The Cult Of Hugo Chavez

[Shady]

Romney faded into the background, Romney is no longer relevant. No need to bash him anymore.

Right, so you can get on with bashing Obama over the same things. Oh wait, you don't. You like to hold unelected people running for office to a higher standard than the actual office holder. I forgot. Carry on.

[punked]

Right, so you can get on with bashing Obama over the same things. Oh wait, you don't. You like to hold unelected people running for office to a higher standard than the actual office holder. I forgot. Carry on.

Say what you will about GostHacked but pretending he is somehow an Obama defender with out actually reading his posts takes the cake. I'll say one thing about GostHacked he holds everyone to the same ridiculous high standards and doesn't hold back on his criticism of all leaders and politicians Shady. Seriously you don't even have a leg to stand on, on that point just go read his posts.

[Shady]

Say what you will about GostHacked but pretending he is somehow an Obama defender with out actually reading his posts takes the cake. I'll say one thing about GostHacked he holds everyone to the same ridiculous high standards and doesn't hold back on his criticism of all leaders and politicians Shady. Seriously you don't even have a leg to stand on, on that point just go read his posts.

LOL!!!!!!!

[punked]

LOL!!!!!!!

Shady you have gone so far down the rabbit hole you are now telling me what my motivations for moving to Canada are and that the poster who was me crazy then you about Benghazi and Obama's involvement is somehow an Obama cheerleader. You are no longer rewriting history you are now trying to tell us what we are thinking. It is beyond belief now.

[Sleipnir]

His point completely neglects the subject of the discussion. In the same way it would if I were to ask him, shouldn't he be busy trying to blame Mitt Romney for something?

Have you noticed that for every thread on this site, people always go off topic at least once or twice?

Shady, on 17 Mar 2013 - 13:30, said:

You like to hold unelected people running for office to a higher standard than the actual office holder. I forgot. Carry on.

And that is wrong because?

Edited March 17, 2013 by Sleipnir

[GostHacked]

Right, so you can get on with bashing Obama over the same things. Oh wait, you don't. You like to hold unelected people running for office to a higher standard than the actual office holder. I forgot. Carry on.

I posted years ago that Obama was going to be worse when he was elected, but how that 'worse' is would look a lot different than Bush Jr. This was around the time he was elected for the first term.

Every leader should be held to the highest standard. We hopefully elect someone better than ourselves to lead us. We put the trust of the entire country into that leader's hands.

Chavez did what he could for his country. He may not have done it all with complete integrity, but no less integrity than our own leaders. Yes he pissed off the USA for nationalizing the oil industry, but since that seemed to have benefited his country and his people and not the pockets of oil tycoons, he was vilified by the USA and loved by Venezuelans.

Chavez nationalized things while we have our natural resources in Canada being sold off to other countries like China. It's a goddam firesale.

[Hudson Jones]

You're not addressing any of the specifics.

What? Even though I did by giving data? Try reading the data from the second sentence.

Yes, progress was made, but at a huge cost of budgetary recklessness, and without any notion of a real and sustainalbe economy. Regardless, his so-called good intentions aren't an excuse of human rights abuses, and the dictator-like manner in which he governed. It's a false choice to suggest one has to choose between multi-national corporations and puppet governments, or with Hugo Chavez. There's a middle ground.

You can't expect an overnight miracle in any country that has taken decades to ruin, which in this case were done by U.S. backed governments. By increasing enrolment at schools and reducing poverty by half, there will be improvements. You also failed in looking at the GDP growth, which doubled under Chavez.

You can't expect others to fall into the same black and white, with us or against us talking points, while totally ignoring the data which I shared in the post. You don't like Chavez' socialism, that's fine, but please don't make things up and try not to ignore the facts present.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Hudson Jones

[g_bambino]

Chavez did what he could for his country. He may not have done it all with complete integrity, but no less integrity than our own leaders. .

Can you list those of our leaders who diminished the independence of the judiciary, implemented policies reducing freedom of the press, and ordered politically motivated arrests?

[GostHacked]

Can you list those of our leaders who diminished the independence of the judiciary, implemented policies reducing freedom of the press, and ordered politically motivated arrests?

Not sure if these are good examples, but I can point to things like the PATRIOT ACT and the NDAA which seems to fly in the face of freedoms of the citizenry. We may have freedom of the press but they are freely towing a similar line among most of them.

But here is the funny thing, people say it can't happen here. But I think it already is. Our press is controlled because you cannot have an 'independent' entity like the CBC funded by taxpayer dollars to basically spew the line of the government. They cannot be as critical of the government as they should be. To say we have that freedom of the press (sure maybe a degree more free than other countries) but they are freely towing whatever line the government or a sponsor wants out there.

I may not be able to give examples, but can you say outright that it is not happening to some degree?

[g_bambino]

But here is the funny thing, people say it can't happen here. But I think it already is. Our press is controlled because you cannot have an 'independent' entity like the CBC funded by taxpayer dollars to basically spew the line of the government. They cannot be as critical of the government as they should be. To say we have that freedom of the press (sure maybe a degree more free than other countries) but they are freely towing whatever line the government or a sponsor wants out there.

I may not be able to give examples, but can you say outright that it is not happening to some degree?

I don't want to let this get derailed onto an argument about the CBC. Suffice to say it doesn't serve as an example of the government stifiling the press' freedom; in my experience, the CBC is more frequently criticised for being a bastion of liberally aligned people with a bias against the incumbent Conservative government. Further, there are far more media outlets in this country than just the CBC and many publish or air material that is critical of government policy, whether municipal, provincial, or federal.

Of course the odious things Chavez did (or allowed to happen) in Venezuela could happen here. But, they haven't; not to any degree. Our judiciary remains unthreatened by the government; the press is free to publish critiques of leaders, political and non; and there've been no politically motivated arrests.

[Hudson Jones]

This is interesting. Canada's Conservative government has issued new regulations to librarians and archvists governing their free speech in public forums and online media:

Federal librarians and archivists who set foot in classrooms, attend conferences or speak up at public meetings on their own time are engaging in “high risk” activities, according to the new code of conduct at Library and Archives Canada.

Given the dangers, the code says the department’s staff must clear such “personal” activities with their managers in advance to ensure there are no conflicts or “other risks to LAC.”

The code, which stresses federal employees’ “duty of loyalty” to the “duly elected government,” also spells out how offenders can be reported.

“It includes both a muzzle and a snitch line,” says James Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, which represents more than 68,000 teachers, librarians, researchers and academics across the country.

He and others say the code is evidence the Harper government is silencing and undermining its professional staff.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/15/library-and-archives-canada/

[g_bambino]

Canada's Conservative government has issued new regulations to librarians and archvists governing their free speech in public forums and online media:

The article says the LAC wrote the code, not the government.

Granted, the misrepresentation of how governments are selected (they aren't elected) and the expectation of loyalty to the political and impermanent government are disturbing. However, it isn't excessive to remind employees that they can't publicly slag their employer without consequence. Also, public servants are not the press.

[Hudson Jones]

The article says the LAC wrote the code, not the government.

Granted, the misrepresentation of how governments are selected (they aren't elected) and the expectation of loyalty to the political and impermanent government are disturbing. However, it isn't excessive to remind employees that they can't publicly slag their employer without consequence. Also, public servants are not the press.

The press is censored in many Western countries, such as England and Israel. In fact, in Israel, reports on the military must first go through the IDF before they are allowed to be aired.

The Israeli Military Censor has the power to prevent publication of certain news items. The censorship rules largely concern military issues such as not reporting if a missile hit or missed its target, troop movements, etc. but it is also empowered to control information about the oil industry and water supply. Journalists who bypass the military censor or publish items that were censored may be subject to criminal prosecution and jail time; the censor also has the authority to close newspapers.

Link

[g_bambino]

The press is censored in many Western countries, such as England and Israel. In fact, in Israel, reports on the military must first go through the IDF before they are allowed to be aired.

Nowhere is expression absolutely free. Of course, we're talking here about the difference between expression limited for the benefit of society at large (which our Charter allows for) and expression lmited for the benefit of one individual. Chavez limited the press in Venezuela in order to suppress dissent against he and his party and disempower his political opponents, which subverts democracy itself, since democracy requires opposing viewpoints. That kind of limitation on the press doesn't happen here.

[Shady]

Nowhere is expression absolutely free. Of course, we're talking here about the difference between expression limited for the benefit of society at large (which our Charter allows for) and expression lmited for the benefit of one individual. Chavez limited the press in Venezuela in order to suppress dissent against he and his party and disempower his political opponents, which subverts democracy itself, since democracy requires opposing viewpoints. That kind of limitation on the press doesn't happen here.

Well said. The attempted equivalency between us and places like Venezuela by members of the cult of Hugo, just goes to show how far into the kool-aid they gotten. It's all so absurd.

[eyeball]

Nowhere is expression absolutely free. Of course, we're talking here about the difference between expression limited for the benefit of society at large (which our Charter allows for) and expression lmited for the benefit of one individual. Chavez limited the press in Venezuela in order to suppress dissent against he and his party and disempower his political opponents, which subverts democracy itself, since democracy requires opposing viewpoints. That kind of limitation on the press doesn't happen here.

No, instead of the press our state puts limitations on individuals - it limits their freedom to speak to the press.

[g_bambino]

No, instead of the press our state puts limitations on individuals - it limits their freedom to speak to the press.

As I said, nowhere is speech entirely free.

[eyeball]

Which is also to say that limiting individuals access to the press comes at a real cost to democracy. Harper limits individuals freedoms to speak to the press to achieve the same result Chavez did, as little opposition to his viewpoint as possible.

The subversion of democracy does happen here.

[g_bambino]

Which is also to say that limiting individuals access to the press comes at a real cost to democracy. Harper limits individuals freedoms to speak to the press to achieve the same result Chavez did, as little opposition to his viewpoint as possible.

Well, it sounds a little less dramatic if we acknowledge the facts that speaking to the press is but only one out of countless ways a person can express themselves and that the only individuals Harper prevents from doing so without prior clearance are Conservative MPs and civil servants. It's hardly commendable, but it still leaves opposition politicians and those who aren't in the civil service, including former civil servants, free to project their denouncements of the government to the media, none fearing reprisals for doing so or broadcasting it.

Frankly, I think Harper just wrongly figures civil servants are his employees. It fits with the other erroneous beliefs about himself he's let slip in the past.

[eyeball]

It's not just any old wrong it's a BIG wrong. One that will soon become a small one and eventually a small right and then a BIG one. It fits with how power rolls in Canada. Apparently a majority of us want this.

[g_bambino]

It's not just any old wrong it's a BIG wrong. One that will soon become a small one and eventually a small right and then a BIG one.

Maybe. Maybe not. But you do have to consider that there's a lot of lawyers in this country and civil servants are unionised, with all the available funds that come with that; you'd think a Charter challenge would've been launched by now if anyone thought there was a good case to make that their freedom of expression had been unjustly limited.

[eyeball]

I think too many of these are approaching retirement to bother rocking the goose that feeds them. I've seen this sort of jadedness before. If there's anyone who knows best how big and strong the man is it'll the one who's under him.