solaris you SOB,trow your tv and PC out of your house to please your idol

[MiccyNarc]

I fully support Chavez's decision here. First of all, 80% of the media in Venusuala is privately owned and run by corporations who are owned by people with alot of money to lose if Chavez's socialist policies hit them. So they provide very biased reports against the government. Chavez does nothing to stop them. No reporters are ever locked up for writing anti-Chavez reports, and they do, a lot. It is key to understand that Chavez is not stopping this media station simply becuase they are anti-Chavez. I invite anyone to challenge me on this.

The reason he is stopping this media station is becuase it is anti-democratic. It 2002 it helped the coup d'etat against Chavez. Through mis-information and refusal to report what was happening and actively calling people to joining violent protests, it helped orchestrate and fully supported the other throwing of a democratically elected government. Imagine if it was Channel 4 calling for people to support an army coup for political control in Britain, when a democratic government was re-established of course we would get Channel 4 off the air. Any reasonable democracy would.

Rjmc - oh ah, chavez e no ce va

My god are you this stupid? I can't believe you support state sponsored media.

I hope you realize that whoever controls the mass media controls the political process.

 

[theotherguy]

Chavez needs to gtfo. Seriously, this is terrible.

 

[15357]

are you sure you know who Pinochet is? because it ddoesnt seem like you do. It's just another example of how quick you are to jump to anything that is anti-communist ..even if they're responsible for crimes against humanity ..but who cares so long as they fight communism the deaths of 10's of thousands of innocent civilians is surely worth it, because the state is more important than the people ...right?

Oh.


Anyway, yes it's acceptable, becaus communism has been proven, by tial and error, to kill millions in the process.

 

[Absinthe]

Oh.


Anyway, yes it's acceptable, becaus communism has been proven, by tial and error, to kill millions in the process.

When the opposition towards Communism begins to embody the very things it's supposedly fighting against, you know something has to be wrong.

If the solution to unnecessary loss of life, curtailing of freedoms, and media control is just the same shit in the other direction, then we're all ****ed.

 

[15357]

When the opposition towards Communism begins to embody the very things it's supposedly fighting against, you know something has to be wrong.

If the solution to unnecessary loss of life, curtailing of freedoms, and media control is just the same shit in the other direction, then we're all ****ed.

In order to protect Freedom, we must make sacrifices.

The 10,000 dead VS the 200 million dead option, curtailing the freedom of speech VS curtailing the freedom of choice,property,and life. Media control for the common good, and not for an Orwellian Party. Some freedoms are more free than others.

 

[Absinthe]

In order to protect Freedom, we must make sacrifices.

The 10,000 dead VS the 200 million dead option, curtailing the freedom of speech VS curtailing the freedom of choice,property,and life. Media control for the common good, and not for an Orwellian Party. Some freedoms are more free than others.

Allende was democratically elected.
Pinochet seized power through a military uprising and then hammered down on opposition and dissent.

Allende killed himself.
Pinochet killed over 3,000 Chileans for political reasons and imprisoned/tortured/exiled countless more.

You talk about freedom of choice and speech. But in this case, it was a communist that held these better than you could ever willingly admit. Media control is almost never for the common good, but for the preservation of an agenda. What you support is nothing but the other side of the totalitarian coin, and just like your enemies, you've bullshitted yourself into thinking that you're different and justified.

You aren't. You're just as bad as the people you hate so much. The only difference between the governments you condone and condemn are their economic policies. If the government of Venezuela were to disintegrate tomorrow and your favorite, fascist nut**** took over, it would be the same shit just under a different name. Instead of vile, commie abuse, it would be "the preservation of freedom" or whatever spin sounds good.

It would be one thing if you actually critically evaluated communist nations, but it's always the same old kneejerking. You hate Communsim for the sake of hating Commiunism, with no regard for whatever it might entail. You can't convince me you have a serious, thought-out rationale for your views. If you did, you wouldn't have a double standard that exempts authoritarian governments from the crimes lefties commit.

Protecting freedom by killing it... Seriously.

 

[Jintor]

"You would protect your beloved country, even if you had to kill every man, woman and child in it to do so."

 

[Solaris]

My god are you this stupid? I can't believe you support state sponsored media.

I hope you realize that whoever controls the mass media controls the political process.

Yes, but here is the thing Mr.Narc. Chavez does not control the mass media and has not attempted too. 95%+of the media in Venezuela is privately run and Chavez does not try to stop that. Only when a media station actively takes part in a military coup did he step in.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Hey, maybe if one side or the other presented evidence or sources as to whether or not this privately-run channel deserved to be shut down, then we might have a more productive outcome to this argument.

 

[Solaris]

Hey, maybe if one side or the other presented evidence or sources as to whether or not this privately-run channel deserved to be shut down, then we might have a more productive outcome to this argument.

Psst: All I can find is a letter to the guardian by the Venezuela ministry for information.

 

[15357]

Allende was democratically elected.
Pinochet seized power through a military uprising and then hammered down on opposition and dissent.

Somebody has to step in if the irresponsibility of the nationals and citizens drives a country over to the shityard. "Hammering down on opposition and dissent", or as I call it, "keeping order", is critical to a country's stability when there are sudden changes in the political atmosphere, and possible threats to the continued sovereignity of the nation.

Allende killed himself.
Pinochet killed over 3,000 Chileans for political reasons and imprisoned/tortured/exiled countless more.

Chile should never hae elected Allende in the first place.

You talk about freedom of choice and speech. But in this case, it was a communist that held these better than you could ever willingly admit. Media control is almost never for the common good, but for the preservation of an agenda. What you support is nothing but the other side of the totalitarian coin, and just like your enemies, you've bullshitted yourself into thinking that you're different and justified.

The freedom to live, the freedom to be in peace and in stability is more important than free speech. There are times when Media control must be employed in order to preserve the nation, and stop the insemination of viral philosophies. What I support valuess freedom and prosperity, a person's right to his property, and a person's right to live without fear of a communist invader coming and chopping his nose off. If there has to be some curtailing of civil liberties in order to keep people safe, than so be it.

You aren't. You're just as bad as the people you hate so much. The only difference between the governments you condone and condemn are their economic policies. If the government of Venezuela were to disintegrate tomorrow and your favorite, fascist nut**** took over, it would be the same shit just under a different name. Instead of vile, commie abuse, it would be "the preservation of freedom" or whatever spin sounds good.

.........

It would be one thing if you actually critically evaluated communist nations, but it's always the same old kneejerking. You hate Communsim for the sake of hating Commiunism, with no regard for whatever it might entail. You can't convince me you have a serious, thought-out rationale for your views. If you did, you wouldn't have a double standard that exempts authoritarian governments from the crimes lefties commit.

Because the "crimes" that are commited by somewhat authoritarian goverments are for the purpose of safekeeping individuals, and to stop people from falling and dying and whatever, and not to ensure that some guy takes your quarter for his penny.

Protecting freedom by killing it... Seriously.

You fight fire with fire.

 

[Icarusintel]

Psst: All I can find is a letter to the guardian by the Venezuela ministry for information.

Then I'm definitely trusting RJMC on this one, since he actually lives there and can see what's going on. He's certainly biased on the situation, but at least he can get more facts about it than most of us.

First of all, 80% of the media in Venusuala is privately owned and run by corporations

95%+of the media in Venezuela is privately run

Edit: Your numbers seem to have changed there. That tells me you're either bullshitting or your source is incredibly vague.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Somebody has to step in if the irresponsibility of the nationals and citizens drives a country over to the shityard. "Hammering down on opposition and dissent", or as I call it, "keeping order", is critical to a country's stability when there are sudden changes in the political atmosphere, and possible threats to the continued sovereignity of the nation.

What is more disruptive to the stability of a country than the sudden and violent imposition of military rule? Democracy is stable, that's the whole point - the party system ensures a peaceful transfer of power and the system and its institutions are generally supported, even if the parties themselves are not.

A properly run democracy ensures that even if we do not like a government, we accept its right to rule based on the political system.

Stop talking bullshit. At the very least substantiate your assertion that Chile was becomign a shityard; support your claim that the continued sovereignty of the nation was threatened. You can't possbly claim such blatantly anti-democratic action is necessary without any evidence.

Chile should never hae elected Allende in the first place.

God, you're a scumbag. That is not your decision to make, or Pinochet's.

The freedom to live, the freedom to be in peace and in stability is more important than free speech.

Show us evidence that these freedoms were threatened more by communist government than by a MILITARY COUP.

There are times when Media control must be employed in order to preserve the nation, and stop the insemination of viral philosophies. What I support valuess freedom and prosperity, a person's right to his property, and a person's right to live without fear of a communist invader coming and chopping his nose off. If there has to be some curtailing of civil liberties in order to keep people safe, than so be it.

Show us evidence that safety was threatened more by peaceful communist government than by a MILITARY COUP.

Your whole philosophy is based on arbitrarily deciding that safety and 'freedom' are threatened and thus curtailing them. Sometimes you don't even claim public safety or greater good as justification; sometimes ("viral ideologies") you just literally say "Communism is bad because it is bad" and thus support the destruction of freedom.

I'm not saying Allende was good but I'm saying that you have to work extremely hard to justify the kind of shit you're talking about and so far you haven't even tried.

 

[15357]

What is more disruptive to the stability of a country than the sudden and violent imposition of military rule? Democracy is stable, that's the whole point - the party system ensures a peaceful transfer of power and the system and its institutions are generally supported, even if the parties themselves are not.

But sometimes it fails. Thats the whole point of a coup.

A properly run democracy ensures that even if we do not like a government, we accept its right to rule based on the political system.

And therfore accept the consequences, in this case, poverty, nationalization of property, etc.

Stop talking bullshit. At the very least substantiate your assertion that Chile was becomign a shityard; support your claim that the continued sovereignty of the nation was threatened. You can't possbly claim such blatantly anti-democratic action is necessary without any evidence.

In 1973, at the behest of the legislative and judicial branches of government, Pinochet participated in a coup d'?tat that deposed the democratically-elected Marxist President Salvador Allende and established a military government.

Now, tell me, which marxist goverment hasn't gone to shit?

God, you're a scumbag. That is not your decision to make, or Pinochet's.

\

Unfortunately for Chile and the rest of the world, you are correct.

Show us evidence that these freedoms were threatened more by communist government than by a MILITARY COUP.

Communism has a tendency to turn bad, almost always. just look at North Kroea, the USSR, Romania under Mr. C, etc.

Show us evidence that safety was threatened more by peaceful communist government than by a MILITARY COUP.

Again, communist goverments have a tendency to forcibly evict and kill people in gulags.

Your whole philosophy is based on arbitrarily deciding that safety and 'freedom' are threatened and thus curtailing them. Sometimes you don't even claim public safety or greater good as justification; sometimes ("viral ideologies") you just literally say "Communism is bad because it is bad" and thus support the destruction of freedom.

People can get confused through these ideals. People might think that this whole goverment is bad and should be destroyed, causing untold havoc in the process. Look at most revolutions in the world. My whole ideaology is based on preventing communist revolutions.

I'm not saying Allende was good but I'm saying that you have to work extremely hard to justify the kind of shit you're talking about and so far you haven't even tried.

Maybe you are right about Chile, but perhaps Chile is only a special case.

 

[Absinthe]

Somebody has to step in if the irresponsibility of the nationals and citizens drives a country over to the shityard. "Hammering down on opposition and dissent", or as I call it, "keeping order", is critical to a country's stability when there are sudden changes in the political atmosphere, and possible threats to the continued sovereignity of the nation.

Here's the problem: Your definition of irresponsibility is so vague yet extensive that pretty much anything that doesn't fit into your narrow view can be considered "civil disobedience" or whatever euphemism you wish to employ.

You're practically half-Communist as it is, given the similarities between who you support and who you fight.

Chile should never hae elected Allende in the first place.

Oh, come now, Numbers. You can't have it both ways. You can't value freedom of speech and choice in one post and then call for their removal in the next.

Make up your mind.

The freedom to live, the freedom to be in peace and in stability is more important than free speech. There are times when Media control must be employed in order to preserve the nation, and stop the insemination of viral philosophies. What I support valuess freedom and prosperity, a person's right to his property, and a person's right to live without fear of a communist invader coming and chopping his nose off. If there has to be some curtailing of civil liberties in order to keep people safe, than so be it.

Your methods for procuring peace and stability contribute to human suffering across the globe. Ignoring that the two are not mutually exclusive, you are once again mimicking Communist governments of old to near perfection.

Here's some news for you, Numbers. Not every communist wants to kill you. If such were the case, you'd be dead already just from your dealings here alone. I realize this is probably lost on you, considering the blatant signs of indoctrination you exhibit, but I can assure you it's the truth. But for such a supposedly dangerous philosophy, you've certainly done a great deal to give more power to the idea.

Ideas live on, no matter how many boots you stomp in their faces. Rare it is in modern history where attempts of physical destruction have prevailed. All you've done is set yourself up in an unending conflict that will keep people powerless, restricted, and ignorant for generations. How in holy Hell can you make a 1984 reference and not even understand what it's about?

If your grand vision of the future is assuming human stupidity and huddling people into safety zones where concepts like individual thought and freedom are a joke, then congratulations on cheapening human existence. Living for the sheer sake of it has to be an extremely bleak prospect.

You fight fire with fire.

And guess what happens when you do that? More fire! Easily the most retarded saying in the world. But hey, at least you admitted you're identical in more ways than one.

Even if we could objectively say that the coup averted some impending, apocalyptic disaster at the hands of Allende, that in no way justifies the atrocities Pinochet committed. Vomiting on your shirt may be better than shitting your pants, but I wouldn't recommend either.

 

[15357]

Here's the problem: Your definition of irresponsibility is so vague yet extensive that pretty much anything that doesn't fit into your narrow view can be considered "civil disobedience" or whatever euphemism you wish to employ.

My definition is simple. Electing a communist goverment, in whcih it has been proven in many cases to be stupid, is irresponsible. Not voting would be a much more responsible thing to do.

You're practically half-Communist as it is, given the similarities between who you support and who you fight.

That half goes a long, long way.

Oh, come now, Numbers. You can't have it both ways. You can't value freedom of speech and choice in one post and then call for their removal in the next.

Make up your mind.

I mean to say, if more valuable freedoms than free speech are threatened, it is OK to remove them to make space for defence.

Your methods for procuring peace and stability contribute to human suffering across the globe.

Perfection is costly, and perfect peace requires perfect victory.

Ignoring that the two are not mutually exclusive, you are once again mimicking Communist governments of old to near perfection.

I have no response available for this.

Here's some news for you, Numbers. Not every communist wants to kill you. If such were the case, you'd be dead already just from your dealings here alone.

Or maybe the police and military here are doing their jobs?

I realize this is probably lost on you, considering the blatant signs of indoctrination you exhibit, but I can assure you it's the truth. But for such a supposedly dangerous philosophy, you've certainly done a great deal to give more power to the idea.

Ideas live on, no matter how many boots you stomp in their faces. Rare it is in modern history where attempts of physical destruction have prevailed. All you've done is set yourself up in an unending conflict that will keep people powerless, restricted, and ignorant for generations. How in holy Hell can you make a 1984 reference and not even understand what it's about?

The only way I know to get rid of a plague is to quarantine it, to burn down the infected, and to kill all the germs and carriers.

And I thought 1984 was all about anti-communism.

If your grand vision of the future is assuming human stupidity and huddling people into safety zones where concepts like individual thought and freedom are a joke, then congratulations on cheapening human existence. Living for the sheer sake of it has to be an extremely bleak prospect.

My grand vision of the future is not what you believe. My grand vision has in it the general happiness of the population coupled with economic prosperity, stability of the entire nation, perhaps not peace, but a military large enough to ensure victory in any scenario that may come to pass. The process may get rid of the lesser freedoms, but the fundamentals, the right to live without fear, the right be safe, and the right to have justice and order sceed in society will be upheld. That is my dream. That is the future.

And guess what happens when you do that? More fire! Easily the most retarded saying in the world. But hey, at least you admitted you're identical in more ways than one.

Even if we could objectively say that the coup averted some impending, apocalyptic disaster at the hands of Allende, that in no way justifies the atrocities Pinochet committed. Vomiting on your shirt may be better than shitting your pants, but I wouldn't recommend either.

You know, when I have no response to a point that you make, a part of me knows that you're right. But the other part just can't bring itself to let go of my older beliefs, in which I think they are right as well.

I think the main problem here is that I get enlightened by what you say, but my beliefs get stronger every week.

 

[Sulkdodds]

But sometimes it fails. Thats the whole point of a coup.

In this case, the coup is the failure.

And therfore accept the consequences, in this case, poverty, nationalization of property, etc.

Objective evidence that these consequences occured and justified Pinochet's actions, please.

Communism has a tendency to turn bad, almost always. just look at North Kroea, the USSR, Romania under Mr. C, etc...communist goverments have a tendency to forcibly evict and kill people in gulags.

What, exactly like Pinochet did? So he actually created the state he was acting to prevent. Brilliant.

This isn't enough evidence on its own; it's not even real evidence. You would need to provide me with very persuasive evidence that every communist government has gone to shit precisely because it's communist (newsflash: not all oppressive governments are communist). As you haven't, or can't, there's no way you can claim that as justification for a coup. You can't just say "communist governments are sometimes bad therefore killing 3000 people and taking over the country and destroying freedom to stop a communist government is good" because it's stupid. Show me evidence that the horrible results of communism had happened, not that they might maybe possibly have.

People can get confused through these ideals. People might think that this whole goverment is bad and should be destroyed, causing untold havoc in the process. Look at most revolutions in the world. My whole ideaology is based on preventing communist revolutions.

The fact that you haven't actually answered my challenge - haven't yet managed to show what's so bad about communism that any movement towards it justifies totalitarianism - simply proves my point; for you, saying things are bad because they are bad is enough. There is no logic to it.

Neither have you provided any evidence that socialist policies, or those of Allende specifically, would have moved inevitably to revolution.

That "causing untold havoc" and destroying government is exactly the measure taken by Pinochet, rather than being the result of communist revolution, hardly helps your argument. As Absinthe says, you support the measures you claim they are implemented to prevent. It's ridiculous.

You need to start making sense and thinking for yourself.

If you know you're wrong, why are you persisting? It's counter-productive.

 

[Beerdude26]

Wow I just don't know what to say :|

I'm happy to be living in Belgium after all these ****ed-up debates in this thread.

 

[Solaris]

Then I'm definitely trusting RJMC on this one, since he actually lives there and can see what's going on. He's certainly biased on the situation, but at least he can get more facts about it than most of us.
Edit: Your numbers seem to have changed there. That tells me you're either bullshitting or your source is incredibly vague.

I remembered a letter badly, then re-read it.

I'm looking for some better sources right now on what the media station in question broadcast, then we should be able to reach an agreement.

 

[Kadayi]

I fully support Chavez's decision here. First of all, 80% of the media in Venusuala is privately owned and run by corporations who are owned by people with alot of money to lose if Chavez's socialist policies hit them. So they provide very biased reports against the government. Chavez does nothing to stop them. No reporters are ever locked up for writing anti-Chavez reports, and they do, a lot. It is key to understand that Chavez is not stopping this media station simply becuase they are anti-Chavez. I invite anyone to challenge me on this.

The reason he is stopping this media station is becuase it is anti-democratic. It 2002 it helped the coup d'etat against Chavez. Through mis-information and refusal to report what was happening and actively calling people to joining violent protests, it helped orchestrate and fully supported the other throwing of a democratically elected government. Imagine if it was Channel 4 calling for people to support an army coup for political control in Britain, when a democratic government was re-established of course we would get Channel 4 off the air. Any reasonable democracy would.

Rjmc - oh ah, chavez e no ce va

I have to say Solaris has the stronger position. They actively supported a attempt at a coup, closing down the station is pretty lenient tbfh given the circumstances, as it constitutes an act of treason.

Oh.Anyway, yes it's acceptable, becaus communism has been proven, by tial and error, to kill millions in the process.

Facts and figures please to support that bold assertion.

 

[<RJMC>]

Psst: All I can find is a letter to the guardian by the Venezuela ministry for information.

in other words: the goverment

and you call me biased

NOT: every part and divition of the goverment is under chavez simpathisers,even the congress,and if you want proof check one of theyr declarations,they allways mention how great the dectition of chavez,so its obvious that every thing he wishes is done whitout questiong

but no I am biased

 

[<RJMC>]

I have to say Solaris has the stronger position. They actively supported a attempt at a coup, closing down the station is pretty lenient tbfh given the circumstances, as it constitutes an act of treason.

the princicpal point is that this is not about justice and that sutff is just personal decition of the goverment,just look at how the goverment reatcs about it,replacing that channel whit a goverment funded one,and again look at the response of the goverment

for example few minutes ago there was a press whit the major of the capital,one reporter asked the amount of injured polices and they responded,when it asked the amount of protester injured the major started whit something about that the amounts of studetns in the capital is 200.000 and in the protest there was 3000 assistant so is not simbolize the "popular" opinion and the reporter keep asking about the injured and the major keep whit his stuff
cmon you think the goverment is acting in a just way?

but no I am biased

 

[15357]

In this case, the coup is the failure.

Or merely evidence of a falling democracy.

Objective evidence that these consequences occured and justified Pinochet's actions, please.

Sources tell us that Allende was a Marxist, and objectively speaking through many examples throughout history, take the USSR for example, that it would have happened sooner or later.

What, exactly like Pinochet did? So he actually created the state he was acting to prevent. Brilliant.

This isn't enough evidence on its own; it's not even real evidence. You would need to provide me with very persuasive evidence that every communist government has gone to shit precisely because it's communist (newsflash: not all oppressive governments are communist). As you haven't, or can't, there's no way you can claim that as justification for a coup. You can't just say "communist governments are sometimes bad therefore killing 3000 people and taking over the country and destroying freedom to stop a communist government is good" because it's stupid. Show me evidence that the horrible results of communism had happened, not that they might maybe possibly have.

There are no examples of a good communist goverment, because collectivism does not work with freedom. And I cannot, because it was a preventive measure.

The fact that you haven't actually answered my challenge - haven't yet managed to show what's so bad about communism that any movement towards it justifies totalitarianism - simply proves my point; for you, saying things are bad because they are bad is enough. There is no logic to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea

Neither have you provided any evidence that socialist policies, or those of Allende specifically, would have moved inevitably to revolution.

But it would have led to poverty, by many examples again, throughout history.

That "causing untold havoc" and destroying government is exactly the measure taken by Pinochet, rather than being the result of communist revolution, hardly helps your argument. As Absinthe says, you support the measures you claim they are implemented to prevent. It's ridiculous.

He modernized Chile, and din't destroy it in a heap of red flags.

You need to start making sense and thinking for yourself.

If you know you're wrong, why are you persisting? It's counter-productive.

Because it seems that there are exactly the same amount of reasons that tell me I'm right and vice versa.

Wow I just don't know what to say :|

I'm happy to be living in Belgium after all these ****ed-up debates in this thread.

Not to worry, I'll get Belgium someday.

I have to say Solaris has the stronger position. They actively supported a attempt at a coup, closing down the station is pretty lenient tbfh given the circumstances, as it constitutes an act of treason.




Facts and figures please to support that bold assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Romania


Etc.

 

[CptStern]

<text book copy paste without a shred of insight into what really happened ..brainwashed ideology pushing rhetoric >

yes the murder/torture of tens of thousands is worth avoiding the possibility of socialism and at the very worst coummunism :rolling:

you're so hopelessly naive Numbers ..they really did a number on you with the brainwashing thingy

 

[Icarusintel]

I have to say Solaris has the stronger position. They actively supported a attempt at a coup, closing down the station is pretty lenient tbfh given the circumstances, as it constitutes an act of treason.

Really? Ok, I've been looking around and still haven't found evidence they even did anything to support the coup. So, until I see some proof they did, I'm calling this all bullshit. Chavez just happens to take over the TV network with the highest ratings so he can put state-run TV programs on it. Yeah, right. Until someone, probably Solaris since he made the original claim, shows some sort of proof, this is all conjecture.

To use your own words -

Facts and figures please to support that bold assertion.

 

[<RJMC>]

Really? Ok, I've been looking around and still haven't found evidence they even did anything to support the coup. So, until I see some proof they did, I'm calling this all bullshit. Chavez just happens to take over the TV network with the highest ratings so he can put state-run TV programs on it. Yeah, right. Until someone, probably Solaris since he made the original claim, shows some sort of proof, this is all conjecture.

they just focused a lot on the power take and when chavez came back they didnt show him

the responsibles for the coup where some military comandres and some politician
btw there are "documentaries" of the goverment in the internet which are a load of bullcrap,fore example saying tha tthe private media blocked the signal of the goverment funded channel,when it was not,even in the same channel they said that the major of that time ordered to shut the channel,and is not the only fake stuff

also a list of channels in venezuela
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Venezuelan_television_channels
check the nationwide ones specially since those are the most watched and see if the privates own the 95% of the total

but no I am biased

btw some examples of a show of a goverment funded channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB381fUnrZA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7iMQeZ-XdA
translate yourself since I am biased

 

[Solaris]

A source!!

Radio Caracas TV openly called for Mr Chavez to be removed from power during a failed coup attempt in 2002.

The BBC

 

[Sparta]

You fight fire with fire.

You just don't get it do you? You cannot save freedom by taking away freedom. You say things that make you sound like you know whats best for the people, yet there are some of the same things countless dictators have said and tried to justify before. Only for their regimes to start and end in pools of blood followed a criminal tribune in front of international courts. All for the good of the people right?

And Solaris, i don't understand your way of thinking at all. You live in one of the richest nations in the world, with every liberty possible and yet you have nothing but contempt for the government and people who helped make the nation what it is. I'm not saying you should skip singing praise for Tony Blair and the Labor Party but the fact that you so openly encourage and endorse socialism and facism when you haven't experienced anything remotely close to it, does more to your arguments than anything i've seen anyone else retort with. You're the loudest speaker for the worst argument i've heard in a long time.

We all know democracy isn't perfect. But it sure as hell beats any alternative at this point in time. You may believe communism/socialism to be much better than democracy, but those forms of government only work with the perfect officials. The kind that can't be bribed, the kind that don't crave power but really just want to help the people and make the world a better place for you and me. But lets face it, in this world people like that get shot. And if its not by someone like Chavez than its by someone who thinks it will impress Jodie Foster.

 

[Solaris]

I do not nor ever have endorsed or advocated fascism. I am a staunch anti-fascist.

 

[Sparta]

I do not nor ever have endorsed or advocated fascism. I am a staunch anti-fascist.

Certainly fooled me.

More to the point of the thread, it appears Venezuelans don't agree with Chavez shutting the down the station.

Eighty-three percent of Venezuelans reject discontinuation of RCTV

A survey conducted by polling firm Hinterlaces, following discontinuation of private television station RCTV, shows that 83 percent of the Venezuelan population rejects the fact that the oldest TV channel in the country went off the air, while 14 percent endorsed the government move not to renew RCTV broadcast license and 3 percent refused to answer.

For 74 percent of respondents, the government move means that democracy is at stake in Venezuela, and only 19 percent claimed the decision strengthened democracy in the country.

Hinterlaces conducted the survey last May 28-30 in 15 Venezuelan states (Zulia, Miranda, Distrito Capital, Carabobo, Lara, Aragua, Anzo?tegui, Bol?var, T?chira, Sucre, Falc?n, M?rida, Barinas, Gu?rico and Vargas), with an error margin of 4.7 percent. The firm made the phone survey among 909 people -both women and men- of legal age, who were randomly selected from a national database comprising over 27,000 people.

The survey concluded that only 12 percent of the population has not watched the newly created public service Venezuelan Social Television Station (TVes), which replaces RCTV. However, 70 percent branded TVes as a pro-government television channel, while 17 percent said it is an independent TV station.

Source

 

[Solaris]

Certainly fooled me.

More to the point of the thread, it appears Venezuelans don't agree with Chavez shutting the down the station.



Source

Why would you possibly think I am a fascist?

And the people disagree with it because they're losing their favorite TV shows, boo-hoo. Democracy or Eastenders, democracy must prevail.

 

[<RJMC>]

and now is when you "find" a source?

 

[Solaris]

and now is when you "find" a source?

Yes now is when I find a source.

 

[<RJMC>]

if you cared that much you will have tryed to find a source quickly

but off course when your talked is when you cared

 

[SAJ]

If youre all so keen to find sources, look harder they arent that hard to find

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

The story is framed in U.S. news media as a simple matter of censorship: Prominent Venezuelan TV station RCTV is being silenced by the authoritarian government of President Hugo Ch?vez, who is punishing the station for its political criticism of his government....
...The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Ch?vez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-jones30may30,1,5553603.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

After military rebels overthrew Chavez and he disappeared from public view for two days, RCTV's biased coverage edged fully into sedition. Thousands of Chavez supporters took to the streets to demand his return, but none of that appeared on RCTV or other television stations. RCTV News Director Andres Izarra later testified at National Assembly hearings on the coup attempt that he received an order from superiors at the station: "Zero pro-Chavez, nothing related to Chavez or his supporters?. The idea was to create a climate of transition and to start to promote the dawn of a new country." While the streets of Caracas burned with rage, RCTV ran cartoons, soap operas and old movies such as "Pretty Woman." On April 13, 2002, Granier and other media moguls met in the Miraflores palace to pledge support to the country's coup-installed dictator, Pedro Carmona, who had eliminated the Supreme Court, the National Assembly and the Constitution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/storyville/chavez.shtml

The result is a brilliant piece of journalism but it is also an astonishing portrait of the balance of forces in Venezuela. On one side stand the Versace wearing classes, rich from many decades of oil revenues, and on the other the poor in their barrios and those within the armed forces who support Chavez.

The media, who ought to be merely reporting the conflict splitting the country down the middle, are in fact adjuncts of the coup-makers.

Watch this film and you may truly for the first time in your life understand the term media bias.

(relates to the documentary "the revolution will be televised" compulsory viewing on the subject)

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2007/0530/1180471720603.html

The RCTV station in fact led and provoked the violent coup attempt against Mr Ch?vez in 2002. Since then it has not ceased its outright opposition to him and has never retracted its support for that violence. Its political line draws on hard right-wing neoconservatism, inspired by the Fox news channel in the United States.

It shares much of this ideology with most other sections of the Venezuelan media, based on vested interests of powerful sectors opposed to Mr Ch?vez's social reforms. The station has not been banned and is free to continue its cable and satellite channels. Most Venezuelans polled say they oppose the measure because RCTV runs several favourite soap operas

.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11970

RCTV's participation in the constitutional breakdown of April 2002 was so extensive that its production manager, Andr?s Izarra, who opposed the coup, immediately resigned so as not to become an accomplice. Testifying before the National Assembly, Izarra stated that on the day of the coup and in the following days he received a formal order from Granier "to not broadcast any information about Ch?vez, his followers, ministers, or any other person who might be connected to him."

(quote from -Eva Golinger, The Ch?vez Code (Havana: Social Sciences Publishing House, 2005), pg. 125.)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030303/klein

On April 13, 2002, the day after business leader Pedro Carmona briefly seized power, Izarra quit that job under what he describes as "extreme emotional stress." Ever since, he has been sounding the alarm about the threat posed to democracy when the media decide to abandon journalism and pour all their persuasive powers into winning a war being waged over oil.

Venezuela's private television stations are owned by wealthy families with serious financial stakes in defeating Ch?vez. Venevisi?n, the most-watched network, is owned by Gustavo Cisneros, a mogul dubbed "the joint venture king" by the New York Post. The Cisneros Group has partnered with many top US brands--from AOL and Coca-Cola to Pizza Hut and Playboy--becoming a gatekeeper to the Latin American market.

Cisneros is also a tireless proselytizer for continental free trade, telling the world, as he did in a 1999 profile in LatinCEO magazine, that "Latin America is now fully committed to free trade, and fully committed to globalization.... As a continent it has made a choice." But with Latin American voters choosing politicians like Ch?vez, that has been looking like false advertising, selling a consensus that doesn't exist.

All this helps explain why, in the days leading up to the April coup, Venevisi?n, RCTV, Globovisi?n and Televen replaced regular programming with relentless anti-Ch?vez speeches, interrupted only for commercials calling on viewers to take to the streets: "Not one step backward. Out! Leave now!" The ads were sponsored by the oil industry, but the stations carried them free, as "public service announcements."

They went further: On the night of the coup, Cisneros's station played host to meetings among the plotters, including Carmona. The president of Venezuela's broadcasting chamber co-signed the decree dissolving the elected National Assembly. And while the stations openly rejoiced at news of Ch?vez's "resignation," when pro-Ch?vez forces mobilized for his return a total news blackout was imposed.

(Article by Naomi Klein)


For the record I dont support the closure (as far as it goes) of RCTV. I believe it represents a failure of leadership and a weakening of civil society, there are less divissive ways of dealing with the matter.
Having said that , characterising the issue as one of a dictator silencing free speech is just plain dishonest.

 

[Solaris]

Good job their SAJ.

Oo Ah Chavez e no ce va!

 

[<RJMC>]

you should see interviews whit representatives of the goverment

everytime someone ask about this they react like a offense and start praising the new channel

honestly anyone whit some sense can see this is more that tjust the coup thing

for example they are starting threats to other national cable channel,and that channel was the only one to trasmite the last tramsmitions of this other channel rctv,so sure thats the reason

but no I am biased and my opinion is worhtless

 

[Kadayi]

but no I am biased and my opinion is worthless

Your Versace leather Jeans are probably chafing.