News   Sep 26, 2023
 539     0 
News   Sep 26, 2023
 517     0 
News   Sep 26, 2023
 764     0 

Casaguy goes to Caracas

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not as disgusting as Pinochet.

How dare you equate Chavez with Pinochet.

Pinochet was a butcher.

Chavez was democratically elected and instead of siphoning off oil wealth as all his predecessors did he's invested on his own country. Unlike the USA & Canada who are up to their necks in debt. Canadians especially have a lot to learn from Chavez' social programs and grassroots participatory democracy.
 
Well, you were talking about Latin American leaders being great spokespeople, weren't you? Pinochet was a leader of a Latin American country last time I checked.

And, yes, for the record, I would rather have George W. Bush as president than Hugo Chavez. Let's assume for a moment that all the worst rumours we've heard about the Bush presidency are true. Let's assume that he and Cheney flaunted the constitution to consolidate executive power in the presidency; let's assume that he stole the election in 2000; let's assume that he packed the supreme court with social conservatives and gave high level positions based on cronyism. Well, Hugo Chavez would have that beat in an instant because he consolidated both judicial and legislative power in his own hands, suppressed the opposition and the free press and appointed people to idiotic positions based on patronage seemingly at will during his televised Alo Presidente. What is so democratic, and particularly "grassroots" about that?
 
Well, you were talking about Latin American leaders being great spokespeople, weren't you? Pinochet was a leader of a Latin American country last time I checked.

That's like saying Pierre Trudeau and George W. Bush are one and the same because they both ruled countries in North America. Equating 2 Latin American leaders merely because they were leaders of countries in South American smacks loudly of raciscm.

Well, Hugo Chavez would have that beat in an instant because he consolidated both judicial and legislative power in his own hands, suppressed the opposition and the free press and appointed people to idiotic positions based on patronage seemingly at will during his televised Alo Presidente. What is so democratic, and particularly "grassroots" about that?

Chavez helped Venezuela establish a constitution, not only that he made it accessible to everyone, by making copies of the full consitution available in print format in local markets, street markets, readily available cheaply. I bought one myself when I was last there, out of interest sake. And I read it. In it he acknowledges the status of women, indigenous people something that that had never previously been done. Chavez included for the first time indigenous people in the Pantheon of Caracas. this is an important gesture.

The first the thing opposition you so blatantly support, did in April 2002, when they attempted with support from the USA gov't to seize power during the illegal coup, was to abolish the constitution of the country!!!

Suppressed the free press?? Are you on smack? The press to which you are referring to is PRIVATELY owned. Globovision would routinely call Chavez a monkey and much worse on the air because Chavez is not white and from Miami as the oldguard elites are used to having in a leader. Canal Ocho (channel which broadcasts Alo Presidente) is publicly owned.

'Alo Presidente' is a way of reaching out to the people whether you yourself like it or not.

What you don't know about because you may be an escualido: is the Bolivarian Revolution. How community members come together all across Venezuela and are empowered to make decisions that directly affect their own communities this encourages popular democracy and economic independence, (such as the massively sucessful hydroponic and community gardens initiative in the barrios, hell even downtown Caracas has a huge communal garden! where anyone can buy produce very cheaply) so when the escualidos decide to close down the supermercados in protest of Chavez' grassroots initiatives - the people won't starve! This was attempted in 2002 by the opposition.

The Bolivarian Revolution's success is only because of it's grassroots nature.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I have a new tactic on this forum that I won't properly respond to a person's post if they're just going to hurl ad hominem attacks at me instead of substantive arguments. I'm sick of looking up references and crafting full sentences to respond to people who misquote me or use faulty logic to attack my posts on spurious grounds. Let's take a look at some examples:

That's like saying Pierre Trudeau and George W. Bush are one and the same because they both ruled countries in North America. Equating 2 Latin American leaders merely because they were leaders of countries in South American smacks loudly of raciscm.

Where do I equate any leader with any other? Did I ever equate Augusto Pinochet with Hugo Chavez? And since when are Latin Americans one race? I can't possibly be "rascist" (sic) in such a case, can I?

The first the thing opposition you so blatantly support

Where in my posts have I indicated that I support (and it must be pretty obvious for everyone to see if it's so blatant) the Venezuelan opposition parties?

What you don't know about because you're an escualido ignoramus

Hello mods?

Moonmoth, I will be prepared to counter your post once you address the inadequacies of your own reasoning.
 
Where do I equate any leader with any other? Did I ever equate Augusto Pinochet with Hugo Chavez? And since when are Latin Americans one race? I can't possibly be "rascist" (sic) in such a case, can I?

You name dropped Pinochet after I referenced the established Latin American practice of leaders conversing with their supporters during speeches thereby equating democratically elected president of Venezuela Hugo Chavez with the dictator Pinochet. You could have used Che Guevara as an example of a powerful orator, but instead you used Pinochet who massacred his own Chilean people during the 70's.

Where in my posts have I indicated that I support (and it must be pretty obvious for everyone to see if it's so blatant) the Venezuelan opposition parties?

Well Hispter Duck, here:
Hugo Chavez...... consolidated both judicial and legislative power in his own hands, suppressed the opposition and the free press

is an example of your stated opposition beliefs.

And as for ad hominem, for your information 'escualido' isn't an ad hominem attack. It's the word to describe the oppostion, translated literally it means "those in the corner".
 
Last edited:
Escualido isn't an ad hominem attack. It's the word used by Chavistas to describe the oppostion, translated literally it means "those in the corner".

I don't care about the escualido (that's filthy in Spanish, right? Cute little name to call your opposition in a democracy, that one). More likely the ignoramus part.

Also, you didn't answer my first two questions.
 
Escualido translates as "squalid" in Google Translate, so I see that as an attack, especially calling HD a ignoramus.

That said, Chavez and the opposition (remember their silly little coup they tried?) deserve each other. Chavez is a dictator-lite, though he has done some good elevating the status of Venezuela's poor. And in the meantime, I'll continue to try to fill up at Citgo when in the Northeast US. He's a clown for sure, and not the kind of leader I'd want, but I liked his performance at the UN.
 
Yeah cause the internets knows everything, even colloquialisms specific to non-English speaking countries. The term came into use to describe the opposition because Chavez once used it in a speech, not directed at anyone at the time, but it came into use that way.

The 2002 attempted coup was supported and encouraged by the USA.
 
If that is true, you should still not use such a foreign colloqualism, followed by the word "ignoramus" (which is certainly not some benign colloqualism) when it is easily misinterpreted in a Toronto-centric English language urban affairs discussion board.
 
You name dropped Pinochet after I referenced the established Latin American practice of leaders conversing with their supporters during speeches thereby equating democratically elected president of Venezuela Hugo Chavez with the dictator Pinochet. You could have used Che Guevara as an example of a powerful orator, but instead you used Pinochet who massacred his own Chilean people during the 70's.

Ah, but you accused me of equating Pinochet with Chavez. Let's examine this fallacy of logic. In your original post to Mot you argued that Latin American leaders have a tradition of oration without referencing Chavez. I countered by saying that I'd rather Bush or Harper as a leader than most of the leaders in Latin America. You said that was disgusting and I countered that it was not as disgusting as Pinochet. You then accused me of equating Chavez with Pinochet.

Here are the facts:

1. Pinochet was a Latin American leader
2. Pinochet gave speeches
3. Chavez is a Latin American leader
4. Chavez gives speeches
5. I did not mention the name Hugo Chavez until you accused me of equating him with Pinochet (Yesterday, 9:04PM)

Now, based on these facts, how is "name dropping" synonymous with equating? And why would I use Che Guevara as an example when I was responding to your original post about Latin American leaders being great orators.




Well Hispter Duck, here:


"Hugo Chavez...... consolidated both judicial and legislative power in his own hands, suppressed the opposition and the free press"


is an example of your stated opposition beliefs.

That does not in any way express a [blatant] support for the opposition party. If Johnny doesn't like Cathy and Jimmy doesn't like Cathy, does Johnny like Jimmy by this reasoning? No.

And as for ad hominem, for your information 'escualido' isn't an ad hominem attack. It's the word to describe the oppostion, translated literally it means "those in the corner".

Again, I don't care about the escualido part - don't call me an ignoramus. A personal insult is a violation of the code of this forum.


There are things that I don't know how to do. I don't know how to skate; I don't know how to drive standard; I don't know CPR. Therefore I stay off skating rinks in the winter, I rent automatic cars and I call an ambulance and ask if anyone knows CPR in the room. You don't know how to argue, so stay away from making arguments.
 
Last edited:
Escualido translates as "squalid" in Google Translate, so I see that as an attack, especially calling HD a ignoramus.

That said, Chavez and the opposition (remember their silly little coup they tried?) deserve each other. Chavez is a dictator-lite, though he has done some good elevating the status of Venezuela's poor. And in the meantime, I'll continue to try to fill up at Citgo when in the Northeast US. He's a clown for sure, and not the kind of leader I'd want, but I liked his performance at the UN.

For the millionth time if I have to, Chavez is a democratically elected leader. Not a dictator. If the people decide he can have more terms as president it will be a decision made by the people. Not a top-down, imposed one. Chavez is loved Urban Toronto readers, dearly and vehemently, in Venezuela and all over the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top