Fairweather Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Is this what you meant when you advocated agrarian reform and sang the praises of this Chavez pig? If this isn't communism, I don't know what is. The guy's got to go. And soon. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4282672.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TREETOAD Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Good on him!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Right after we button up this Iraq situation, we should get on that ASAP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 27, 2005 Author Share Posted September 27, 2005 Nothing that 12 of our finest couldn't handle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Nothing that 12 of our finest couldn't handle. 12 ... tomahawks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Yeah democracy is just so PESKY! Look at what the people will vote for , given the chance. South America was so much better off when the US propped up the likes of Pinochet and Somoza etal. You guys really show your true allegiance to the principles of democracy with your advocacy of a military overthrow of Chavez; hypocrites! (I suppose you are aware of your awkward position?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 (edited) This reminds me of the recent US supreme court decision that allows local governments to take land from individuals and give it private land developers so they can turn a profit. Only in this case its backwards. Edited September 27, 2005 by danielpatricksmith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Yeah democracy is just so PESKY! Look at what the people will vote for , given the chance. South America was so much better off when the US propped up the likes of Pinochet and Somoza etal. You guys really show your true allegiance to the principles of democracy with your advocacy of a military overthrow of Chavez; hypocrites! (I suppose you are aware of your awkward position?) Hitler was elected Chancellor through a democratic process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 So was Dubya and look how well that's turned out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Yeah democracy is just so PESKY! Look at what the people will vote for , given the chance. South America was so much better off when the US propped up the likes of Pinochet and Somoza etal. You guys really show your true allegiance to the principles of democracy with your advocacy of a military overthrow of Chavez; hypocrites! (I suppose you are aware of your awkward position?) Hitler was elected Chancellor through a democratic process. Hitler was APPOINTED Chancellor in a shady backroom deal. In November 1932, Fritz Thyssen, Hjalmar Schacht and other leading German businessmen appealed to Hindenburg in a letter to appoint Hitler as leader of a government "independent from parliamentary parties" which could turn into a movement that would "enrapture millions of people." [3] Finally, Papen and Alfred Hugenberg (Chairman of the German National People's Party, the DNVP, which before the Nazis had been Germany's principal right-wing party) conspired to persuade Hindenburg to appoint Hitler Chancellor in a coalition with the DNVP, promising they would be able to control him and stabilize the government. When Schleicher was forced to admit failure in his efforts to form a coalition and asked for emergency powers along with the same postponement of elections he had opposed earlier, Hindenburg fired him and reluctantly agreed to appoint Hitler Chancellor, Papen Vice-Chancellor and Hugenberg Minister of Economics in a cabinet which included three Nazis in key positions (Hitler, Göring and Wilhelm Frick). On the morning of January 30, 1933 in Hindenburg's office Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor during what some observers later described as a brief and indifferent ceremony. Adolf Hitler greeting supporters from aboard a parade vehicle.After the Reichstag was set on fire (and the communists were blamed for it), the Reichstag Fire Decree (28 February) suspended basic rights including habeas corpus. On 5 March 1933, in elections marred by paramilitary violence, the Nazis received 43.9% of the vote, which brought the coalition between them and the DNVP an absolute majority. Hitler further strengthened his parliamentary basis by detaining Communist deputies and (illegally) excluding them from parliament. At an impressive constitutional opening ceremony of the Reichstag, held in the replacement parliament building on 21 March, both Hindenburg and the world press were impressed by Hitler's apparent acceptance of constitutional government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Now, Dru, don't go bringing pesky facts into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Hitler was APPOINTED Chancellor in a shady backroom deal. His party won a plurality of votes in a democratic election. The point is that calling an election democratic does not justify its results, the person elected, or the government when it morphs into something far from "democratic". Of course, that isn't obvious to you all in the case of Chavez, because your goal in life is to be contrarian in all matters of US foreign policy positions because you hate Bush: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 1) The election in which the Nazis took 44% of the vote was not democratic, any more than recent elections in Zimbabwe are democratic. 2) You claimed he was elected Chancellor. Not true. So instead of admitting you were wrong, you prevaricate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 You hit the nail on the head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 1) The election in which the Nazis took 44% of the vote was not democratic, any more than recent elections in Zimbabwe are democratic. It is hypocritical bullshit to claim the Nazis were not elected democratically and simultaneously claim Chavez was. 2) You claimed he was elected Chancellor. Not true. So instead of admitting you were wrong, you prevaricate. You're playing semantic games. His party was elected with a plurality, and he followed democratic processes in Germany at that time to become chancellor. Now piss off, I have better things to do than waste my time on you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Independent election monitors, including a former US President, certified the Venezuela elections as conforming to democratic standards. this would not be the case for the 1930's German elections, in which the brownshirts were out in force, threatening and beating the Nazi's opponents. The Nazis were not democratically elected with a majority, or a plurality. The DNVP was elected with a minority. The Nazis were their junior coalition partner. A conspiracy of German business leaders swung a deal to have Hitler appointed Chancellor. Hitler than ran a non-democratic "election" in which he still only took 44%, assumed power anyways and ruled as a dictator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Careful Dru, before you know if K-zak will tell you to read a history book.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 This reminds me of the recent US supreme court decision that allows local governments to take land from individuals and give it private land developers so they can turn a profit. Only in this case its backwards. Except our government has to pay fair market value for the property. Pretty big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 Except our government has to pay fair market value for the property. Pretty big difference. Venezuala is providing "compensation" for land owners (unlike Zimbabwe) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 That's a lot different from a court enforcing fair market value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 You're playing semantic games Well, as long as you're not playing anti-semantic games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 That's a lot different from a court enforcing fair market value. We don't know wtf Chavez is doing, so it's indeterminate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted September 27, 2005 Share Posted September 27, 2005 It sounds a bit like what they did in Zimbabwe and that has been a disaster for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 Independent election monitors, including a former US President, certified the Venezuela elections as conforming to democratic standards. .... Not completely true, Dru. EU election monitors refused to participate and returned home when it became apparent they would not be allowed proper access to polling places and counting stations. Sadly, our own Jimmy Carter sees Chavez through rose-colored glasses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 28, 2005 Author Share Posted September 28, 2005 South America was so much better off when the US propped up the likes of Pinochet and Somoza etal. Somoza was leader of a South American country??? I guess all those 'latinas' down south fall into the same mental pot you have created in that big open mind of yours, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.