddled with onerous taxes and red tape is less able to employee others and so jobs are not created.

Giving poor people money doesn't make them not be poor. Getting out of the way of the economy and businesses that employ them helps them far more than any welfare check. There is a Chinese proverb that says "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Welfare and the current trend in Socialism is more like 'Give a man a fish, feed him today and keep him away from the water so he must come back tomorrow for another fish, but only if he votes for me.' This is simply not sustainable in any but the most fevered Liberal delusion.

Unlike Liberals, I don't profess that I know how to tend another person's business better than they do and I don't pretend that I know how to run their life better. I DO know that I can help others more by building the economy, letting businesses grow and expand without undue and ludicrous regulation and taxes and not penalizing success.

[Back]

Exactly which facts (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58E60S20090915) do you wish me to check?

Well lets either take their shit over or stop bad mouthing them. Right?

Fuck sake, we are on the same hemisphere, oh fuck, planet???

[Tgo01]

Well lets either takes their shit over or stop bad mouthing them. Right?

Those the only two choices I get? Dammit. Okay then let's take over their country, gotta put our military spending to use I guess.

[Rinualdo]

Well lets either take their shit over or stop bad mouthing them. Right?

Fuck sake, we are on the same hemisphere, oh fuck, planet???

Not really sure what this means. I just wanted to double check that you are admitting you were wrong.

[Back]

Not really sure what this means. I just wanted to double check that you are admitting you were wrong.

Wrong about what?

Chavez was democratically elected.

[Cephalopod]

I don't hate poor people, I hate those that try to "take care" of them or anyone else "for their own good" ...

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/1/8/128759604522523613.jpg

[Rinualdo]

they would be in much better shape if they took some of their oil revenue and reinvested it domestically instead of going on a massive military spending spree.


Again, check your facts. Plus, how can you criticize a nation for spending on defense when most of our, and other major nations, spending goes towards it?

...

[Back]

...

Dude... http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-10/world/us.wikileaks.tortillas_1_tortillas-president-hugo-chavez-cable?_s=PM:WORLD

[Firestorm Killa]

Yes, I do believe that power has gone to his head over the years. I disagree with control of the media. I disagree with supreme executive power. While I found him heroic in the past I can recognize when he has gone to far. Venezuela is better off now than it was without him, however.

If you believe living in a communist dictatorship better off. This post of yours is stupid as hell. I guess you also find Che and Stalin to be heroic huh?

Edit: Since you idolize him and think Communism is awesome why don't you move there dood?

[Back]

If you believe living in a communist dictatorship better off. This post of yours is stupid as hell. I guess you also find Che and Stalin to be heroic huh?

Edit: Since you idolize him and think Communism is awesome why don't you move there dood?

Power to the people, right?

[Atlanteax]

Chavez was democratically elected.

Just like Saddam Hussein was democratically elected?

[Gelston]

Again, check your facts. Plus, how can you criticize a nation for spending on defense when most of our, and other major nations, spending goes towards it?

What the hell are you talking about? We only spend 4.7% of our GDP on defense, and that's about 23% of Federal spending. I'm pretty sure that isn't near MOST of our spending. Where are your facts from?

[Parkbandit]

Power to the people, right?

Only someone as ignorant as you would believe in that bumper sticker slogan. I wonder how many of those "people" actually held the "power" when Stalin was wholesale butchering them. How many of those "people" in Cuba and North Korea even have electrical "power"... let alone real "power"?

[pabstblueribbon]

:rofl:

Yea.. you clearly know more about the FCC than this author does. McDowell is only on the FCC Commission and worked in telecommunications .. and you have that 6 month stint at a Radio Shack.

I would take your word and experience over his ANYDAY! Forget being against Net Neutrality.. you talked me into supporting it!

I'm pretty sure I already answered that question for you with this:

"All you have to do is see who the biggest corporate contributors and lobbying group in Washington is to see why. The telecoms pay to play more money than ANYBODY. Now, with Supreme Court backing, they'll also be able to do it secretly."

Follow the money.

[Warriorbird]

People who work in a particular industry before they got appointed to a regulatory board might not be exactly unbiased. Shocker.

[Parkbandit]

I'm pretty sure I already answered that question for you with this:

"All you have to do is see who the biggest corporate contributors and lobbying group in Washington is to see why. The telecoms pay to play more money than ANYBODY. Now, with Supreme Court backing, they'll also be able to do it secretly."

Follow the money.

And all I have to do is see the types of politicians who support it to know it's a bad idea.

Follow the stupidity.

[TheEschaton]

Ah yes, the standard myopic "your side can't have any good ideas" argument. Good job, PB.

[Parkbandit]

Ah yes, the standard myopic "your side can't have any good ideas" argument. Good job, PB.

Sorry I couldn't live up to your posting standards.. that if you disagree with you, you must be "literally obtuse"

Good job, TE.

[pabstblueribbon]

PB, are you married? I'm guessing you are. Does your wife drive you crazy? Maybe you have gout real bad. Maybe irritable bowel syndrome. Pesky kids on your lawn again?

I'm just curios because..for the life of me, I cannot fathom what causes you to be such an insufferable cocksucker all the time.

Merry Christmas Cocksucker.

[pabstblueribbon]

Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~ http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/dragon/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=1214010#post1214010)
I don't hate poor people, I hate those that try to "take care" of them or anyone else "for their own good" ...


It's probably out of context and I don't care enough to go back and read it, but does it strike anyone else as ironic that Rocktar has a ferverent hate towards anything that might be a drain on our society, specifically economically, yet he worked for Wal-Mart for how long?

Hmmmm.

[Parkbandit]

PB, are you married? I'm guessing you are. Does your wife drive you crazy? Maybe you have gout real bad. Maybe irritable bowel syndrome. Pesky kids on your lawn again?

I'm just curios because..for the life of me, I cannot fathom what causes you to be such an insufferable cocksucker all the time.

Merry Christmas Cocksucker.
I'm married, get along fine with her, don't have gout or IBS, no kids on the lawn and unlike you, do not like to suck other guy's cocks.

Well, 1 out of 6 isn't bad.... which is probably double your normal percentage for being right, given your obvious lack of intelligence you display on these boards with every post.

But hey, I sincerely hope you have a wonderful Christmas. You should have 1 happy day out of year, given your miserable existence and lack of an enjoyable life.

[pabstblueribbon]

I'm married, get along fine with her, don't have gout or IBS, no kids on the lawn and unlike you, do not like to suck other guy's cocks.

Well, 1 out of 6 isn't bad.... which is probably double your normal percentage for being right, given your obvious lack of intelligence you display on these boards with every post.

But hey, I sincerely hope you have a wonderful Christmas. You should have 1 happy day out of year, given your miserable existence and lack of an enjoyable life.

For some reason the IBS reminded me of the movie Ladykillers.. and I laughed. "You brought yo bitch, to tha waffle hut?"

Anyways, that may have come off as a 'tad' standoff-ish to normal people. In my profession thats how we say "I love you, man". Railroaders.. well lets just say we're known for being gruff and unpleasant for no particular reason at all. You know, just having to show up for work, getting paid a fair wage, and railroad retirement. I can see why its so prevalent.

Also, you can stop deflecting this whole 'gay' issue you seem to be having in a few threads because I now have some pertinent information for you:
http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/tips-for-gay-men-on-how-to-avoid-gay-marriage/


On an unrelated note, Evan Williams egg nog is not a substance to be trifled with.

The end.

[Parkbandit]

For some reason the IBS reminded me of the movie Ladykillers.. and I laughed. "You brought yo bitch, to tha waffle hut?"

Anyways, that may have come off as a 'tad' standoff-ish to normal people. In my profession thats how we say "I love you, man". Railroaders.. well lets just say we're known for being gruff and unpleasant for no particular reason at all. You know, just having to show up for work, getting paid a fair wage, and railroad retirement. I can see why its so prevalent.

Also, you can stop deflecting this whole 'gay' issue you seem to be having in a few threads because I now have some pertinent information for you:
http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/tips-for-gay-men-on-how-to-avoid-gay-marriage/

On an unrelated note, Evan Williams egg nog is not a substance to be trifled with.

The end.

I hadn't realized railroad work caused chronic assholism and mental disabilities. Good to know.

[~Rocktar~]

Just like Saddam Hussein was democratically elected?

So were Hitler and Stalin.

[pabstblueribbon]

I hadn't realized railroad work caused chronic assholism and mental disabilities. Good to know.

Sneaky bastard...

I almost missed your double entendre. Well played sir. Your clever scheme to encourage me to barely pay attention or read what you post with cleverly disguised and methodic displays of ignorance in hopes that I would disregard something genuinely witty has failed.

Your regular discourse of "GERP...MENTALLY, I'M STILL IN JR HIGH AND YOU'RE GAY. ALSO YOU ARE RETARTED" (Insert assured mouthbreathing.) shall not fool me any longer.

All that aside, strangely enough, it DOES cause assholism. I was rather confused with it myself hence my whimsical musings. (Humour, sarcasm)

I think we're really making headway in our relationship. Heck, I even like your Christmas bulb avatar. I think I may have mentioned it in passing.

Anyways, I'm not going to fall for your "Sun Tzu" level of strategery and make a comment comparing your mental compacity to what vacated my bowels this morning. No sir, I am on to you.




Strategery is what you eggheads call it aint it? Heck if I know. I just run the integration program for Positive Train Control. Has something to do with the FRA.. wiring into multiple redundant and antiquitated circuits.. some kind of computer wizardry. On top of all that, they're telling me I have to do it for every railroad at once. They also tell me that every fleet has an ungodly amount of variations. I'm really not sure what they mean by all that mumbo jumbo. Apparently its kind of a big deal. So, yeah, it sure ain't no job at the Radio Shack. I'll tell you that much.

EDIT: Forgot to quote you. One of these days I'm gonna learn me how to run this here 'puter good.

[Back]

What the hell are you talking about? We only spend 4.7% of our GDP on defense, and that's about 23% of Federal spending. I'm pretty sure that isn't near MOST of our spending. Where are your facts from?

Ack, yah, you’re right. What I meant was we spend more on defense than most nations.

[Back]

Just like Saddam Hussein was democratically elected?

So... you QQ about Chavez. I point out he is democratically elected, and by a large margin, and you come back with Saddam Huessien? Really?

You cherry pick like a motherfucker. So there is no point even trying to have a rational discussion with you. I know you know more than you will ever admit about the US and it’s influence/manipulation of the world.

And you know what? Thats the whole problem with people like you. You don’t ever offer solutions other than attack strikes. You live in constant fear and treat anything other than your way of thinking like a weakness.

You, sir, act like the boogeymen you so fear.

[pabstblueribbon]

So... you QQ about Chavez. I point out he is democratically elected, and by a large margin, and you come back with Saddam Huessien? Really?

You cherry pick like a motherfucker. So there is no point even trying to have a rational discussion with you. I know you know more than you will ever admit about the US and it’s influence/manipulation of the world.

And you know what? Thats the whole problem with people like you. You don’t ever offer solutions other than attack strikes. You live in constant fear and treat anything other than your way of thinking like a weakness.

You, sir, act like the boogeymen you so fear.

Bush was democratically elected.

[Parkbandit]

So... you QQ about Chavez. I point out he is democratically elected, and by a large margin, and you come back with Saddam Huessien? Really?

You cherry pick like a motherfucker. So there is no point even trying to have a rational discussion with you. I know you know more than you will ever admit about the US and it’s influence/manipulation of the world.

And you know what? Thats the whole problem with people like you. You don’t ever offer solutions other than attack strikes. You live in constant fear and treat anything other than your way of thinking like a weakness.

You, sir, act like the boogeymen you so fear.

You were attempting to legitimize Chavez as being a good leader because he was elected by the people of his country to lead them. Bad Tie was merely pointing out other leaders that were elected in much the same fashion.

I realize that your post was at 2am in the morning and you were probably pretty plowed, but I didn't see his post as an attack on you, merely pointing out a fact. I did enjoy how you attempted to play victim of an attack by him, so you could counter attack. Awesome.

[IorakeWarhammer]

http://picture.funnycorner.net/funny-pictures/5237/Government-1.jpg

[Gan]

Ack, yah, you’re right. What I meant was we spend more on defense than most nations.

That's like saying you have a big dick.


It's all relative to size.

[Warriorbird]

That's like saying you have a big dick.


It's all relative to size.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/3033331912_c0a842953c.jpg

[Tgo01]

Bush was democratically elected.

I think that's checkmate.

[Atlanteax]

Hey Back, I hear Chazev is all about free-speech too!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/venezuela-chavez-broadcaster-fines_n_1022808.html


Venezuela: Hugo Chavez Fines Anti-Government TV Channel

[Atlanteax]

An economy with 25-30% a year inflation? Sounds like a *winning* economic model!!

STRATFOR Update: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111202-venezuelas-government-grasps-greater-economic-control


The Venezuelan government Nov. 23 officially unveiled a law designed to regulate the price of basic goods: the Law of Costs and Prices. The law, which has been highly anticipated since its announcement in August, created the National Superintendency of Costs and Prices (Sundecop), which has begun implementing a new price structure designed to address Venezuela’s 25-30 percent annual inflation and its challenges with food shortages. Sundecop will set a band of prices for each product, and companies found violating price restrictions will face punishments ranging from fines to expropriation. As STRATFOR has previously discussed, the law is likely to worsen shortages and inflation in Venezuela and to create more opportunities for corruption. It is becoming clear that the law is key to the government’s efforts to place greater swaths of Venezuela’s economy under state control.

The first phase of implementation involves a state audit of companies’ accounting procedures, meant to establish a maximum sale price for food, hygiene and cleaning products, and is expected to take 90 days. Sundecop will set the prices of these goods Dec. 15 through a process that is not entirely clear. The companies will have until Jan. 15 to implement the pricing. Meanwhile, the government has frozen the prices of 19 products, including fruit juice, disposable diapers and soap. Starting in January, Sundecop will begin auditing a wider range of products, including pharmaceuticals.

Sundecop’s head, National Superintendent of Costs Karlin Granadillo, was appointed by President Hugo Chavez and reports to him directly. Chavez clearly intends to heavily influence the superintendency. On the day the new law was implemented, Chavez made a statement to the press explicitly singling out products from a number of foreign companies — including Pepsi Cola, Heinz Foods, Nestle, Manpa, Alimentos Polar, Coca Cola, Biopapel, Agrofruit, Unilever Andina, Johnson & Johnson, Knorr and GlaxoSmithKline — and warning the companies against corruption.

The Law of Costs and Prices was enacted to address inflation, which the Venezuelan government is blaming on so-called speculators — a loosely defined term that can apply to individuals and organizations that actively attempt to create shortages in order to drive up prices, as well as to companies that happen to have reserves of basic goods they have not yet shipped to local markets. The broad interpretation of the term “speculators” and the government’s proclivity for expropriation mean that the government will most likely use the law to seize control of the production and distribution of basic goods.

In fact, immediately following the implementation of the law, the Venezuelan National Guard seized 210 metric tons of powdered milk after an inspection of the facilities of Italian firm Parmalat, which Caracas had accused of hoarding. Parmalat contested the seizure, alleging that the Venezuelan Ministry of Food and the Agricultural Supply and Services Corp. had already designated the milk for distribution, but Chavez rejected Parmalat’s claim and threatened to expropriate the firm. Parmalat backed down almost immediately, releasing a public statement apologizing personally to the president, saying, “We regret the discomfort created by our statement … and offer our sincere apologies to you and the government you lead.” Milk has become a strategic good in Venezuela amid persistent and worsening shortages and 25-30 percent inflation on basic goods. Milk is not the only product deemed strategic, however, and Parmalat is not the only company that has been affected by state seizures. Chavez said the Venezuelan National Guard has seized smaller but still notable amounts of rice, cornmeal, vegetable oil, sugar and coffee under the auspices of Sundecop’s new rules.

One of the uncertainties surrounding the Law of Costs and Prices is that Article 16 of the law states that Sundecop’s price regulations do not necessarily cancel existing price regulations. This means there will be multiple price control mechanisms at work, with inconsistent reporting requirements and compliance mechanisms. According to Central Bank of Venezuela Director Armando Leon, there are approximately 500,000 existing price regulations; Sundecop’s efforts will raise that number to 1.5 million. Unless the price regimes are rationalized with one another, these parallel systems are likely to lead to greater confusion for businesses, more irregularities, and more government action against private producers and retailers.

The law is a clear attempt by the government to secure greater control over the already highly government-influenced basic goods market. Having failed in earlier attempts to control goods distribution through subsidiaries of Venezuelan state-owned oil company Petroleos de Venezuela, the government is using the direct threats of expropriation and force to control distribution. Increased seizures of basic goods by government authorities can be expected as the law is implemented, and affected companies may go out of business.

[~Rocktar~]

An economy with 25-30% a year inflation? Sounds like a *winning* economic model!!

STRATFOR Update: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111202-venezuelas-government-grasps-greater-economic-control

Coming soon to a Republic near you, waiting for the second term agenda.

[Atlanteax]

Deja vu with Chavez's successor!


Maduro is taking increasingly heavy-handed actions not just against the United States but also against frequent scapegoats, including the private sector (the government temporarily seized a paper company Sept. 21 to ensure supplies of toilet paper), the media (the government ordered punitive action Sept. 29 against a prominent media group for "creating anxiety"), and, of course, the opposition. On Oct. 2, the head of the Accion Democratica party alleged that the attorney general intended to press charges against opposition leader and Miranda state Gov. Henrique Capriles, who is currently campaigning for the December municipal elections in Bolivar state.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Luisa Ortega Diaz lodged her fourth impeachment request to Venezuela's Supreme Tribunal of Justice on Oct. 2, all of which have targeted opposition lawmakers. The ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela is one vote shy of the three-fifths majority needed to pass a controversial law that would enable Maduro to pass decrees without congressional approval. Facing difficulty lining up the support, the government could be attempting to get its way by forcing out a lawmaker on accusations of incompetence.

Oh oh ... there is also this:


To get a sense of the magnitude of his challenge, there were three refinery outages in one week in August, a major power outage in early September, inflation recently hit 45 percent (the highest since the hyperinflation of the 1990s), the scarcity indicator has doubled since early 2012, and foreign reserves are down to around $20 billion. Moreover, attempts to garner financing from abroad have been less successful than anticipated.

Socialism at its finest as a government...