Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on July 19, 2006, 11:57:35 pm
-
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/19/D8IVBO100.html
No offense, but sometimes I am very distrustful of beedy eyes socialists. Far be it from me to judge another country, but wow. It seems everytime I turn around Chavez is always doing something. If its not making himself a dictator, its giving the US the finger.
-
A man in a position of power is trying to silence people who criticize him? This must be some kind of new trend, because it definitely has not been the normal state of things since, ehhh, forever.
-
:lol: I find your sarcasm funny.
But , I don't think people should trust him any more than they trust Bush.
-
A man in a position of power is trying to silence people who criticize him? This must be some kind of new trend, because it definitely has not been the normal state of things since, ehhh, forever.
Oh, well that makes it okay then. Right?
-
:lol: I find your sarcasm funny.
But , I don't think people should trust him any more than they trust Bush.
I don't think they do, particularly. It's just that Bush has nuclear weapons and a nasty habit of invading countries without adequate forethought.
-
Sounds almost like what academia and media in the US do to intellectuals or journalists who dare point out Americas foibles.
-
Agreed. Chavez has his faults, but this kind of thing is going on everywhere outside of a very small number of western countries. It only gets reported on in Venezuala because Chavez is openly critical of America.
Does that make it right? No. But Chavez is pretty much the best thing to happen to Venezuala in years, so it's kind of in their best interests to keep him in.
-
Oh, well that makes it okay then. Right?
Where did you pull that out of what I wrote?
Sounds almost like what academia and media in the US do to intellectuals or journalists who dare point out Americas foibles.
I don't know what it looks like from the outside, but I don't think academia in the US has any problems pointing out the country's foibles. The right wing in this country hates the academic community.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/19/D8IVBO100.html
No offense, but sometimes I am very distrustful of beedy eyes socialists. Far be it from me to judge another country, but wow. It seems everytime I turn around Chavez is always doing something. If its not making himself a dictator, its giving the US the finger.
I disagree. Something like 80% of the Venezuelan media (newspapers, TV stations, radio etc) is owned by people who are openly anti-Chavez, and militant enough about it to have participated in a coup against the government. I know of few countries where the press is more openly hostile to the government than in Venezuela. And since Chavez has been in power for almost 8 years now, it stands to reason that if he intended to make a move against the media, he would have done so already.
I hear lots of talk about how the evil dictator is censoring the press, limiting free speech etc etc, lots of innuendo and drama, but the one thing I never see is facts. How many newspapers has the government shut down? How many journalists are in jail? How many reporters have been beaten up? As far as I know, the answer to all of the above is zero.
-
Well, this is what AI says; http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/ven-summary-eng
(change the year to move 'back' in reports, BTW)
-
Yeah but you can do that for any country (http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/gbr-summary-eng).
-
:lol: I find your sarcasm funny.
But , I don't think people should trust him any more than they trust Bush.
I don't think they do, particularly. It's just that Bush has nuclear weapons and a nasty habit of invading countries without adequate forethought.
Ok, but I also think Chavez is paranoid to the point of stupidity as well. I read a while back that he was developing deeper ties with North Korea.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/19/D8IVBO100.html
No offense, but sometimes I am very distrustful of beedy eyes socialists. Far be it from me to judge another country, but wow. It seems everytime I turn around Chavez is always doing something. If its not making himself a dictator, its giving the US the finger.
But you completly trust bible thumping, gun toting neo-cons?
Ok, but I also think Chavez is paranoid to the point of stupidity as well. I read a while back that he was developing deeper ties with North Korea.
From where?
-
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/19/D8IVBO100.html
No offense, but sometimes I am very distrustful of beedy eyes socialists. Far be it from me to judge another country, but wow. It seems everytime I turn around Chavez is always doing something. If its not making himself a dictator, its giving the US the finger.
I disagree. Something like 80% of the Venezuelan media (newspapers, TV stations, radio etc) is owned by people who are openly anti-Chavez, and militant enough about it to have participated in a coup against the government. I know of few countries where the press is more openly hostile to the government than in Venezuela. And since Chavez has been in power for almost 8 years now, it stands to reason that if he intended to make a move against the media, he would have done so already.
I hear lots of talk about how the evil dictator is censoring the press, limiting free speech etc etc, lots of innuendo and drama, but the one thing I never see is facts. How many newspapers has the government shut down? How many journalists are in jail? How many reporters have been beaten up? As far as I know, the answer to all of the above is zero.
There is a fundamental right at stake: that of free speach and economic rights. Regaurdless how hostile the press is, they still have a right to print what they please within reason. And Chavez has no right to try and silence or intimidate them just because they are too biased using "legal reform."
-
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/19/D8IVBO100.html
No offense, but sometimes I am very distrustful of beedy eyes socialists. Far be it from me to judge another country, but wow. It seems everytime I turn around Chavez is always doing something. If its not making himself a dictator, its giving the US the finger.
I disagree. Something like 80% of the Venezuelan media (newspapers, TV stations, radio etc) is owned by people who are openly anti-Chavez, and militant enough about it to have participated in a coup against the government. I know of few countries where the press is more openly hostile to the government than in Venezuela. And since Chavez has been in power for almost 8 years now, it stands to reason that if he intended to make a move against the media, he would have done so already.
I hear lots of talk about how the evil dictator is censoring the press, limiting free speech etc etc, lots of innuendo and drama, but the one thing I never see is facts. How many newspapers has the government shut down? How many journalists are in jail? How many reporters have been beaten up? As far as I know, the answer to all of the above is zero.
There is a fundamental right at stake: that of free speach and economic rights. Regaurdless how hostile the press is, they still have a right to print what they please within reason. And Chavez has no right to try and silence or intimidate them just because they are too biased using "legal reform."
What the hell has that got to do with Rictor's post?
-
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/19/D8IVBO100.html
No offense, but sometimes I am very distrustful of beedy eyes socialists. Far be it from me to judge another country, but wow. It seems everytime I turn around Chavez is always doing something. If its not making himself a dictator, its giving the US the finger.
But you completly trust bible thumping, gun toting neo-cons?
No, no, no and for the last time no. How many times are you going to ask that same question or infer such? I will give you the same response.
In response to NK comment http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2064107
-
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/19/D8IVBO100.html
No offense, but sometimes I am very distrustful of beedy eyes socialists. Far be it from me to judge another country, but wow. It seems everytime I turn around Chavez is always doing something. If its not making himself a dictator, its giving the US the finger.
I disagree. Something like 80% of the Venezuelan media (newspapers, TV stations, radio etc) is owned by people who are openly anti-Chavez, and militant enough about it to have participated in a coup against the government. I know of few countries where the press is more openly hostile to the government than in Venezuela. And since Chavez has been in power for almost 8 years now, it stands to reason that if he intended to make a move against the media, he would have done so already.
I hear lots of talk about how the evil dictator is censoring the press, limiting free speech etc etc, lots of innuendo and drama, but the one thing I never see is facts. How many newspapers has the government shut down? How many journalists are in jail? How many reporters have been beaten up? As far as I know, the answer to all of the above is zero.
There is a fundamental right at stake: that of free speach and economic rights. Regaurdless how hostile the press is, they still have a right to print what they please within reason. And Chavez has no right to try and silence or intimidate them just because they are too biased using "legal reform."
What the hell has that got to do with Rictor's post?
I fealt he was trying to make excuses for the governments actions, with all due respect to Rictor.
-
I fealt he was trying to make excuses for the governments actions, with all due respect to Rictor.
Rictor wasn't making excuses for government actions, he was pointing out the government really hasn't made any actions. You may not like it, but what Chavez is [apparently] doing is entirely legal, and anyway, there are more pressing dangers to freedoms and rights a lot closer to home, so I don't see what the problem is here.
-
Yeah but you can do that for any country (http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/gbr-summary-eng).
yup. And they're absolutely bloody right, too.
-
I fealt he was trying to make excuses for the governments actions, with all due respect to Rictor.
Rictor wasn't making excuses for government actions, he was pointing out the government really hasn't made any actions. You may not like it, but what Chavez is [apparently] doing is entirely legal, and anyway, there are more pressing dangers to freedoms and rights a lot closer to home, so I don't see what the problem is here.
Believe me, I understand that more than you and others think.
-
redmenace: I never said Chavez is perfect, but very few countries have a flawlessly free press. If any sort of widespread crackdown was planned, or was happening, or had happened, it would be more than a single marginal newspaper or libel lawsuits (which exist and are frequently abused throughout the world) against a few journalists.
As for Chavez being paranoid, consider that America has a long history of either invading Latin American countries with "undesireable" governments, or sponsoring coups. If there's a serial killer going around your neighborhood taking out people with blonde hair, and you have blonde hair, it's perfectly reasonable to feel suspicious. Aside from the 2002 coup, I think that if Uncle Sam was not so busy in Iraq, Afghanistan and Central Asia, something would already have been done to "take care" of Chavez. That is fo course conjecture, but I think that anyone inhis position, knowing what he knows and seeing the simple patterns in history, would be justified in feeling very worried.
Anyway, compare the US media, which is usually very compliant to the government's demands, to the point of being somewhat a subordinate, and Venezuela's media, and then ask yourself if Chavez had as his goal the silencing of opposing views wouldn't something have been done about the vast number of opposition media outlets? From what I know, and I've sort of been following goings-on in Venezeula for a few years, I don't think the media climate is any worse than in most of the world, certainly far from being a totalitarian dictatorship. For example, Berlusconi owned Italy's most powerful media conglomerate while serving as Prime Minister. If that sort of thing happened in Venezuela, people would be screaming "Stalin" within about two seconds.
I also question the impartiality of the Inter-American Press Association. Unfortunately, and quite strangely, they don't have a Wikipedia entry. I'm not going to condemn anyone based on lack of information, but I know that there is a certain portion of NGOs who have often served, to one degree or another, to broadcast and add legitimacy to the views of the US administration. For example Transparency International and Freedom House, both large and respected rights organizations, have at times slanted their reports to favour the current position of the US government, though certainly Freedom House has been the worse offender. Not all that glitters is gold.
-
Anyway, compare the US media, which is usually very compliant to the government's demands, to the point of being somewhat a subordinate,
It is truely sad what the US media has become.
People like Redmenace forget why these populist leftists are in power in the first place: People in Latin America are sick of unfair trading policies, they are sick of the US ****ing them over at every opportunity, they are also sick of the US dictating to them how to run their economies (which has created a huge wealth gap and a huge number of poor people, thank you neo-liberalism). The people wanted change.
-
Anyway, compare the US media, which is usually very compliant to the government's demands, to the point of being somewhat a subordinate,
It is truely sad what the US media has become.
People like Redmenace forget why these populist leftists are in power in the first place: People in Latin America are sick of unfair trading policies, they are sick of the US ****ing them over at every opportunity, they are also sick of the US dictating to them how to run their economies (which has created a huge wealth gap and a huge number of poor people, thank you neo-liberalism). The people wanted change.
This is why there is now some academics starting to weakly squeak out the notion that globalization may actually be dead or dying. We've tried the global trade thing, screwed some smaller nations over, gained quite a few advantages wherever possible and now that everyone is ticked off at the people who win so much with a globalized economy (internally and externally within and without of a country) there is a move to insulate the economies again. Heck even the US is starting to insulate again...China is beating them in trade big time and they won't even respect the NAFTA ruling on Softwood lumber.
-
The problem is that "free trade" ends up getting hijacked by American corperate interests. The US forces other countries to open their markets, while at the same time using dollar hegemony to keep those countries from actually making any kind of development. China is one of the few countries that has been able to beat them at their own game, and so of course the US cries foul.
And then there is also the economic terrorism that the IMF (which is controlled by the US) commits.......
I also have a question for you guys. Why is it that in less than one year in China I have seen several Fiat cars, yet in 20 years in the US I have never seen one before?
-
I also have a question for you guys. Why is it that in less than one year in China I have seen several Fiat cars, yet in 20 years in the US I have never seen one before?
that one might just be probability. we've got about the same amount of space, and they have more than 3x the people
-
I've seen Fiats in the US! Well at least in films and television! But usually as the butt of some joke or another! Especially those tiny ones!
-
That's because Americans only drive biiiiiig cars to compliment their biiiiiig egos. :nervous:
-
That's because Americans only drive biiiiiig cars to compliment their biiiiiig egos. :nervous:
Speaking of which, George Clooney was over here a few days ago (and may still be here for all I know?) for the start of The Open in Hoylake, Wirral. A taxi driver told me the other day that he took him from a restaurant to a local hotel (he didn'y say which so don't bother asking). For a £5 journey George payed the driver £30 (Very generous) and as he was walking away he said "You guys need to get yourselves bigger cars!". The driver told us he needs to get a smaller head then! Ha Ha!
-
That's because Americans only drive biiiiiig cars to compliment their biiiiiig egos. :nervous:
I drive a toyota camry. Before that a Nova, and before that a dodge Omni. All VERY small cars. Fuel efficient to. My next car will be a Honda Civic.
-
That's because Americans only drive biiiiiig cars to compliment their biiiiiig egos. :nervous:
I drive a toyota camry. Before that a Nova, and before that a dodge Omni. All VERY small cars. Fuel efficient to. My next car will be a Honda Civic.
By British / european standards, those are all large - ish - cars.
A small car would be something like my Clio; i.e. a 2 door hatchback. Certainly, those ones you've listed are not VERY small cars; a very small car would be something like the hideously ugly Smart Car
(http://www.pc-parents.com/images/Misc-Smart%20Car%20in%20Helsinki%20B.jpg)
-
By american standards they are small. It also depends where you live. That little hoopdie car there wouldn't be a good choice for the autobahn in germany.
However, I would buy a hybrid, but I am waiting for the plug-in hybrids to start to show up.
-
By american standards they are small. It also depends where you live. That little hoopdie car there wouldn't be a good choice for the autobahn in germany.
However, I would buy a hybrid, but I am waiting for the plug-in hybrids to start to show up.
Well, it's the 'by American standards' Mestufae was referring to :) (somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I suspect)
Albeit that particular cars' (made by DaimlerChrysler ) best market is, apparently, Germany. I have to admit not being sure why geographical distances would work against a small car, as they tend to be more fuel efficient and it's scarcely Road Warrior out there. Mine certainly does fine when it's on the odd motorway excursion :D
-
Well, it's the 'by American standards' Mestufae was referring to...
Now come on, i've never referred to you as 'Adlo', so i'd expect the same bloody courtesy! :p
-
A small car would be something like my Clio; i.e. a 2 door hatchback. Certainly, those ones you've listed are not VERY small cars; a very small car would be something like the hideously ugly Smart Car
That's what we have in Canada as well. But in certain European countries they have other, more normal models of the Smart Car, and they are freaking sexy (http://www.tiscali.co.uk/broadband/images/smart_roadster.jpg).
-
Well, it's the 'by American standards' Mestufae was referring to...
Now come on, i've never referred to you as 'Adlo', so i'd expect the same bloody courtesy! :p
My name only has 4 letters! I think only getting 2 letters switched up was jolly good!
:p