Mantis Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) Gaddafi, of course, but you're piling Chavez into the same boat simply because (some sections of) the media do too, and he quite clearly wasn't, not by a long bloody shot. I didn't mean to imply that Gaddafi and Chavez were on the same level (they weren't), but despite what some would like to believe Chavez was still an autocrat that completely disregarded civil rights and the rule of law and subverted democracy. The media have no influence on my opinions, and I think people are overestimating their anti-Chavez bias anyway. Edited March 9, 2013 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robojoel Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) Gaddafi, of course, but you're piling Chavez into the same boat simply because (some sections of) the media do too, and he quite clearly wasn't, not by a long bloody shot. The media have no influence on my opinions. HAHAHAHA This statement alone discredits eveything you say Edited March 9, 2013 by robojoel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Why does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelle Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 I didn't even know who Chavez was. ;oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 You liked Gaddafi? **** hell. It's sad that some seem to let their hatred for the US/the West get in the way of rationality. The likes of Gaddafi and Chavez were far worse than any Western leader. What next, Kim Jong-Il was a great leader? And no, the media are not "brainwashing" people FFS. The likes of Gaddafi and Chavez (particularly the former) were dictators/autocrats. Just because the media correctly point this out doesn't mean they're "brainwashing" people. Chavez never invaded another country under false pretense. Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld were far more diabolical than Chavez ever was, IMO. I'm not a supporter of Chavez, but I'm not sure he is the villain you are portraying him to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 10, 2013 Moderator Share Posted March 10, 2013 Mantis, on 09 Mar 2013 - 00:30, said: ...Chavez was still an autocrat...An Autocrat does not get elected 4 times in a row and establish a new constitution for their country. Nor do they lose the vote in referenda. Chavez did not fit any definition of autocrat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted March 11, 2013 Share Posted March 11, 2013 Chavez did not fit any definition of autocratBefore he got elected he launched a failed military coup. After he got elected he changed the constitution to ensure he could serve more than two terms (Putin-esque), used third party organisations to attack and intimidate political opponents and controlled the media. Those are not the hallmarks of a social democrat. I don't think anyone is arguing that he didn't have a broad popular support base amongst Venezuela's poor but that is irrelevant to an assessment of his style of rule.This is a long but interesting analysis of his autocratic approach to governing:- Link 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 12, 2013 Moderator Share Posted March 12, 2013 They're making taps in his honour now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 (edited) They're making taps in his honour now. They are just Christopher Hitchens memorial taps that didn't sell too well.Sneaky bastards. Edited March 12, 2013 by Brumerican Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Chris Huhne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts