Holy cannoli - Hugo Chavez receives dictatorial powers!

I'm sure you've seen this in the news, as it is huge. I wonder if all the people who were applauding his US-bashing will continue to support him now that he is a dictator?

I wonder if he will still pretend to have a legitimate government?

Is there a link to an article?

Here's a link to the story.

Meeting at a downtown plaza in a session that resembled a political rally, lawmakers unanimously approved all four articles of the law by a show of hands.

Yes, what this world needs is more legislatures that look like mobs.

A Venezuelan legislator wrote:

Rabble! Rabble, rabble!

Oh, I'm sure nothing bad will come from this.

wordsmythe wrote:
A Venezuelan legislator wrote:

Rabble! Rabble, rabble!

The Hamburglar is a Venezuelan legislator??

"We want to impose the dictatorship of a true democracy."

Oh, man. How can they go wrong?

It's always bad news when an elected govt. gives the executive branch sweeping authority. And yes, I realize there's a difference between Hugo Chavez and Bush. But as a matter of principle I think it's a bad idea for a govt. to put too much power in the hands of one individual.

"We want to impose the dictatorship of a true democracy."

Hasn't this been done before with great results?

/sarcasm

DSGamer wrote:

And yes, I realize there's a difference between Hugo Chavez and Bush.

Care to elaborate?

Paleocon wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

And yes, I realize there's a difference between Hugo Chavez and Bush.

Care to elaborate?

Not sure what you mean. One's a power-mad dictator that thinks he's doing what he's doing in the best interest of his nation while enriching friends and family. The other is Hugo Chavez. I kid, I kid.

I was simply making the point that once you start handing the President, Premier, Chancellor, etc. unchecked powers, that's a bell you can't unring. So when we pass things like the Military Commissions Act or the Patriot Act we should be careful. My only point.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
A Venezuelan legislator wrote:

Rabble! Rabble, rabble!

The Hamburglar is a Venezuelan legislator??

No no, the Hamburgler says, "Rubble." Thoughtless mobs in South Park say, "Rabble."

DSGamer wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

And yes, I realize there's a difference between Hugo Chavez and Bush.

Care to elaborate?

Not sure what you mean. One's a power-mad dictator that thinks he's doing what he's doing in the best interest of his nation while enriching friends and family. The other is Hugo Chavez. I kid, I kid.

I was simply making the point that once you start handing the President, Premier, Chancellor, etc. unchecked powers, that's a bell you can't unring. So when we pass things like the Military Commissions Act or the Patriot Act we should be careful. My only point.

I was just stirring the pot is all. Your comment sort of begged a bit more elaboration.

Reminds me of the old joke "what's the difference between a salesman and a catfish?". The answer being "one is a scum sucking bottom dweller. The other is just a fish.".

Nope, The Hamburglar says "romple romple romple". It's in The Onion, so it's a fact.

I guess George Lucas is some kind of psychic. He apparently was channeling the future of Venezuela when he was writing his last three movies (and here we thought he was taking a swipe at the current administration). I wonder who Chavez's Darth Vader is?

wordsmythe wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
A Venezuelan legislator wrote:

Rabble! Rabble, rabble!

The Hamburglar is a Venezuelan legislator??

No no, the Hamburgler says, "Rubble." Thoughtless mobs in South Park say, "Rabble."

No, dude, he says, "Robble, robble, robble." Get yer vowels straight, sparky.

On topic: how does this change anything from a month or so ago?

dhelor wrote:

On topic: how does this change anything from a month or so ago?

It takes Hugo (what a terrible name, no wonder he's so messed up) a little less time now when he wants to egregiously infringe the rights of his citizenry.

SwampYankee wrote:

Oh, I'm sure nothing bad will come from this.

The U.S. has long experience in dealing with Latin American dictators. And with dictators with oil. If anything, him being a dictator would actually make him EASIER to deal with provided we could do like we usually do with dictators and cut him a deal. OUr buddies the mutherfugging KINGS with oil in the mideast know all about that.

Now, from the perspective of the average venezuelan this can't be good, but in a lot of these latin american countries the average person is eating a sh*t sandwich from day one.

The irony is we (the US) backed a coup that failed and probably caused Chavez in part to head down this road. I'm sure those that turned power over to him remembered that as well and decided that it was better to support their dictator than open the floodgates to a bloody civil war partly sponsored by the US.

Boy, is he ever lucky that we are so busy in the ME, or we'd have some boys down there muy pronto!

Didn't Bush try to accuse him of working on WMDs at one point?

Chavez is a lefty authoritarian. Bush is a righty authoritarian. Each style comes comes from a different worldview, but both are equally noxious to freedom and human rights. When you move far enough left or right of center, you end up in more or less the same place.

They hate each other, but there isn't a 'good' side or a 'bad' side. They're both bad sides. About the best we can hope for is that the people in the respective countries wake up and fix things before it's too late. That process might have started in this country, but it's weak and confused, and I hold little hope that much of anything is actually going to get fixed.

Malor wrote:

Chavez is a lefty authoritarian. Bush is a righty authoritarian. Each style comes comes from a different worldview, but both are equally noxious to freedom and human rights. When you move far enough left or right of center, you end up in more or less the same place.

They hate each other, but there isn't a 'good' side or a 'bad' side. They're both bad sides. About the best we can hope for is that the people in the respective countries wake up and fix things before it's too late. That process might have started in this country, but it's weak and confused, and I hold little hope that much of anything is actually going to get fixed.

The difference is that Bush only had his power so long as we gave him a friendly Congress. It's not so easy to take away Chavez' new powers.

Not to be a d*ck, but I never get to *cough* threads, and this one is just, you know, at the bottom of the same page. Anyway, as you can guess from "I Just Can't Wait To Be King"...I think it's very scary to give this guy 18 months to "rule by decree." Scary.

Roo wrote:

Not to be a d*ck, but I never get to *cough* threads, and this one is just, you know, at the bottom of the same page. Anyway, as you can guess from "I Just Can't Wait To Be King"...I think it's very scary to give this guy 18 months to "rule by decree." Scary.

I don't see how this is at all scary. He is certainly not in a position to project meaningful power, he seems unwilling to do so, and seems to need his relationship with the United States more than we need him.

What about this man frightens you?

Roo wrote:

...I think it's very scary to give this guy 18 months to "rule by decree." Scary.

As opposed to the decades we give various mideast kings to "rule by decree"? If there is one thing the U.S. is in no position to question, it's the scariness of dictatorships.

Funkenpants wrote:
Roo wrote:

...I think it's very scary to give this guy 18 months to "rule by decree." Scary.

As opposed to the decades we give various mideast kings to "rule by decree"? If there is one thing the U.S. is in no position to question, it's the scariness of dictatorships.

Amen to that. We didn't seem to have any problem allowing Augusto Pinochet to "rule by decree" for decades after assassinating a democratically elected president with CIA help.

Robear wrote:

Boy, is he ever lucky that we are so busy in the ME, or we'd have some boys down there muy pronto!

Oh, don't worry, there are boys down there now. It's just the black helicopter midnight abduction/interrogation crew at the moment, though. :p

Paleocon wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Roo wrote:

...I think it's very scary to give this guy 18 months to "rule by decree." Scary.

As opposed to the decades we give various mideast kings to "rule by decree"? If there is one thing the U.S. is in no position to question, it's the scariness of dictatorships.

Amen to that. We didn't seem to have any problem allowing Augusto Pinochet to "rule by decree" for decades after assassinating a democratically elected president with CIA help.

So dictators don't matter anymore, it's who we make dictator?

Anymore? That's the way it's always been, isn't it?

souldaddy wrote:

So dictators don't matter anymore, it's who we make dictator?

I think it would be hard to examine American history in Latin America without coming to the conclusion that our approach over the past 150 or so years has been based on furthering our own commercial interests rather than the protection of human rights.

Human rights are pretty great, but I think the US would be foolish to not have some self interest in mind in its foreign affairs.