Your Favorite Modern Day Political Leader(s)

[Estado Nacional]

I've been struggling to think of one, so I'll just go with whoever pisses off the left the most (that's open to interpretation).

Kim Jong-un

I was thinking of someone more along the lines of Pinochet.

[Anglo-California]

I doubt he's anti-semitic honestly. Being anti-Israel and being anti-semitic are not the same thing.

Unfortunately, in Buchanan's case, he is a raving anti Semite. He's not just anti Israel.

What did he do that's anti-Semitic? To my knowledge, I don't think he denies the Shoah™ where over six trillion Jews were gassed by Ben Garrison.

[True American States]

Bibi

[Republic of Coldwater]

Then explain to me why he isn't a true free marketer and why he isn't a Libertarian.

Well, first of all, he opposes free trade agreements with other countries, he thinks they're 'unconstitutional' or something. Few ideas are more fundamental to libertarianism than free trade. He also opposed school voucher programs. Furthermore, he's a hardcore nativist who wants immigration to be reduced and all illegal immigrants deported. The freedom to choose where you live and the right to move to a freer and more prosperous society are among the most important of all libertarian principles. He's also against abortion. For Christ's sake, he wants to impose criminal penalties on women who terminate their pregnancies.

Libertarianism, is a philosophy which shares a deep love for liberties in society. The libertarian view point respects different liberties and does not believe in abrogating the rights of immigrants or a woman’s right to choose. Some of his views are laudable, but to say Ron Paul is a libertarian is just ridiculous.

He supports free trade, but he doesn't think that the state should agree with other nations just to have free trade. He wants the government out of trade entirely.

He opposes these federal voucher programs as he doesn't believe that they are constitutional, and that education should be left to the local or state level.

And no, he isn't a hardcore nativist. I don't know who gave people the notion of such a thing, but he doesn't support deporting the illegals or reducing immigration. He supports legal immigration, but also supports securing the border and not giving amnesty to illegals, which isn't unlibertarian, as being Libertarian doesn't mean that you have to oppose the rule of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... mmigration
http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm

He is against abortion except for extreme circumstances because of the fact that it is effectively murder. Do you have to support legalized murder to be a Libertarian?

[Estado Nacional]

He supports free trade, but he doesn't think that the state should agree with other nations just to have free trade. He wants the government out of trade entirely.

So that's why he voted against all FTAs as a congressman? Seems extremely counterproductive.

He opposes these federal voucher programs as he doesn't believe that they are constitutional, and that education should be left to the local or state level.

That doesn't really make any sense, though.

And no, he isn't a hardcore nativist. I don't know who gave people the notion of such a thing, but he doesn't support deporting the illegals or reducing immigration. He supports legal immigration, but also supports securing the border and not giving amnesty to illegals, which isn't unlibertarian, as being Libertarian doesn't mean that you have to oppose the rule of law.

Yes, it is 'unlibertarian'. Libertarianism states that a free market requires the free movement of both capital and labor across borders.

He is against abortion except for extreme circumstances because of the fact that it is effectively murder.

No, it isn't.

[Anglo-California]

He supports free trade, but he doesn't think that the state should agree with other nations just to have free trade. He wants the government out of trade entirely.

So that's why he voted against all FTAs as a congressman? Seems extremely counterproductive.

He opposes these federal voucher programs as he doesn't believe that they are constitutional, and that education should be left to the local or state level.

That doesn't really make any sense, though.

And no, he isn't a hardcore nativist. I don't know who gave people the notion of such a thing, but he doesn't support deporting the illegals or reducing immigration. He supports legal immigration, but also supports securing the border and not giving amnesty to illegals, which isn't unlibertarian, as being Libertarian doesn't mean that you have to oppose the rule of law.

Yes, it is 'unlibertarian'. Libertarianism states that a free market requires the free movement of both capital and labor across borders.

He is against abortion except for extreme circumstances because of the fact that it is effectively murder.

No, it isn't.

This is why I stopped being a libertarian on many issues. It's irreconcilable with nationalism.

[Estado Nacional]

This is why I stopped being a libertarian on many issues. It's irreconcilable with nationalism.

It is. Nationalism puts the interests of the collective before the interests of the individual, and therefore, is irreconcilable with libertarianism.

[Informationland]

Mmm. The US is the other, and maybe even bigger, reason.

Cal, that is a load of bullshit and you know it.

Anti-americanism and bankrupt nations go hand in hand.

[Estado Nacional]

A lot of Western Media groups however, continuously lies about the situation in Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and Uruguay.

Pray tell, what is "Western media" saying about Brazil?

[Calimera II]

First of all, please don't snip my messages anymore. You take everything out of context by doing that. Thank you in advance.

Mmm. The US is the other, and maybe even bigger, reason.

Cal, that is a load of bullshit and you know it.

Of course it isn't. You are unaware of the fact that Chavez' policies were favoring national interests, and not the interests of the American Oil companies and of America. Chavez wanted to make Venezuela sovereign, and the United States wanted to prevent that. When Chavez talked about nationalizing the nation's Oil Industry (that at that time wasn't beneficial for Venezuela, because revenues went straight to the US), the US backed a coup against him.

''Chávez has asserted numerous times that US government officials knew about plans for a coup, approved of them, and assumed they would be successful. Chávez also further alleged that "two military officers from the United States" were present in the headquarters of coup plotters. Rear Admiral Carlos Molina, a central leader of the coup, later said that "We felt we were acting with US support... we agree that we can’t permit a communist government here. The US has not let us down yet."

In December 2004, the New York Times reported on the release of newly declassified intelligence documents that showed that the CIA and Bush administration officials had advanced knowledge of an imminent plot to oust President Chavez. The documents indicated the who, the what, the where, the when, and the how, stating that, the plotters, "disgruntled senior officers and a group of radical junior officers", would try to "exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations slated for later this month" in an attempt to provoke military action.''

Sources: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/a ... .venezuela
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/n ... 985670.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/03/inter ... tion=&_r=0


The US' actions were absolutely inappropriate, and as a democrat you should accept and recognize that. It would be very silly to put ''NO AL CHAVISMO, SÍ A LA DEMOCRACIA!'' (Say no to Chavism, say yes to Democracy) in your signature while supporting the coup. It would be, very, very silly.

Furthermore, the US did try to ruin Venezuela. Did you forget about the 2002-2003 General Oil Strike support by the US and the opposition after the US-Opposition backed coup? That Oil Strike plunged millions of Venezuelans into poverty. And Chavez successfully reduced poverty from 61,1% to 30%.

Here you have a nice graph that proves my point. Foreign Interests in Venezuela have been Venezuela's cancer, not Chavez.

It isn't that simple. Venezuela borders Colombia, and Colombia has some of the most violent cartels in the world. Some of those cartels crossed the border and settled in Venezuela. Moreover, the opposition's province (Miranda) is the most insecure of the country.

(Image)

Colombia has nothing to do with it. All the drug cartels have not moved to Venezuela but Peru, where the government there has less influence in the interior than Venezuela or Colombia does (and where there is prime coca growing territory also). Colombian cartels have no interest in Venezuela. Not to mention that those organizations which produce cocaine that still remain in Colombia are either in hiding or negotiating with the government (FARC).

False. Venezuela is a significant route for drug trafficking, with Colombian cocaine and other drugs transiting Venezuela towards the United States and Europe. Venezuela ranks fourth in the world for cocaine seizures, behind Colombia, the United States, and Panama. Here you have the World Drug Report of the United Nations: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and ... izures.pdf

However, you know where the violence comes from? Same as Colombia these days. Street gangs, many of which have access to a large amount of illicit firearms which are present in Venezuela.

Yes, I know where the violence comes from, and I have provided sources. Those street gangs you are talking about have indeed a large amount of illicit firearms. And you know where the money came from? With the money they earned from drugs trafficking.

You are simplifying things waaaay to much.

I'm not. That's the situation in Venezuela. Where the government plays down or denies the seriousness of the situation.

Of course you are. First of all you deny the fact that Colombian Drug Cartels have moved to Venezuela, and secondly, you blame everything on the government of Chavez.

And Colombia, Guatemala and lots of other countries in the northern part of South America are even more dangerous.

Colombian cities are actually seeing a decrease in murders and other violent crimes. I also never said that Venezuela was the most dangerous country. I'm saying it's one of the most dangerous.

Well, that's logical due to the fact that the Colombia Government and the FARC are having peace negotiations. Furthermore, like the UN report stated: Cartels are moving activity to Venezuela. The Venezuelan government, at least under Chavez', did quite a lot to prevent that and to stop these gangs. Of course, more can be done. But blaming everything on Chavez is somewhat childish if you ask me.

That's not true.

Yes it is.

I think I provided you with enough sources last time to show you how much it improved. Nevertheless, I will show them another time. And after you carefully observed the graphs, please tell me how it can be that all the figures have improved will the ''Healthcare sector is absolutely crap.''

Absolutely true. But this has more to do with Maduro than with Chavez.

No. The rot set in under Chavez and Maduro has failed to treat it.

False. All the figures improved during Chavez' presidency. You simply don't want to accept that. Maduro is absolute garbage, and Chavez was somewhat autocratic, but to say that it set to rot under Chavez is absolutely bullshit and you know it very well.

This is a big lie.

It's not.

Of course it is. I understand Spanish perfectly and I know exactly what he said.

Maduro saw a little bird in a chapel, while praying. And he ''felt'' the presence of Chavez. He never said that Chavez talked to him whatsoever. Here you have the original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsNTljd4DsU

The bird appeared to him again.

What a load of bullshit. They just took one little piece of the speech. If you want to hear the truth, watch the YouTube video I showed earlier. Maduro doesn't have a mental illness whatsoever. Maduro just (always actually) uses anecdotes and stories to tell what he thinks, feels etc. It is weird, but that's all. He doesn't believe that Chavez is a bird whatsoever.

Absolutely not true.

You seem to be denying a lot of things. Have a look through the Venezuelan military and marvel at the new equipment they have.

No, you seem to denying a lot of things. You said that Chavez used the ''oil money'' to solely invest in the Military. Something which is bullshit. I have provided sources etc that proves me right, here you have another one. Military expenses in 2013 were even lower than Argentina's. You can also clearly see that in percentageof GDP that Venezuela ranks lower than Bolivia, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and other countries.

I am not here to defend Chavez.

You are doing just that. I expected better.

No, I am here to debunk lies.

I thank you for trying to provide the correct information. However I tired to do that earlier this year in the Maduro thread, but he just rejects all evidence and sources, and then makes incorrect statements either without any evidence of only unreliable sources. It's best not to debate with him, lest you get angry and waste a lot of time.

No problem. Costa is a fervent anti-Chavista, but honestly, most of his views are based on nothing when it comes to Venezuela. He is a nice guy though.

[Chestaan]

I'm not saying I don't believe you, but do you have a source? Genuinely just would like to read about this.

He gave Suarez a hero's welcome after the latter got sanctioned for undeniably biting Chiellini.

It's misleading to say he defends assault, because he doesn't. What he actually did was turn up to the airport to greet Suarez as he returned home. He seems concerned for Suarez's wellbeing and that is understandable as anybody who bites somebody clearly has some problems that they need to address. He doesn't even deny that Suarez should be punished, he simply says that the punishment is too harsh, which was a view held by many people, including Chiellini himself.

I can see why his actions might cause some minor controversy, but if this is the worst he has done then he is spotless compared to most politicians.

[Alyakia]

Of course it isn't. You are unaware of the fact that Chavez' policies were favoring national interests, and not the interests of the American Oil companies and of America. Chavez wanted to make Venezuela sovereign, and the United States wanted to prevent that. When Chavez talked about nationalizing the nation's Oil Industry (that at that time wasn't beneficial for Venezuela, because revenues went straight to the US), the US backed a coup against him.

who are you and what did you do with the real calimera

[Calimera II]

Of course it isn't. You are unaware of the fact that Chavez' policies were favoring national interests, and not the interests of the American Oil companies and of America. Chavez wanted to make Venezuela sovereign, and the United States wanted to prevent that. When Chavez talked about nationalizing the nation's Oil Industry (that at that time wasn't beneficial for Venezuela, because revenues went straight to the US), the US backed a coup against him.

who are you and what did you do with the real calimera

I am Calimera and I haven't change at all. You probably think that because I support Israel (?)

[Costa Fierro]

Of course it isn't. You are unaware of the fact that Chavez' policies were favoring national interests, and not the interests of the American Oil companies and of America.

Except that there weren't any American oil companies in there to have any vested interests in. Most of the companies producing oil were Venezuelan and were nationalized by the government.

The US' actions were absolutely inappropriate, and as a democrat you should accept and recognize that.

And where did I say I support the coup? Or is it because you've finally jumped the ideological ship that you all of a sudden decide to accuse people by association? How about you get off that hobby horse and address me on your own two feet and we'll see who is the right one here.

That Oil Strike plunged millions of Venezuelans into poverty. And Chavez successfully reduced poverty from 61,1% to 30%.

That's interesting. Because poverty was at 49% when Chavez came into office and it was at 24% when he died. How can 20% of the population magically plunge into poverty

Foreign Interests in Venezuela have been Venezuela's cancer, not Chavez.

"Foreign interests" is the sort of propaganda people like Chavez use to justify their actions. "Foreign interests" are like "imperialists" or "communists". Boogeymen that are used to scare people into believing that the government is doing the right thing.

False.

When will you learn? It's not. Venezuela has an average of two firearms per citizen and most of the crime is committed by gangs, many of which were released from prison during Chavez's prison reforms.

You couple that to a country where the law enforcement system is corrupt and largely inept and you have the reason why Venezuela's violent crime rate is through the roof. It's not Colombian drug cartels and organized crime, it's violent street gangs killing and kidnapping people knowing that they can get away with it.

Yes, I know where the violence comes from, and I have provided sources. Those street gangs you are talking about have indeed a large amount of illicit firearms. And you know where the money came from? With the money they earned from drugs trafficking.

Nope. Kidnapping. Venezuela now has one of the highest numbers of kidnappings in the world. Again, most kidnappings are committed by street gangs. Aside from police corruption, most people in Venezuela pay the ransoms and often don't report kidnappings to police. People actually put money aside in "kidnap kitties" to pay off the kidnappers if someone they know is taken.

And with that in mind, what do you think brings in the most money? Drugs, where you have a greater risk of being caught by police? Or kidnappings, where you are guaranteed a ransom payment?

Of course you are. First of all you deny the fact that Colombian Drug Cartels have moved to Venezuela, and secondly, you blame everything on the government of Chavez.

Because Chavez has done little, if anything, to address the serious situation in Venezuela. The government does not report on violent crime statistics. Sometimes they are leaked to press but they are officially redacted. He more than anyone had the power to reform the police and expand police powers and funding to crack down on criminal street gangs. He had the power to launch a war against corruption. All of these would have made significant differences and made Venezuela a much safer place to be. But he didn't.

The government is to blame because it is the one sitting on its hands and not addressing the very serious problems in Venezuela. It either pretends there are no problems or blames it on something else, such as whatever the government has decided to demonize that particular week (usually the middle class). As I said, the government certainly has the power to actually make a difference and it hasn't used that power. You can't sit there and say "it's out of their hands" because it isn't.

Look at neighboring Colombia. Violent crime in Colombia is at a 10 year low and most cities have seen reductions of 80%. You know why? Because the government made the cities safer. It integrated the poorer suburbs. It actively fought against gangs and against organized crime and it paid off. Colombia is much safer than it used to be.

Well, that's logical due to the fact that the Colombia Government and the FARC are having peace negotiations.

Those negotiations would not have been necessary if the Colombian government hadn't put FARC on its knees. That's what drove FARC to the negotiating table because it knew that there was negotiating and ending the conflict with some dignity or being utterly destroyed.

Furthermore, like the UN report stated: Cartels are moving activity to Venezuela.

Nope. The cartels are setting up shop in Peru.

The Venezuelan government, at least under Chavez', did quite a lot to prevent that and to stop these gangs. Of course, more can be done. But blaming everything on Chavez is somewhat childish if you ask me.

The government hasn't done anything. Why else has there been such a massive rise in violent crime? If the government was actively trying to fight the criminals, there would have at least been some results. Instead, murders and kidnappings are increasing with each year.

Either you are saying the government is hilariously inept or your argument is bullshit and the government has done absolutely nothing to fight criminals

I think I provided you with enough sources last time to show you how much it improved.

You are trying to argue against the rise in violent crime by saying "I showed you some shit that it totally irrelevant to your argument".

Nevertheless, I will show them another time.

And I'll show you this another time.

False.

Oh? So, everything was fine until Chavez died and Maduro showed up and suddenly, everything went down the proverbial crapper? That's one hell of a collapse.

All the figures improved during Chavez' presidency.

The only thing that improved during Chavez's presidency was poverty. Unless of course you call 24,000 murder victims an "improvement".

You simply don't want to accept that. Maduro is absolute garbage, and Chavez was somewhat autocratic, but to say that it set to rot under Chavez is absolutely bullshit and you know it very well.

I accept that some aspects of Chavez's administration were good. I've never denied that. But what I see here is people blatantly white washing some pretty serious social and economic issues. "Oh well, it's not that bad". 24,000 murder victims a year is pretty bad. Add 16,000 kidnapping victims and we pretty much have recipe for a failed state.

What a load of bullshit.

So first, he talks to birds and then he doesn't. What is it Cal.

Maduro doesn't have a mental illness whatsoever.

Of course not. Believing animals are talking to oneself is indicative of a healthy state of mind.

Maduro just (always actually) uses anecdotes and stories to tell what he thinks, feels etc. It is weird, but that's all. He doesn't believe that Chavez is a bird whatsoever.

Believing that birds are talking to him is the same level of crazy as people saying that Jesus spoke to them.

No, you seem to denying a lot of things.

Oh good. Now we're using the "no you" ploy.

You said that Chavez used the ''oil money'' to solely invest in the Military. Something which is bullshit. I have provided sources etc that proves me right, here you have another one. Military expenses in 2013 were even lower than Argentina's. You can also clearly see that in percentageof GDP that Venezuela ranks lower than Bolivia, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and other countries.

Annual spending may be low, but this was done over a period of a decade. The Venezuelan military has essentially been rearmed. And that military equipment doesn't come cheap, even if it is Russian.

No, I am here to debunk lies.

No hay mentiras aquí.

I thank you for trying to provide the correct information.

Oh for the love of Christ. If whitewashing serious problems in Venezuela is "correct" then call me incorrect. Or bigoted. Or offensive. You know, because apparently pointing out that Venezuela under Chavez wasn't a box of fluffy rabbits is apparently being bigoted.

However I tired to do that earlier this year in the Maduro thread, but he just rejects all evidence and sources, and then makes incorrect statements either without any evidence of only unreliable sources.

I don't reject all evidence and sources. I am fully aware of the improvements that have been made in Venezuela under Chavez's administration. But unlike your or Cal, I'm fully aware of the other aspects of his administration which have not as of yet can be deemed "successes" and which affect all aspects of Venezuelan society, not just the rich or the poor.

People in Venezuela fear for their lives and the government isn't helping them. If you don't want to believe it, fine. That's your own little bubble and I'm not prepared to go out of my way to burst it.

It's best not to debate with him, lest you get angry and waste a lot of time.

I'm not a troll Ardoki. At least try to debate instead of simply brushing it off by calling it "offensive" or "bigoted". Because you know what's offensive to Venezuelans? "Everything is fine".

[Krumbia]

Nicos Anastasiades, doing a pretty good job through a pretty shit time in Cyprus. And who knows? The north and south might even reach a settlement under him.

Unlikely, but more likely than under Christofias.

[Harkback Union]

Of course it isn't. You are unaware of the fact that Chavez' policies were favoring national interests, and not the interests of the American Oil companies and of America.

Except that there weren't any American oil companies in there to have any vested interests in. Most of the companies producing oil were Venezuelan and were nationalized by the government.

The US' actions were absolutely inappropriate, and as a democrat you should accept and recognize that.

And where did I say I support the coup? Or is it because you've finally jumped the ideological ship that you all of a sudden decide to accuse people by association? How about you get off that hobby horse and address me on your own two feet and we'll see who is the right one here.

That Oil Strike plunged millions of Venezuelans into poverty. And Chavez successfully reduced poverty from 61,1% to 30%.

That's interesting. Because poverty was at 49% when Chavez came into office and it was at 24% when he died. How can 20% of the population magically plunge into poverty

Foreign Interests in Venezuela have been Venezuela's cancer, not Chavez.

"Foreign interests" is the sort of propaganda people like Chavez use to justify their actions. "Foreign interests" are like "imperialists" or "communists". Boogeymen that are used to scare people into believing that the government is doing the right thing.

False.

When will you learn? It's not. Venezuela has an average of two firearms per citizen and most of the crime is committed by gangs, many of which were released from prison during Chavez's prison reforms.

You couple that to a country where the law enforcement system is corrupt and largely inept and you have the reason why Venezuela's violent crime rate is through the roof. It's not Colombian drug cartels and organized crime, it's violent street gangs killing and kidnapping people knowing that they can get away with it.

Yes, I know where the violence comes from, and I have provided sources. Those street gangs you are talking about have indeed a large amount of illicit firearms. And you know where the money came from? With the money they earned from drugs trafficking.

Nope. Kidnapping. Venezuela now has one of the highest numbers of kidnappings in the world. Again, most kidnappings are committed by street gangs. Aside from police corruption, most people in Venezuela pay the ransoms and often don't report kidnappings to police. People actually put money aside in "kidnap kitties" to pay off the kidnappers if someone they know is taken.

And with that in mind, what do you think brings in the most money? Drugs, where you have a greater risk of being caught by police? Or kidnappings, where you are guaranteed a ransom payment?

Of course you are. First of all you deny the fact that Colombian Drug Cartels have moved to Venezuela, and secondly, you blame everything on the government of Chavez.

Because Chavez has done little, if anything, to address the serious situation in Venezuela. The government does not report on violent crime statistics. Sometimes they are leaked to press but they are officially redacted. He more than anyone had the power to reform the police and expand police powers and funding to crack down on criminal street gangs. He had the power to launch a war against corruption. All of these would have made significant differences and made Venezuela a much safer place to be. But he didn't.

The government is to blame because it is the one sitting on its hands and not addressing the very serious problems in Venezuela. It either pretends there are no problems or blames it on something else, such as whatever the government has decided to demonize that particular week (usually the middle class). As I said, the government certainly has the power to actually make a difference and it hasn't used that power. You can't sit there and say "it's out of their hands" because it isn't.

Look at neighboring Colombia. Violent crime in Colombia is at a 10 year low and most cities have seen reductions of 80%. You know why? Because the government made the cities safer. It integrated the poorer suburbs. It actively fought against gangs and against organized crime and it paid off. Colombia is much safer than it used to be.

Well, that's logical due to the fact that the Colombia Government and the FARC are having peace negotiations.

Those negotiations would not have been necessary if the Colombian government hadn't put FARC on its knees. That's what drove FARC to the negotiating table because it knew that there was negotiating and ending the conflict with some dignity or being utterly destroyed.

Furthermore, like the UN report stated: Cartels are moving activity to Venezuela.

Nope. The cartels are setting up shop in Peru.

The Venezuelan government, at least under Chavez', did quite a lot to prevent that and to stop these gangs. Of course, more can be done. But blaming everything on Chavez is somewhat childish if you ask me.

The government hasn't done anything. Why else has there been such a massive rise in violent crime? If the government was actively trying to fight the criminals, there would have at least been some results. Instead, murders and kidnappings are increasing with each year.

Either you are saying the government is hilariously inept or your argument is bullshit and the government has done absolutely nothing to fight criminals

I think I provided you with enough sources last time to show you how much it improved.

You are trying to argue against the rise in violent crime by saying "I showed you some shit that it totally irrelevant to your argument".

Nevertheless, I will show them another time.

And I'll show you this another time.

False.

Oh? So, everything was fine until Chavez died and Maduro showed up and suddenly, everything went down the proverbial crapper? That's one hell of a collapse.

All the figures improved during Chavez' presidency.

The only thing that improved during Chavez's presidency was poverty. Unless of course you call 24,000 murder victims an "improvement".

You simply don't want to accept that. Maduro is absolute garbage, and Chavez was somewhat autocratic, but to say that it set to rot under Chavez is absolutely bullshit and you know it very well.

I accept that some aspects of Chavez's administration were good. I've never denied that. But what I see here is people blatantly white washing some pretty serious social and economic issues. "Oh well, it's not that bad". 24,000 murder victims a year is pretty bad. Add 16,000 kidnapping victims and we pretty much have recipe for a failed state.

What a load of bullshit.

So first, he talks to birds and then he doesn't. What is it Cal.

Maduro doesn't have a mental illness whatsoever.

Of course not. Believing animals are talking to oneself is indicative of a healthy state of mind.

Maduro just (always actually) uses anecdotes and stories to tell what he thinks, feels etc. It is weird, but that's all. He doesn't believe that Chavez is a bird whatsoever.

Believing that birds are talking to him is the same level of crazy as people saying that Jesus spoke to them.

No, you seem to denying a lot of things.

Oh good. Now we're using the "no you" ploy.

You said that Chavez used the ''oil money'' to solely invest in the Military. Something which is bullshit. I have provided sources etc that proves me right, here you have another one. Military expenses in 2013 were even lower than Argentina's. You can also clearly see that in percentageof GDP that Venezuela ranks lower than Bolivia, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and other countries.

Annual spending may be low, but this was done over a period of a decade. The Venezuelan military has essentially been rearmed. And that military equipment doesn't come cheap, even if it is Russian.

No, I am here to debunk lies.

No hay mentiras aquí.

I thank you for trying to provide the correct information.

Oh for the love of Christ. If whitewashing serious problems in Venezuela is "correct" then call me incorrect. Or bigoted. Or offensive. You know, because apparently pointing out that Venezuela under Chavez wasn't a box of fluffy rabbits is apparently being bigoted.

However I tired to do that earlier this year in the Maduro thread, but he just rejects all evidence and sources, and then makes incorrect statements either without any evidence of only unreliable sources.

I don't reject all evidence and sources. I am fully aware of the improvements that have been made in Venezuela under Chavez's administration. But unlike your or Cal, I'm fully aware of the other aspects of his administration which have not as of yet can be deemed "successes" and which affect all aspects of Venezuelan society, not just the rich or the poor.

People in Venezuela fear for their lives and the government isn't helping them. If you don't want to believe it, fine. That's your own little bubble and I'm not prepared to go out of my way to burst it.

It's best not to debate with him, lest you get angry and waste a lot of time.

I'm not a troll Ardoki. At least try to debate instead of simply brushing it off by calling it "offensive" or "bigoted". Because you know what's offensive to Venezuelans? "Everything is fine".

Except for American oil companies don't need to own anything in Venezuela to have interests in Venezuelan oil and much of Venezuela oil used to be in hands of foreign investors before it was nationalized. Venezuelan Opposition plans to privatize oil Industry, along with pretty much everything else as soon as they get to power.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/ ... TA20110328

Poverty can be measured by different standards. The ones the World Bank uses for its statistics differ from that of the United nations and humanitarian organizations.

In case its not obvious, High Venezuelan murder rates is thanks to the regional drug cartels that Venezuela alone can't fight. A lot of them are based in Colombia and make huge profits selling drugs in the US where prohibition priced the drugs at very high levels while failed government policy cracks down on users instead of suppliers and distributors.

All in all, Venezuela fared pretty well under Chavez. Infant mortality dropped, Life expectancy rose and


(GDP per capita, Inflation adjusted)

And no, Its not just due to oil profits. Oil production decreased in Venezuela during Chavez. There are also plenty of other oil producing countries where GDP/cap stagnated while living standards worsened during the same period.

[The Liberated Territories]

Kim Jong-un

I was thinking of someone more along the lines of Pinochet.

Yeah, he's cool.

Waitaminnit...

[Calimera II]

Of course it isn't. You are unaware of the fact that Chavez' policies were favoring national interests, and not the interests of the American Oil companies and of America.

Except that there weren't any American oil companies in there to have any vested interests in. Most of the companies producing oil were Venezuelan and were nationalized by the government.

After Hugo Chávez officially took office in 1999, several policy changes involving the country's oil industry were made to explicitly tie it to the state. In addition, he attempted to strengthen Venezuela’s infrastructure and other national industries to move the country towards a more developed nation.
On 13 November 2001, under the enabling law authorized by the National Assembly, Chávez enacted the new Hydrocarbons Law, which came into effect in January 2002. This law replaced the Hydrocarbons Law of 1943 and the Nationalization Law of 1975. Among other things, the new law provided that all oil production and distribution activities were to be the domain of the Venezuelan state, with the exception of joint ventures targeting extra-heavy crude oil production. Under the new Hydrocarbons Law, private investors can own up to 49% of the capital stock in joint ventures involved in upstream activities. The new law also provides that private investors may own up to 100% of the capital stock in ventures concerning downstream activities, in addition to the 100% already allowed for private investors with respect to gas production ventures, as previously promulgated by the National Assembly.
Source: http://bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar/ ... lander.pdf

To say that there weren't any American oil companies in there to have any vested interests in, is a big lie. ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron and Total, all operated/operate in Venezuela. And is was CitGo.

The coup had apparently been planned for some six to nine months. The decision to try to overthrow Chávez came on the heels of what they hoped were a number of controversial laws Chávez passed that November reforming Venezuela's national oil company, PDVSA. A general strike was called for in December 2001. Early in 2002, a number of leading military figures called for Chávez's resignation.

And the US was involved. No doubts about that:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/n ... 985670.stm
Venezuela coup linked to Bush team
Documents Show C.I.A. Knew of a Coup Plot in Venezuela

The US' actions were absolutely inappropriate, and as a democrat you should accept and recognize that.

And where did I say I support the coup? Or is it because you've finally jumped the ideological ship that you all of a sudden decide to accuse people by association? How about you get off that hobby horse and address me on your own two feet and we'll see who is the right one here.

Don't worry, I know you are a democratic guy. However, I find it highly contradictory that you put ''No al Chavismo, si a la Democracia'' in your signature, while supporting everyone that formed part of those who organized or supported the 2002 Coup.

That Oil Strike plunged millions of Venezuelans into poverty. And Chavez successfully reduced poverty from 61,1% to 30%.

That's interesting. Because poverty was at 49% when Chavez came into office and it was at 24% when he died. How can 20% of the population magically plunge into poverty

If you don't read the sources I provide, this is hopeless. In 2002, 2003 there was an US, Venezuelan opposition-backed Oil Embargo. Here you have the graph and you can clearly see how this plunged millions of Venezuelans into poverty.

Foreign Interests in Venezuela have been Venezuela's cancer, not Chavez.

"Foreign interests" is the sort of propaganda people like Chavez use to justify their actions. "Foreign interests" are like "imperialists" or "communists". Boogeymen that are used to scare people into believing that the government is doing the right thing.

So you don't think that the US is doing unjustifiable things that not only harm(d) the democratically elected Chavista government and the one of his way worse predecessor, but also the people of Venezuela?

I am not Anti-American at all, and I never was. But the United States was/is acting in a wrong way when it comes to Venezuela.

False.

When will you learn? It's not. Venezuela has an average of two firearms per citizen and most of the crime is committed by gangs, many of which were released from prison during Chavez's prison reforms.

Again, this is not true: ''The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in Venezuela is 10.73 firearms per 100 people''
Source: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/venezuela

You couple that to a country where the law enforcement system is corrupt and largely inept and you have the reason why Venezuela's violent crime rate is through the roof.It's not Colombian drug cartels and organized crime, it's violent street gangs killing and kidnapping people knowing that they can get away with it.

Colombian criminal groups have long operated near and across the Venezuelan border. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) is also known to be active across the border, as well as the smaller and National Liberation Army (ELN). In October 2013, Venezuelan authorities found 17 drug laboratories near the border. Colombian drug cartels are a major part of the insecurity problem. Venezuela is a significant route for drug trafficking, with Colombian cocaine and other drugs transiting Venezuela towards the United States and Europe. And it's not only me who says this, but also the United Nations confirms this trend: http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and ... izures.pdf

Yes, I know where the violence comes from, and I have provided sources. Those street gangs you are talking about have indeed a large amount of illicit firearms. And you know where the money came from? With the money they earned from drugs trafficking.

Nope. Kidnapping. Venezuela now has one of the highest numbers of kidnappings in the world. Again, most kidnappings are committed by street gangs. Aside from police corruption, most people in Venezuela pay the ransoms and often don't report kidnappings to police. People actually put money aside in "kidnap kitties" to pay off the kidnappers if someone they know is taken.

There were 1150 kidnappings in Venezuela in 2011. That's absolutely not enough to be the largest source of income for these criminal organizations that are active in Venezuela. Venezuela ranks fourth in the world for cocaine seizures, behind Colombia, the United States, and Panama.

And with that in mind, what do you think brings in the most money? Drugs, where you have a greater risk of being caught by police? Or kidnappings, where you are guaranteed a ransom payment?

Drugs, obviously.

Well, that's logical due to the fact that the Colombia Government and the FARC are having peace negotiations.

Those negotiations would not have been necessary if the Colombian government hadn't put FARC on its knees. That's what drove FARC to the negotiating table because it knew that there was negotiating and ending the conflict with some dignity or being utterly destroyed.

The Colombian government acted well. But stop denying that Colombian gangs have moved many of its drugs activities to Venezuela.

Furthermore, like the UN report stated: Cartels are moving activity to Venezuela.

Nope. The cartels are setting up shop in Peru.

>''Because this documentary is right, and the report of the United Nations is wrong...''

The Venezuelan government, at least under Chavez', did quite a lot to prevent that and to stop these gangs. Of course, more can be done. But blaming everything on Chavez is somewhat childish if you ask me.

The government hasn't done anything. Why else has there been such a massive rise in violent crime?

Political Instability is the main reason for the increase in the last years.

Either you are saying the government is hilariously inept or your argument is bullshit and the government has done absolutely nothing to fight criminals

No. The government could have done more, and in a better way, but there has been done quite a lot. Like the creation of the Policia Nacional Bolivariana

I think I provided you with enough sources last time to show you how much it improved.

You are trying to argue against the rise in violent crime by saying "I showed you some shit that it totally irrelevant to your argument".

No, I show you sources all the time, and you keep saying that you are right and I am wrong.

Nevertheless, I will show them another time.

And I'll show you this another time.

That's pretty bad. But is it Chavez' fault? Doubt that. The Healthcare sector needs a radical reform, I agree with you on that. But I don't agree with you that 'everything is the fault of Chavez'. Chavez improved healthcare.


Some of the most important data are:

* Infant mortality fell from 25 per 1,000 (1990) to only 13 in 1000 (2010)
* 96% of the population now has access to clean water
* In 1998, there were 18 physicians per 10,000 population, there are now 58
* Previous governments built 5,081 clinics across four decades, while in only 13 years the Bolivarian government built 13,721 (increase of 169.6%)
* Barrio Adentro, the primary care program receives support from more than 8,300 Cuban doctors, with its 7,000 clinics, has saved approximately 1.4 million lives
*In 2011, 67,000 Venezuelans received free high-cost drugs to treat 139 diseases like cancer, hepatitis, osteoporosis, schizophrenia; Today there are 34 addiction treatment centers
* In six years, 19,840 homeless people have been treated with a special program, and virtually no children living on the streets
*Venezuela now has the largest intensive care unit in the region
*A network of public pharmacies sell drugs subsidized in 127 stores, making savings between 34-40%

False.

Oh? So, everything was fine until Chavez died and Maduro showed up and suddenly, everything went down the proverbial crapper? That's one hell of a collapse.

Of course not. As I told you before, I am not Chavista and I dislike (most) of his economic policies. But some of the things you say about Chavez are simply not true.

All the figures improved during Chavez' presidency.

The only thing that improved during Chavez's presidency was poverty. Unless of course you call 24,000 murder victims an "improvement".

Poverty actually dropped. Crime is a problem, yes.

You simply don't want to accept that. Maduro is absolute garbage, and Chavez was somewhat autocratic, but to say that it set to rot under Chavez is absolutely bullshit and you know it very well.

I accept that some aspects of Chavez's administration were good. I've never denied that. But what I see here is people blatantly white washing some pretty serious social and economic issues. "Oh well, it's not that bad". 24,000 murder victims a year is pretty bad. Add 16,000 kidnapping victims and we pretty much have recipe for a failed state.

I am glad you finally recognized that some things he did were good.

Maduro doesn't have a mental illness whatsoever.

Of course not. Believing animals are talking to oneself is indicative of a healthy state of mind.

If you had an extensive knowledge of Spanish you would know that that isn't true.

No, you seem to denying a lot of things.

Oh good. Now we're using the "no you" ploy.

Uhum. Look at your messages and you see that you do it all the time.

You said that Chavez used the ''oil money'' to solely invest in the Military. Something which is bullshit. I have provided sources etc that proves me right, here you have another one. Military expenses in 2013 were even lower than Argentina's. You can also clearly see that in percentageof GDP that Venezuela ranks lower than Bolivia, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and other countries.

Annual spending may be low, but this was done over a period of a decade. The Venezuelan military has essentially been rearmed. And that military equipment doesn't come cheap, even if it is Russian.

What's wrong with that? Annual spending is low indeed.

No, I am here to debunk lies.

No hay mentiras aquí.

Amigo, lamentablemente hay.

[Anglo-California]

A lot of Western Media groups however, continuously lies about the situation in Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and Uruguay.

Pray tell, what is "Western media" saying about Brazil?

Huehuehuehuehuehue.

That's pretty much all it says.