Venezuela: la mierda hits el ventilador

[Axulus]

You don't want to accept that Chavez was also bad.

He was not a crook. Not looting the treasury.

He lifted millions of Venezuelans who had been ignored and abused for decades from poverty and gave them an education and health care.

But then again perhaps you think this is "bad"?

If this is true, then why did the percent of spending on health, education and housing by the government decline compared to the pre-1992 era, and stay roughly the same as eight years prior to him gaining power? Why did he and his administration chronically underfund the Consolidated Social Fund, a fund designed to combat poverty, when oil revenues started going up, providing only 1/3 of the legally mandated amount in 2001, effectively diverting resources away from the poor at a time when oil revenues were surging?

Why did inequality actually increase from 2000-2005, with the gini coefficient rising from .44 to .48?

Every country with an oil dependent economy and similar rates of poverty had large decreases in poverty due to the oil boom. It had nothing to do with Chavez and the government as his slick propaganda has you believe.

 

[untermensche]

He was not a crook. Not looting the treasury.

He lifted millions of Venezuelans who had been ignored and abused for decades from poverty and gave them an education and health care.

But then again perhaps you think this is "bad"?

If this is true, then why did the percent of spending on health, education and housing by the government decline compared to the pre-1992 era, and stay roughly the same as eight years prior to him gaining power? Why did he and his administration chronically underfund the Consolidated Social Fund, a fund designed to combat poverty, when oil revenues started going up, providing only 1/3 of the legally mandated amount in 2001, effectively diverting resources away from the poor at a time when oil revenues were surging?

Why did inequality actually increase from 2000-2005, with the gini coefficient rising from .44 to .48?

Every country with an oil dependent economy and similar rates of poverty had large decreases in poverty due to the oil boom. It had nothing to do with Chavez and the government as his slick propaganda has you believe.

Do these numbers actually have a reputable source?

Chavez's enemies owned the media. They published lie after lie.

US media has published lie after lie.

There were media owners that directly supported the coup.

The reason Chavez won election after election was because he helped the people and was admired by the people.

The rich ruling class that ran an apartheid state before him didn't like him very much.

The US that wants to control everything, especially oil, didn't like him very much.

There is probably more disinformation out there about his time in office than information.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If this is true, then why did the percent of spending on health, education and housing by the government decline compared to the pre-1992 era, and stay roughly the same as eight years prior to him gaining power? Why did he and his administration chronically underfund the Consolidated Social Fund, a fund designed to combat poverty, when oil revenues started going up, providing only 1/3 of the legally mandated amount in 2001, effectively diverting resources away from the poor at a time when oil revenues were surging?

Why did inequality actually increase from 2000-2005, with the gini coefficient rising from .44 to .48?

Every country with an oil dependent economy and similar rates of poverty had large decreases in poverty due to the oil boom. It had nothing to do with Chavez and the government as his slick propaganda has you believe.

Do these numbers actually have a reputable source?

Chavez's enemies owned the media. They published lie after lie.

US media has published lie after lie.

There were media owners that directly supported the coup.

The reason Chavez won election after election was because he helped the people and was admired by the people.

The rich ruling class that ran an apartheid state before him didn't like him very much.

The US that wants to control everything, especially oil, didn't like him very much.

There is probably more disinformation out there about his time in office than information.

It's funny. That was the point of chomsky's article I quoted. He pointed out that western media always lies so we can't believe anything they say. Much easier to say they are lying. It's better to believe the snakes oil salesmen because we want to believe in the snake oil.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Chomsky's point was that refugees are more likely than usual to say what their potential refuge-givers want to hear.

Still waiting for something beyond your so far baseless assertions.

Chomsky apparently has never dealt with refugees. The ones I have dealt with certainly are not dumb (though they were peasants) and they are a great source of reliable information. He also is writing this nonsense from his office in Massachusetts with apparently no real factual input other than what he sees on the nightly news (filtered through his idiology) and his futile imagination... and, of course, presents his views in a way that deflects responsibility from socialist or communist groups. It is much like the way he worded his "understanding" of Venezuela as Chavez not able to sufficiently expand industry and agriculture rather than pointing out that Chavez's "reforms" destroyed much of Venezula's industry and agriculture.

Were you in a position to grant or deny US entry to refugees based on their information? If not, your experience has nothing to do with it.

- - - Updated - - -

Do these numbers actually have a reputable source?

Chavez's enemies owned the media. They published lie after lie.

US media has published lie after lie.

There were media owners that directly supported the coup.

The reason Chavez won election after election was because he helped the people and was admired by the people.

The rich ruling class that ran an apartheid state before him didn't like him very much.

The US that wants to control everything, especially oil, didn't like him very much.

There is probably more disinformation out there about his time in office than information.

It's funny. That was the point of chomsky's article I quoted. He pointed out that western media always lies so we can't believe anything they say. Much easier to say they are lying. It's better to believe the snakes oil salesmen because we want to believe in the snake oil.

Uh, Judy Miller? Iraq war? Hello, anyone home?

And please cite where Chomsky says western media "always" lie.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Chomsky apparently has never dealt with refugees. The ones I have dealt with certainly are not dumb (though they were peasants) and they are a great source of reliable information. He also is writing this nonsense from his office in Massachusetts with apparently no real factual input other than what he sees on the nightly news (filtered through his idiology) and his futile imagination... and, of course, presents his views in a way that deflects responsibility from socialist or communist groups. It is much like the way he worded his "understanding" of Venezuela as Chavez not able to sufficiently expand industry and agriculture rather than pointing out that Chavez's "reforms" destroyed much of Venezula's industry and agriculture.

Were you in a position to grant or deny US entry to refugees based on their information? If not, your experience has nothing to do with it.

- - - Updated - - -

Do these numbers actually have a reputable source?

Chavez's enemies owned the media. They published lie after lie.

US media has published lie after lie.

There were media owners that directly supported the coup.

The reason Chavez won election after election was because he helped the people and was admired by the people.

The rich ruling class that ran an apartheid state before him didn't like him very much.

The US that wants to control everything, especially oil, didn't like him very much.

There is probably more disinformation out there about his time in office than information.

It's funny. That was the point of chomsky's article I quoted. He pointed out that western media always lies so we can't believe anything they say. Much easier to say they are lying. It's better to believe the snakes oil salesmen because we want to believe in the snake oil.

Uh, Judy Miller? Iraq war? Hello, anyone home?

And please cite where Chomsky says western media "always" lie.

The first section of that paper was him saying that the press of the US was a farce and not to be believed. He was saying that the US just wanted to save face so they were only going to tell stories that were favorable to them and ignore things that weren't.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

FWIW, here's what Chomsky said recently about South America generally and Venezuela specifically.

Chomsky may (or may not) be a decent scholar of linguistics but all credibility in his political analytical expertise should have been destroyed in the 1970s. This is the man that supported Pol Pot against all criticism.

Pics or it didn't happen.

In this piece, he says that Chavez had little success in moving the economy away from an oil based economy and in developing agriculture and industry. Reality is that Chavez nationalized the fairly productive agricultural and industrial businesses which then collapsed under the new socialist control.

Which is pretty much what Chomsky said: Chavez failed to expand those industries and failed to diversity Venezuela's economy, which -- from an ECONOMIST standpoint -- is exactly what he needed to do to avoid their current problems.

Oil was always a major part of Venezuelan economy but Chavez's "reforms" made Venezuela almost completely dependent on oil.

It wasn't the "reforms" at all, it was just Chavez getting comfortable with the oil revenues and failing to plan for what would happen AFTER all of that. He basically assumed they would have more time to make real change than (hindsight shows) they really had. Then they ran out of time, and it was far too late.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Were you in a position to grant or deny US entry to refugees based on their information? If not, your experience has nothing to do with it.

- - - Updated - - -

Do these numbers actually have a reputable source?

Chavez's enemies owned the media. They published lie after lie.

US media has published lie after lie.

There were media owners that directly supported the coup.

The reason Chavez won election after election was because he helped the people and was admired by the people.

The rich ruling class that ran an apartheid state before him didn't like him very much.

The US that wants to control everything, especially oil, didn't like him very much.

There is probably more disinformation out there about his time in office than information.

It's funny. That was the point of chomsky's article I quoted. He pointed out that western media always lies so we can't believe anything they say. Much easier to say they are lying. It's better to believe the snakes oil salesmen because we want to believe in the snake oil.

Uh, Judy Miller? Iraq war? Hello, anyone home?

And please cite where Chomsky says western media "always" lie.

The first section of that paper was him saying that the press of the US was a farce and not to be believed. He was saying that the US just wanted to save face so they were only going to tell stories that were favorable to them and ignore things that weren't.

And we know that's true at times. Do you doubt it?

Please supply a quote. Your interpretations are rather liberal, no pun intended.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What, EXACTLY, makes you think she's wealthy at all?

Let's start with the basics: how do you even know Hugo Chavez HAS a daughter? What's her name, how old is she, what does she do for a living and where does she currently live? All of which are things you would probably have to know before you can claim she's rich.

Really, now, you question whether he has one??

No, I'm questioning whether or not Trausti actually knows he has one or is simply repeating a claim that has been circulated on the internet (or learned about it right here in this thread).

You are confused. Which is what happens when you answer questions that were specifically directed at someone other than you.

And something of their wealth:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...uela-the-wealth-of-Chavez-family-exposed.html

Cool story, bro...

As Venezuela holds its first election following the death of Hugo Chavez, activists accuse the former president's family of amassing huge personal wealth at the nation's expense.

Which ranks right up there with "Truthers accuse the Bush Administration of planning 9/11" and "Trump accuses Barrack Obama of lying about his birth certificate" or even "Skepticalbip accuses Noam Chomsky of supporting Pol Pot against all evidence of his attrocities."

Accusations do not equal facts. Everyone in this thread knows this except for you. Which is why I wasn't actually asking you and generally do not care about your opinion.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Do these numbers actually have a reputable source?

Chavez's enemies owned the media. They published lie after lie.

US media has published lie after lie.

There were media owners that directly supported the coup.

The reason Chavez won election after election was because he helped the people and was admired by the people.

The rich ruling class that ran an apartheid state before him didn't like him very much.

The US that wants to control everything, especially oil, didn't like him very much.

There is probably more disinformation out there about his time in office than information.

It's funny. That was the point of chomsky's article I quoted. He pointed out that western media always lies so we can't believe anything they say. Much easier to say they are lying. It's better to believe the snakes oil salesmen because we want to believe in the snake oil.

Well, various officials in the U.S. government have actually been caught red handed lying about this kind of shit in the past -- if not openly admitted it. So the broader point is that you're better off not believing government sources AT ALL and instead going with independent media sources that can actually verify their claims with hard evidence.

The U.S. Government has a LONG history of fabricating evidence to denounce socialist/communist countries; hell, they even do it to countries we're supposed to be allies with ("Universal healthcare is a disaster and Canadians are dying in emergency rooms waiting for candy stripers to change their IVs!") For the most part, socialist banana republics have an equally long history of hiding or just ignoring their own misdeeds. All other things being equal, it's better to consider them both untrustworthy; however, in some cases, you can point to the U.S. Government's involvement in deliberately trying to undermine one regime or another, and one has to consider they have a much greater interest in lying about what's happening than the regime in question.

Basically: a guy who beats his wife is a lot more likely to lie about his wife being an alcoholic than the wife is.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's funny. That was the point of chomsky's article I quoted. He pointed out that western media always lies so we can't believe anything they say. Much easier to say they are lying. It's better to believe the snakes oil salesmen because we want to believe in the snake oil.

Well, various officials in the U.S. government have actually been caught red handed lying about this kind of shit in the past -- if not openly admitted it. So the broader point is that you're better off not believing government sources AT ALL and instead going with independent media sources that can actually verify their claims with hard evidence.

The U.S. Government has a LONG history of fabricating evidence to denounce socialist/communist countries; hell, they even do it to countries we're supposed to be allies with ("Universal healthcare is a disaster and Canadians are dying in emergency rooms waiting for candy stripers to change their IVs!") For the most part, socialist banana republics have an equally long history of hiding or just ignoring their own misdeeds. All other things being equal, it's better to consider them both untrustworthy; however, in some cases, you can point to the U.S. Government's involvement in deliberately trying to undermine one regime or another, and one has to consider they have a much greater interest in lying about what's happening than the regime in question.

Basically: a guy who beats his wife is a lot more likely to lie about his wife being an alcoholic than the wife is.

Except that wasn't what Chomsky did here. There were several different viewpoints of the Khmer Rouge. The positive viewpoint of Hildebrandt and Porter and the opposing viewpoints that brought up the atrocities commited by the Khmer Rouge. Chomskys viewpoint of the Porter work was positive and didn't call them third rate propaganda tracts. He said that Porter's work was ignmored in the media because it didn't present the image that the media or government wanted to see in Indochina while the other work was put in a good spotlight because it was anti-communist.


It's interesting. Do you think that in Communist regimes that the Chomsky like person would be allowed to express his viewpoints on the opposite side and be critical of the communist regime?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Well, various officials in the U.S. government have actually been caught red handed lying about this kind of shit in the past -- if not openly admitted it. So the broader point is that you're better off not believing government sources AT ALL and instead going with independent media sources that can actually verify their claims with hard evidence.

The U.S. Government has a LONG history of fabricating evidence to denounce socialist/communist countries; hell, they even do it to countries we're supposed to be allies with ("Universal healthcare is a disaster and Canadians are dying in emergency rooms waiting for candy stripers to change their IVs!") For the most part, socialist banana republics have an equally long history of hiding or just ignoring their own misdeeds. All other things being equal, it's better to consider them both untrustworthy; however, in some cases, you can point to the U.S. Government's involvement in deliberately trying to undermine one regime or another, and one has to consider they have a much greater interest in lying about what's happening than the regime in question.

Basically: a guy who beats his wife is a lot more likely to lie about his wife being an alcoholic than the wife is.

Except that wasn't what Chomsky did here. There were several different viewpoints of the Khmer Rouge. The positive viewpoint of Hildebrandt and Porter and the opposing viewpoints that brought up the atrocities commited by the Khmer Rouge. Chomskys viewpoint of the Porter work was positive and didn't call them third rate propaganda tracts. He said that Porter's work was ignmored in the media because it didn't present the image that the media or government wanted to see in Indochina while the other work was put in a good spotlight because it was anti-communist.

And as far as that goes, he's not wrong. The government DID reject his viewpoint for the sake of its anti-communist agenda. The fact that Porter later turned out to be wrong doesn't change the validity of this point.

Do you think that in Communist regimes that the Chomsky like person would be allowed to express his viewpoints on the opposite side and be critical of the communist regime?

Of course he would. That's EXACTLY what RCTV did leading up to the coup against Chavez and what it continued to do for 5 years after the fact until the government pulled their broadcast license (but still let them broadcast on cable and satellite, amazingly).

Here's a better question: do yo think in democratic regimes that Kapernick-like person would be allowed to express his opposition to police brutality and oppression?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except that wasn't what Chomsky did here. There were several different viewpoints of the Khmer Rouge. The positive viewpoint of Hildebrandt and Porter and the opposing viewpoints that brought up the atrocities commited by the Khmer Rouge. Chomskys viewpoint of the Porter work was positive and didn't call them third rate propaganda tracts. He said that Porter's work was ignmored in the media because it didn't present the image that the media or government wanted to see in Indochina while the other work was put in a good spotlight because it was anti-communist.

And as far as that goes, he's not wrong. The government DID reject his viewpoint for the sake of its anti-communist agenda. The fact that Porter later turned out to be wrong doesn't change the validity of this point.

Do you think that in Communist regimes that the Chomsky like person would be allowed to express his viewpoints on the opposite side and be critical of the communist regime?

Of course he would. That's EXACTLY what RCTV did leading up to the coup against Chavez and what it continued to do for 5 years after the fact until the government pulled their broadcast license (but still let them broadcast on cable and satellite, amazingly).

Here's a better question: do yo think in democratic regimes that Kapernick-like person would be allowed to express his opposition to police brutality and oppression?

He was pointing out the media and not necessarily the government there.

Here is much longer and better articulated article on Chomsky and his indirect support for the regime. It was never, Hey it's the greatest regime ever, but more of hey moving people from the city to work in rice paddies was needed because of American bombing that ended a year and ahlf earlier. Or that child slavery is fine if you label it vocation training.

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

So I want to make sure. Chavez threatens the cable channel in 2007 and suspends its broadcasting license because it supposedly only spreads lies. Then in 2010 it shuts them down n cable saying they aren't broadcasting all his speeches. Was Chomsky perceive Venezuela as manufacting consent through media too?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So I want to make sure. Chavez threatens the cable channel in 2007 and suspends its broadcasting license because it supposedly only spreads lies...

If by "supposedly only spreads lies" you mean "Openly and directly provides both material support and propaganda support to an illegal coup against a democratically elected president," yes.

Is that better or worse than what Chomsky did?

Was Chomsky perceive Venezuela as manufacting consent through media too?

AFAIK, it's one of the things he was worried about and hoped they would not use RCTV's dickish behavior as an excuse to crack down on freedom of the press, all while acknowledging that RCTV's behavior was undeniably QUITE dickish.

 

[skepticalbip]

Here is much longer and better articulated article on Chomsky and his indirect support for the regime. It was never, Hey it's the greatest regime ever, but more of hey moving people from the city to work in rice paddies was needed because of American bombing that ended a year and ahlf earlier. Or that child slavery is fine if you label it vocation training.

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

Yes, Chomsky is a master of Orwellian doublespeak. Sadly, there are many that accept it as rational analysis rather than the ideological apologetics it is.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If by "supposedly only spreads lies" you mean "Openly and directly provides both material support and propaganda support to an illegal coup against a democratically elected president," yes.

Is that better or worse than what Chomsky did?

Was Chomsky perceive Venezuela as manufacting consent through media too?

AFAIK, it's one of the things he was worried about and hoped they would not use RCTV's dickish behavior as an excuse to crack down on freedom of the press, all while acknowledging that RCTV's behavior was undeniably QUITE dickish.

Are people consistent with that? Or is it only allowed if it's something you agree with? Chomsky would point that out in the US where media supposedly only reports news in favor of the government. When the Pentagon Papers came out they tried to get them charged with treason? Did Chomsky think the Pentagon Papers should be kept secret for example?

 

[untermensche]

Here is much longer and better articulated article on Chomsky and his indirect support for the regime. It was never, Hey it's the greatest regime ever, but more of hey moving people from the city to work in rice paddies was needed because of American bombing that ended a year and ahlf earlier. Or that child slavery is fine if you label it vocation training.

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm

Yes, Chomsky is a master of Orwellian doublespeak. Sadly, there are many that accept it as rational analysis rather than the ideological apologetics it is.

You're insane.

You are spewing absolute nonsense.

You cannot support anything you claim with actual evidence. You have not supported a lie you spew.

Hard to understand how somebody can be so wrong.

The world of US apologists over Vietnam is a crazy place.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes, Chomsky is a master of Orwellian doublespeak. Sadly, there are many that accept it as rational analysis rather than the ideological apologetics it is.

You're insane.

You are spewing absolute nonsense.
.

Thanks for providing confirmation of my post.

 

[untermensche]

You're insane.

You are spewing absolute nonsense.
.

Thanks for providing confirmation of my post.

I've confirmed you have insane ideas that conform to no evidence.

I know Chomsky has his enemies.

I didn't know these enemies had deluded flunkies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's funny. That was the point of chomsky's article I quoted. He pointed out that western media always lies so we can't believe anything they say. Much easier to say they are lying. It's better to believe the snakes oil salesmen because we want to believe in the snake oil.

Well, various officials in the U.S. government have actually been caught red handed lying about this kind of shit in the past -- if not openly admitted it. So the broader point is that you're better off not believing government sources AT ALL and instead going with independent media sources that can actually verify their claims with hard evidence.

The U.S. Government has a LONG history of fabricating evidence to denounce socialist/communist countries; hell, they even do it to countries we're supposed to be allies with ("Universal healthcare is a disaster and Canadians are dying in emergency rooms waiting for candy stripers to change their IVs!") For the most part, socialist banana republics have an equally long history of hiding or just ignoring their own misdeeds. All other things being equal, it's better to consider them both untrustworthy; however, in some cases, you can point to the U.S. Government's involvement in deliberately trying to undermine one regime or another, and one has to consider they have a much greater interest in lying about what's happening than the regime in question.

Basically: a guy who beats his wife is a lot more likely to lie about his wife being an alcoholic than the wife is.

Anything that disagrees with you is fake news.

Are you His Flatulence's alter ego?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thanks for providing confirmation of my post.

I've confirmed you have insane ideas that conform to no evidence.

I know Chomsky has his enemies.

I didn't know these enemies had deluded flunkies.

By resorting to namecalling you're showing that you have no actual argument--in effect, you are conceding.