Hugo Chavez Dies At 58

[Bryan]

I'm on the left now, am I? I guess the CPC should return all my donations then.

...and Human Rights Watch as a source of valid info? LMFAO!!! These are the same liars who say Cuba is just a big prison.

For the record, I never said I advocate the left-wing policies that are becoming increasingly popular in latin America. I'd fight against most of what they stand for. My point is, those policies are very popular there, it absolutely is what most people want. Comparing Chavez to a dictator is idiotic.

[GostHacked]

I sure hope so. He wasn't working there for free. Do you work for free?

Do you realize you are a hypocrite here? 'What do you mean obtuse?'

[Shady]

Do you realize you are a hypocrite here? 'What do you mean obtuse?'

How am I a hypocrite? You're not making any sense.

[GostHacked]

Congratulations to King Hugo. For accumulating a net worth 10 times greater than Mitt Romney, all while being "president" of Venezuela, and looking out for "his" people.

My response was

Maybe we should talk to your man Dick Cheney, the VP sure was able to rack up money from companies like Haliburton ect.

But you are right, I am the one not making any sense here. I must be the hypocrite.

I sure hope so. He wasn't working there for free. Do you work for free?

Edited March 11, 2013 by GostHacked

[Shady]

My response wasBut you are right, I am the one not making any sense here. I must be the hypocrite.

Cheney "racked" up money while working for said company in the private sector. Chavez racked up a hundred times Cheneys worth while being "president" and looker after of the poor and middle class people. Honestly, why do you even post sometimes?

[eyeball]

Socialism, unions, soviets, solidarity, collectivism don't work - unless you have a diamond mine, or an oil well.

How about a planet?

As Deng famously asked: "Who cares whether the cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice."

Good point. Who cares if it's a country or a planet when we're talking about human beings?

[GostHacked]

Cheney "racked" up money while working for said company in the private sector. Chavez racked up a hundred times Cheneys worth while being "president" and looker after of the poor and middle class people. Honestly, why do you even post sometimes?

You are right, Cheney did not get any compensation from Haliburton. Membership has it's privileges even after he left the company. And at least Chavez was doing something and helping the poor.

[Shady]

You are right, Cheney did not get any compensation from Haliburton. Membership has it's privileges even after he left the company. And at least Chavez was doing something and helping the poor.

No, Cheney did get compensation from the company, while he was working there. Where did Chavez obtain the billions of dollars? While in office, while "helping" the poor. I'm sure the loved his inflation and currency devaluation policies, along with his human rights abuses. How many media outlets did he shut down in the end? I'm sure they're find with the billions he stole from them. Quite the socialist do-gooder eh?

[Hudson Jones]

Are you saying he personally benefited? I hadn't heard this before, do you have any sources?

No he doesn't.

[g_bambino]

Comparing Chavez to a dictator is idiotic.

Why is comparing him to one idiotic. When one makes the comparison, it's fairly evident Chavez was close to if not just over the line into dictatorship. The opporession of political opposition, influence over the judiciary, the personality cult.... He's no Pinochet, but he was akin to Putin.

[Bryan]

Why is comparing him to one idiotic. When one makes the comparison, it's fairly evident Chavez was close to if not just over the line into dictatorship. The opporession of political opposition, influence over the judiciary, the personality cult.... He's no Pinochet, but he was akin to Putin.

It's not evident at all. He was democratically elected by a majority multiple times in a multi-party system. There's nothing dictatorial about it. The people have had plenty of opportunities to replace him if they wanted to, and each time the resoundingly chose to have him continue governing the way he was doing. It's far more democratic than what we have here in Canada.

[scribblet]

You all seem to ignore the fact that he didn't exactly govern as a democrat. He commanded all media outlets must carry his speeches or risk being shut down. (propaganda of course) Most people would call that fascism, but hey - not when it's Chavez. If it's Chavez it's okay to rewrite the Constitution, persecute—and prosecute political enemies.

Remember 2007 when lost a referendum on constitutional changes aimed at making his revolution irreversible but he later brought int by law by decree.

Remember 2002, when hundreds of thousands marched on the presidential palace to demand Mr Chávez’s resignation: 19 people died, many killed by snipers who were firing from surrounding buildings and were never identified.

And as Human Rights Watch says: “characterized by a dramatic concentration of power and open disregard for basic human-rights guarantees.” How very democratic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/opinion/in-the-end-chavez-was-an-awful-manager.html/?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The legacy of his 14-year “socialist revolution” is apparent across Venezuela: the decay, dysfunction and blight that afflict the economy and every state institution.

The endless debate about whether Mr. Chávez was a dictator or democrat — he was in fact a hybrid, an elected autocrat — distracted attention, at home and abroad, from the more prosaic issue of competence. Mr. Chávez was a brilliant politician and a disastrous ruler. He leaves Venezuela a ruin, and his death plunges its roughly 30 million citizens into profound uncertainty.

Edited March 12, 2013 by scribblet

[August1991]

It's not evident at all. He was democratically elected by a majority multiple times in a multi-party system. There's nothing dictatorial about it. The people have had plenty of opportunities to replace him if they wanted to, and each time the resoundingly chose to have him continue governing the way he was doing. It's far more democratic than what we have here in Canada.

Democratically elected? Unlike George Bush Snr, George Bush Jnr, Gerald Ford or Bill Clinton - for example - Hugo Chavez never handed State power voluntarily to an opponent.

Venezuela under Chavez was not a democracy. Chavez never gave power to an opponent. He only gave up power when he died.

====

Chavez was like Castro and Peron. Or like Stalin, and Hitler. He was a machismo, strong-man. Such leaders attract simplistic populists, nationalists - enough to get 10% of the population - and then as thugs, they terrify the rest into submission.

Dictators/caudillos such as Chavez, Stalin, Hitler, Castro only lose power when they die. Even Pinochet resigned, and accepted to live under a different regime.

-----

The test of democracy (civilized society) is whether the State power passes between hands peacefully, without violence or death, to an opponent. Cuba under Castro, and Venezuela under Chavez, have never met that test.

If such a change in State power occurs, then it means that there is true choice. There is no democracy without choice. Democracy means people power - people can choose. Burger King and McDonald may see similar, but if they don't collude, people have a choice.

Edited March 12, 2013 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

He was democratically elected by a majority multiple times in a multi-party system. There's nothing dictatorial about it. The people have had plenty of opportunities to replace him if they wanted to, and each time the resoundingly chose to have him continue governing the way he was doing.

There's more to "democracy" than "majority;" Chavez may have been "democratically elected multiple times" (though I'd argue that's debatable since he had control over the media), but his government was not democratic.

It's far more democratic than what we have here in Canada.

[g_bambino]

It's not evident at all. He was democratically elected by a majority multiple times in a multi-party system. There's nothing dictatorial about it. The people have had plenty of opportunities to replace him if they wanted to, and each time the resoundingly chose to have him continue governing the way he was doing.

Sure, like Putin was "democratically" elected; with control over the media and law enforcement, but Chavez having the added bonus of gangs, their loyalty bought by him with a housing estate or two, roaming the slums to make sure as few as possible vote for any contender against el Presidente. Paragons of democracy, both are.

It's far more democratic than what we have here in Canada.

It's impossible to take that seriously.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited March 13, 2013 by g_bambino

[eyeball]

I guess so long as we're on the subject if ideologues and Latin American dictators - who can forget Batista, Samoza, Pinochet, Noriega etc etc?

It's just about impossible to take anything on the subject of democracy seriously anymore.

[guyser]

Sure, like Putin was "democratically" elected; with control over the media and law enforcement, but Chavez having the added bonus of gangs, their loyalty bought by him with a housing estate or two, roaming the slums to make sure as few as possible vote for any contender against el Presidente. Paragons of democracy, both are.

It's impossible to take that seriously.

[ed.: c/e]

You forgot owning the Judiciary , the virtual prohibition of anyone talking bad of Chavez on the street for fear of sever repercussions.

Since his death anyone not fond of Chavez went out and bought enough food to sit tight inside until the funeral and Pro Chavez factions went away.

Yea...democracy in action ! Can we get some here? Bryan will be happy.

[GostHacked]

No, Cheney did get compensation from the company, while he was working there. Where did Chavez obtain the billions of dollars? While in office, while "helping" the poor. I'm sure the loved his inflation and currency devaluation policies, along with his human rights abuses. How many media outlets did he shut down in the end? I'm sure they're find with the billions he stole from them. Quite the socialist do-gooder eh?

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/24-cheneys-halliburton-stock-rose-over-3000-percent-last-year/

Faculty Evaluator: Phil Beard

Student Researchers: Matthew Beavers and Willie Martin

Vice President Dick Cheney’s stock options in Halliburton rose from $241,498 in 2004 to over $8 million in 2005, an increase of more than 3,000 percent, as Halliburton continues to rake in billions of dollars from no-bid/no-audit government contracts.

An analysis released by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) reveals that as Halliburton’s fortunes rise, so do the Vice President’s. Halliburton has already taken more than $10 billion from the Bush-Cheney administration for work in Iraq. They were also awarded many of the unaccountable post-Katrina government contracts, as off-shore subsidiaries of Halliburton quietly worked around U.S. sanctions to conduct very questionable business with Iran (See Story #2). “It is unseemly,” notes Lautenberg, “for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his administration funnels billions of dollars to it.”

http://www.cs.cornell.edu/gries/howbushoperates/haliburton.html

1. Early 1990s. Cheney, as Secretary of Defense, gives contracts to Halliburton to rebuild facilities in Kuwait that had been destroyed in the first Persian Gulf war.

2. Early 1990 to 1993. Cheney, as Secretary of Defense, commissions Halliburton to do a classified (secret) study concerning replacing the U.S. military's logistics by work done by private companies. Halliburton says, yes, a company can do the work. In August 1992, with essentially no bidding, Halliburton is selected by the US Army Corps of Engineers to do all work needed to support the military for the next five years! Thereafter, Halliburton (or its subsidiary KBR) and its military logistics business escalated rapidly. In the ten years thereafter revenues totaled $2.5 billion.

3. 1995-2000. Cheney is CEO of Halliburton. Under Cheney, Halliburton increases its offshore tax havens from 9 to 44, cutting its taxes from $302 million in 1998 to an $85 million refund in 1999. That's almost $400 million they took from taxpayers in one year.

4. During Cheney's tenure at Haliburton, Halliburton did business with countries like Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Iran, and Nigeria even though the US had imposed strict sanctions on them. They skirted sanctions, and they lobbied against sanctions. Some of this business was illegal, and Halliburton was fined for it.

5. Spring 2000. Cheney heads Bush's Vice-Presidential Search committee --while continuing as CEO of Halliburton. He ends up picking himself as Vice President.

6. July 2000. Cheney is asked whether Halliburton or its subsidaries were trying to do business with Iraq. He says no; he had a firm policy that they wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even if it was legal. This was a blatant lie: subsidiaries sold over $73 million in oil-production parts to Iraq.

7. 2000. As CEO of Halliburton, Cheney clears $20 million in one year, after taxes.

8. July 2000. Cheney's severance package from Halliburton (as CEO) is far and above what other company officers got when they left --some say it is as high as $62 million in stocks and stock options.

9. December 2001. KBR (Halliburton subsidiary) is granted an open-ended contract for Army troops supply and Navy construction, wherever U.S. troops go, for the next 10 years (so far, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Yemen, Iraq). This unique contract has no ceiling on cost. KBR is reimbursed for every dollar spent plus a base fee of 1 percent, which guarantees profit. Plus, they can get a bonus as a percentage of company costs.

10. January 2003. Bush sends a letter to Congress exercising his authority, as president, to waive section 9007, thus removing sanctions and allowing assistance to oil-rich Azerbaijan (see point 4). This administration invites the head of Azerbaijan to the White House, even though this person was the main reason for earlier sanctions against Azerbaijan. Reason? Azerbaijan has oil.

11. September 2003. Cheney states that when he became Vice President, he severed all ties with Halliburton, as required by law. This was a lie. Government accounting offices said that the compensation he continues to receive is a conflict of interest.

12. Dec 2003. Halliburton, without competitive bidding, is given a contract to restore the Iraqi oil sector. It is billed initially as a contract for putting out oil-well fires, something in which Halliburton has little expertise. It turns out that the contract is really for the full restoration of the oil business in Iraq. It is kept secret because of the "emergency conditions". It is one of the highest military logistics contracts in history.

13. June 2004. Cheney has said all along that he had no contact with government officials who coordinated Halliburtons many contracts with the military. A March 2003 Pentagon email refutes this claim. It says that action on a no-bid Halliburton contract to rebuild Iraq's oil industry was "coordinated" with Cheney's office. This has to do with a no-bid contract given to Halliburton for rebuilding Iraq.

14. August 2004. The SEC (Security Exchange Comission) levies a fine of $7.5 million on Halliburton for illegal accounting changes in 1998, when Cheney was CEO of Halliburton. Some people think that politics may have shielded Cheney and others from being held more accountable.

[Shady]

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/24-cheneys-halliburton-stock-rose-over-3000-percent-last-year/http://www.cs.cornell.edu/gries/howbushoperates/haliburton.html

Yep, he made money from working and investing in the private sector. How did Chavez accumulate a net wirth 100 times that of Cheney?

[guyser]

Yep, he made money from working and investing in the private sector. How did Chavez accumulate a net wirth 100 times that of Cheney?

Hmmmm....he may have made it by directing money to firms he has an interest in?

[GostHacked]

Yep, he made money from working and investing in the private sector. How did Chavez accumulate a net wirth 100 times that of Cheney?

Not surprised you don't get it. But if this was Biden or Obama.. you'd have a dayhay.

Chavez is no worse than most leaders. In fact he might be better as he did do what he can to help out the poor in his country. He has been vilified by entities such as the USA for nationalizing the oil industry. He like other vilified leaders such as Gadaffi was painted in a different light because they did not bow down to the will of other nations like the USA. They took their country's best interest at heart and gave back to the people.

Guys like Cheney/Bush Biden/Obama simply don't give a damn about the poor within their own borders. Both administrations actually helped out the fat cats (wall street, big oil, big phrama) at the expense of the middle and poor classes within the continental USA. Why are 48 million people in the USA on food stamps Shady?

I applaud Chavez for doing what he can for his people, even if he managed to make some money at the same time. Most leaders of any country are in it for themselves and simply do not give back to the country in which they lead. What did Bush/Cheney give back to the public? What has Obama/Biden given back?

Chavez supported and worked for his people while the USA works for the corporations. And since some of those American corporations were kicked out of Venezuela, that allowed them to lobby (complain bitch what-have-you) the US government in order to say, Chavez is bad or OUR oil business.

[DogOnPorch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyF7w2GvHLI

[Bonam]

How come we aren't seeing the same prosperity and growth as Venezuela?

What kind of question is this? We are seeing much more prosperity than Venezuela. Where would you rather live?

[GostHacked]

What kind of question is this? We are seeing much more prosperity than Venezuela. Where would you rather live?

I guess that depends on how and what you classify as prosperity. Prosperity for the people, or for the corporations?

[DogOnPorch]

I guess that depends on how and what you classify as prosperity. Prosperity for the people, or for the corporations?

Massive slum in Caracas...no doubt overlooked by Chavez by mistake.