Hugo Chavez re-elected!!!

[Cormac]

Yeah, but, you gotta love him.

Nah, I think he is a cunt.

He's like The Fonz of politics.

Except really dangerous.

(c'mon, I'm clearly taking the piss out of his whole cheesy setup )

I know!

Imagine a dangerous Fonzie.

(I think Peter Griffin did that with his new religion!).

[Animavore]

I know!

Imagine a dangerous Fonzie.

(I think Peter Griffin did that with his new religion!).

Fuck! I think he did.

Cryptomnesia strikes again.

[Pensioner]

Yeah, but, you gotta love him.

Nah, I think he is a cunt.

He's like The Fonz of politics.

Except really dangerous.

Better than that cunt Eamon De Valera.

[Cormac]

Yeah, but, you gotta love him.

Nah, I think he is a cunt.

He's like The Fonz of politics.

Except really dangerous.

Better than that cunt Eamon De Valera.

Depends on why a person would despise de Valera.

1. Because he was a traitorous bollox who dragged Ireland into a Civil War to protect his own prestige and authority - this is a good reason.
2. Because having brought the country to a Civil War over the issue of a meaningless oath to the British Monarch, he went on to accept it on the same basis as Collins after the Civil War ended - this is a good reason
3. Because he retarded any economic growth because he had stupid and outmoded ideas about an impossible self-sufficiency, and dragged us into an economic war with the UK - our biggest trading partner - this is a good reason.
4. Because he sold our hard won independence to the Vatican? - this is a good reason

There are lots of reasons to despise de Valera - what is yours?

[mistermack]

2. He confiscated land from farmers and distributed it to people who hadn't the first clue about agriculture.

Regarding the second point - if he is going to steal land and give it to people, he should first require that they attend training and demonstrate competence before being sent off into the country, (usually for the first time in their lives).

A nice little simple view of the world.
But things are never as simple as that. How did those people come by the land?
Who was it taken from before that? If you buy stolen land, it's tough shit, if someone takes it from you, in turn.

[Cormac]

2. He confiscated land from farmers and distributed it to people who hadn't the first clue about agriculture.

Regarding the second point - if he is going to steal land and give it to people, he should first require that they attend training and demonstrate competence before being sent off into the country, (usually for the first time in their lives).

A nice little simple view of the world.
But things are never as simple as that. How did those people come by the land?
Who was it taken from before that? If you buy stolen land, it's tough shit, if someone takes it from you, in turn.

From what I understand, these were small to.medium sized farmers. We are not talking here about the kind of holdings that United Fruit had.

This is beside the point. Look at the second part of the post you've quoted. What do you think the result would be of putting city people deep into the contryside, with no electricity, no farmhouse, and no knowledge of the rudiments of agriculture?

If you are going to engage in land redistribution, the intelligent way to do it is'

1. Buy the land through Compulsory Purchase Order
2. Create a large scale agricultural training programme
3. Only those that pass through that programme successfully should be given land.

This is pretty obvious. Why didn't he do it?

[mistermack]

2. He confiscated land from farmers and distributed it to people who hadn't the first clue about agriculture.

Regarding the second point - if he is going to steal land and give it to people, he should first require that they attend training and demonstrate competence before being sent off into the country, (usually for the first time in their lives).

A nice little simple view of the world.
But things are never as simple as that. How did those people come by the land?
Who was it taken from before that? If you buy stolen land, it's tough shit, if someone takes it from you, in turn.

From what I understand, these were small to.medium sized farmers. We are not talking here about the kind of holdings that United Fruit had.

This is beside the point. Look at the second part of the post you've quoted. What do you think the result would be of putting city people deep into the contryside, with no electricity, no farmhouse, and no knowledge of the rudiments of agriculture?

If you are going to engage in land redistribution, the intelligent way to do it is'

1. Buy the land through Compulsory Purchase Order
2. Create a large scale agricultural training programme
3. Only those that pass through that programme successfully should be given land.

This is pretty obvious. Why didn't he do it?

It's pretty obvious that you should be running a country. And he should be shovelling shit.
Life just ain't fair, is it?

I would read up on what he's been doing, if I had enough interest. And try to get the facts.
Where you would go, to get unbiased facts about Venezuela, I don't know.
But I wouldn't trust the media on that one.
I suspect it's not as you describe, as he just got elected. Again.

[Cormac]

From what I understand, these were small to.medium sized farmers. We are not talking here about the kind of holdings that United Fruit had.

This is beside the point. Look at the second part of the post you've quoted. What do you think the result would be of putting city people deep into the contryside, with no electricity, no farmhouse, and no knowledge of the rudiments of agriculture?

If you are going to engage in land redistribution, the intelligent way to do it is'

1. Buy the land through Compulsory Purchase Order
2. Create a large scale agricultural training programme
3. Only those that pass through that programme successfully should be given land.

This is pretty obvious. Why didn't he do it?

It's pretty obvious that you should be running a country. And he should be shovelling shit.
Life just ain't fair, is it?

I would read up on what he's been doing, if I had enough interest. And try to get the facts.
Where you would go, to get unbiased facts about Venezuela, I don't know.
But I wouldn't trust the media on that one.
I suspect it's not as you describe, as he just got elected. Again.

Are you saying that you are not familar with what has been happening in Venezuela? Yet you are declaring what I have said to be incorrect?

The fact that he has been re-elected says nothing about the quality of the man or the effectiveness of his policies per se.

His actions speak louder:

1. He has adjusted the constitution to centralise power in himself, and to allow him to stand again and again for the Presidency.
2. His agricultural policy is a disaster, and it caused food shortages and price increases.

He is in the classic mould of bumbling dictator - and this is worrying.

As regards him standing up to the USA, and his decisions about oil, these I applaud.

His alignment with Ahmadinejad and Castro is despicable.

[odysseus]

His alignment with Ahmadinejad and Castro is despicable.

He knows how to troll Uncle Sam and that's for sure....

[mistermack]

Cormac, you don't tell us where your "information" is coming from either.

If you have a reliable source, link to it. Don't just expect people to believe it because you typed it.

[sandinista]

Except really dangerous.

yes, dangerous to the current neo liberal capitalist model. Which is precisely why he is so popular and why I am extremely happy he was re-elected.

He has adjusted the constitution to centralise power in himself, and to allow him to stand again and again for the Presidency.

So? What is wrong with that? He should be able to run and win election after election. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is a positive move. It takes into consideration long term planning, which is required to change an entire economic and social system. It's a slow process. This was not only a good move by Chavez, but a necessary one.

[Pensioner]

Cormac

What you said. , from one to four anyway.

My father in law hated de valera with a passion as he fought with Collins and was imprisoned in West Port for his troubles. He was excommunicated from the church in the 20s and never set foot in a church for the rest of his life.

He was a good guy who I had the greatest respect for.

During my family history search on my wife’s side of the family I discovered this.

`

[JimC]

sandinista wrote:

He should be able to run and win election after election. There is nothing wrong with that.

I suppose you don't realise what an utterly bizarre statement that is. In effect, you are saying that a politician, as long as he is of your preferred political persuasion, should be able to set aside the will of the people in future elections, to cling to power...

Dictators of both the right and left do that if they can get away with it, for very self-serving reasons...

Having said that, I'm not objecting to his assertivenness with regards to the US - in balance, a good thing. Perhaps his social policies will be a good thing too; but the key thing is to allow the people to make that decision for themselves, in future free and fair elections...

[sandinista]

I suppose you don't realise what an utterly bizarre statement that is. In effect, you are saying that a politician, as long as he is of your preferred political persuasion, should be able to set aside the will of the people in future elections, to cling to power...

Speaking of bizarre. How is it that he is "setting aside the will of the people" when he has been re-elected?

[Cormac]

Cormac

What you said. , from one to four anyway.

My father in law hated de valera with a passion as he fought with Collins and was imprisoned in West Port for his troubles. He was excommunicated from the church in the 20s and never set foot in a church for the rest of his life.

He was a good guy who I had the greatest respect for.

During my family history search on my wife’s side of the family I discovered this.

`

Very interesting Pensioner!

Fought alongside Collins, or against him and then later against de Valera?

I've just read a brilliant new book. Back in the late 40s and early 50s, the govt interviewed hundreds of people on all sides about their experiences in 1916. The interview materials were locked away as a state secret until recently. A brilliant insight into the reality of what happened. Some hints within it that de Valera wasn't the best in his performance as leader down at Boland's Mills.