Before the big debate starts, I had to comment on this one:

"I am personally very high on President Bush."

Does he dry him up and smoke him like tobacco? Perhaps he makes W into a powder and snorts him.

George W. Bush, the next front on the War on Drugs.

More to the topic:

Dave, Dave, Dave, you should know by now the Congress is only good for blowing hot air. In fact I prefer them siting around and doing nothing to making their minds up on an issue and really messing it up.

Why did they do it? We all know it is because they do not have the intestinal fortitude to cut funding to the War. I would really like to see them try it.

Dave, Dave, Dave, you should know by now the Congress is only good for blowing hot air. In fact I prefer them siting around and doing nothing to making their minds up on an issue and really messing it up.

I agree, but in this instance they blew so much hot air for so little purpose that it needed to be noted. Plus we often forget that even when they sit around bloviating they're still costing us money.

Why did they do it? We all know it is because they do not have the intestinal fortitude to cut funding to the War. I would really like to see them try it.

I think someone pointed out to them that some quaint document called the Constitution gives warmaking power to the chief executive, not them. But I hear an extremist minority are going to give it a shot anyway.

Dave

Let's be careful with claiming the Constitution gives "warmaking power" to the chief executive, not them. Only Congress has the power to declare war (which they haven't done since WWII); then the chief executive can pursue that(legal and constitutional)war as commander-in-chief.
These minor details DO matter, in a constitutional democracy.

lee. everyone ought to know by now that legally and constitutionally the AUMF is considered a declaration of war, so your argument makes no sense.

whatals more the vietnam war was carried on for years on executive authority and little more and attempts to challenge it on constitutional grounds went nowhere at all.

This complaint is instead of righteous indignation over the $10 million an hour wasted for years in Iraq?

Spin more, lackey.

Lumpy,
Where, exactly, in the Constitution does it say that anything is "considered" a declaration of war, EXCEPT a congressional dec. of war?
Where, exactly, in the Constitution does it say that "executive authority" is a substitute for a congressional declaration of war?
If following the Constitution makes no sense to you--and others who don't care-- maybe that explains why our leaders are emboldened to keep on making it up as they go along.

You know, I've heard time and again from BC commenters that an AUMF is an equivalent of a formal declaration of war. Mr. Nalle has written that certain courts have upheld that equivalency. What I've never seen or heard is any evidence or citation of that. What are the court cases/decisions that upheld that interpretation? Who was the judge and where can I read his/her decision?

Can someone provide me with a legally binding precedent for considering the AUMF the same thing as an actual, formal, literal declaration of war?

While I'm asking questions - if by asking for an AUMF, the President asks for a formal declaration that a state of war exists...well, why not simply cut through the euphemisms and ask directly and specifically for a state of war?

I'm imagining it can't be political, "to soften the blow" and look less militaristic in the eyes of the President's constituents. Mr. Bush has used the word "war" freely and bluntly in every other circumstance, including before the invasion, which would negate that softening before it even started. Besides, a good portion of his political base wants him to look as militaristic as he can get.

I genuinely don't want to be alarmist...but I have to wonder if it's a case of exactly what I said above - pussyfooting. I.e., deliberately avoiding a direct and formal declaration of war, but asking instead for an authorization to use miltary force (which, whether it is equivalent or not, SOUNDS equivalent to the unwary ear of Joe American) and then following the broadest possible interpretation of that authorization.

I want to hear them debate. Some just want to wait for the spin so that they can jump on the bandwagon. I want to hold them accountable for what they say. If its hot air, then I know that too. I wont vote for them next time.

Now what about that 200billion a year for the war?

Zedd - Now what about that 200billion a year for the war?

What about it? It's only money - a tool, not a goal. Could it be better spent elsewhere? Possibly. The same can be said about many gov't programs. If you really want to argue the fiscal aspect of the war then be prepared to defend more expensive and less worthwhile projects, many of which belong to your liberal friends.

"So, what do we get for $14,000 a minute?"

Business as usual. The only difference is that now maybe a few more people are paying attention. When the war talk is done, people will tune out and once again the stuff will be relegated to the relative obscurity of the Congressional Record and C-Span.

This complaint is instead of righteous indignation over the $10 million an hour wasted for years in Iraq?

They are clearly separate issues. If you think the Iraq war is a waste of money, that's a perfectly valid issue to raise. Write an article on it. It doesn't in any way diminish the utter pointlessness of this exercise.

Dave

I agree with this exercise being an utter waste of money & time. I also agree the entire Iraq ware is an even bigger waste of money - & lives. Where could the money have gone? How about to rebuilding New Orleans, or our energy infrastructure or badly ageing highway system? How about rebuilding some schools, or hiring additional police & emergency response personnel to keep the peace & haul people out of burning buildings or smashed cars? How about using some of it to clean up our polluted landscapes & waterways - & while we're at it, revitalize our depleted fishing industry? How about using it to supply decent post-trauma medical & rehab care to veterans? How about using it to find cures for cancers of all types, or heart disease? How about using it to rebuild some of our ageing cities to revitalize business as well as living by increasing affordable living units & integrating them with shops & stores people can walk to? How about developing alternative forms of energy & fuel? How about subsidizing higher education in the sciences so we can compete instead of lagging behind other nations' students' scores? How about a gajillion other worthwhile projects or goals instead of pouring it all out on a dumbass war started because the Shit-For-Brains-In-Chief wanted to be known to posterity as a macho victorious War Prez? Buying modelling clay for everyone in the US would have been more costworthy than using it to pay for "Freedom" for a bunch of people who didn't want it & can't handle it & won't keep it even if they get it.

It is high time that our U.S. Representatives in Congress go on record concerning the War in Iraq and the losing strategy and tactics employed by President Bush as Commander in Chief. This escalation in Iraq is just another in a long line of mistakes.

The debate over the non-binding resolution was a necessary step in allowing us all to know where our Congressman stands. Now, they will no longer be able to duck the issue. They will be held responsible by the voters. That was worth every penny spent.

Something is wrong with the behavioral logic of our "Political Editor", the now-famous Self-Replicating Dave Nalle.

1. He builds a straw man--again--please show us some new tricks, Dave--about the enormous cost of congresspeople's hot air. What did he EXPECT from congresspeople, anyway--a rewrite of the Rights of Man or the Gettysburg Address? After all, some of those folks are HIS representatives.

2. His "essay" may not have cost someone 14 rand a minute, but it is equally without substance.

3. Congresspeople are getting paid way too much no matter whether they are grunting silly political platitudes or listening to one of their own doing exactly the same.

4. The big injustice is: WE aren't getting paid to "listen" to Dave Nalle. At least I am not-- [Personal attack deleted]

14 Grand.

@#14:

The big injustice is: WE aren't getting paid to "listen" to Dave Nalle.

No one says you have to listen to him, and the taxpayers didn't elect you, so if there's an "injustice," it's self-inflicted.

Moon, as I tried to illustrate in the article, some of the representatives did make very good, very impassioned speeches. But in the format and situation they were made in, even a second gettysburg address would have been a waste of time and money.

As for not getting paid to read this, I'm not getting paid to write it either. It's also clearly labelled 'opinion'. If you don't like my opinion or my choice of subject matter, come up with a better one or don't read it.

Dave

Stop wasting our time, Nalle.

He's entitled to write, MR. Some of us even enjoy his writing, even if we don't agree with it. I wish you'd write a piece about your experiences in Arabia, etc. instead of wasting your time taking pot shots at Nalle. Most of us have never been places like that & never will.

moonraven gets her ideas about democracy and free speech from people like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez; if she doesn't agree with your point of view, you're not entitled to express it.

moonraven has made some of the most informative and thoughtful comments on bc so far.

and if you'd know anything about venezuela you'd know that mr. chavez has been democratically elected. that is an undisputed fact.

and it is this kind of irrational twisting of facts that makes one write something like that.

Yeah, & Dubya was "democratically elected" in the US, too. Claims of being 'democratically elected' just mean the winner hasn't been caught rigging the votes yet. Like Bush. And like Bush, Chavez apparently is trying to build his own little fascist stronghold by eroding the constitution & doing whatever he wants-just not as egregiously as Dubya has so far.

Paul,

and if you'd know anything about venezuela you'd know that mr. chavez has been democratically elected. that is an undisputed fact.

Undisputed by many, primarily those who favor socialism as a political system, true.

If I were a Venezuelan peasant, and Chavez told me that if I voted for him, he would give me land and money, I'd vote for him, too.

Actually, Paul, having been born in Mexico, and having lived more than half my life in Latin America, I do know something about Venezuela.

I've already given my opinion about Chavez and his sycophants in the links above. I won't waste my time repeating it here.

1. I am not a travel writer. Travel writers do exist, and if one feels it to be unnecessary to learn about the world we live in first hand, those travel writers serve a very valid purpose.

2. The difference between Bush's and Chavez' elections is that ALL of Chavez' were certified to be absolutely clean and his country has the most up to date voting equipment in use in this world. (Those of you who clearly live in parallel universes may want to consider making a small fortune in this one by putting YOUR voting equipment on the market.)

3. This bird would like to be spared the pronouncements of untravelled (by their own admission) "experts" on Latin America (and the rest of the countries that lie outside the borders of the US, too, please.) You have turned the US into a nation of Fox News parrots. (Parrots, by the way, are incapable of CONSCIOUS imitation.)

4. As for clavos, I have yet to see a POINT OF VIEW expressed by him. He simply sews shreds of the Miami Herald to the end of his tongue. I am sure I will meet up with his clones in the Carl Hiassen novel, Skinny Dipping, that I bought at the Seattle Goodwill yesterday....

Christopher,

The anti-spam software is acting up again on this thread.

I know, Clavos, and it's mighty frustrating for us too. Rest assured that, unless I'm asleep or watching Man United on the TV, all incorrectly tagged comments will be released as fast as possible.

Thanks, Chris.

[Entire comment deleted. We don't do personal attacks and this comment was simply provocative and insulting. Further examples will be simply deleted. This goes for the lot of you... Your mean old Comments Editor]

Socialism is just as viable as any other political concept, BTW.

In most of Latin America, folks give their vote to somone who gives them one of the following:

1. 100 pesos (less than 10 bucks)

2. A bag of rice, dried beans, powdered milk and sugar

3. A small stack of cardboard and asbestos corrugated roofing strips

4. A torta (sandwich) and a can of warm pepsi.

So, even by clavos' admission, the Venezuelan campesino who gives his vote for land and money is WAY ahead of the game.

Way ahead of clavos, too--who gives hhis vote for a pat on the back....

Lo siento, clavos gusano: I am not standing by for anything.

I am going shopping....

Pues, ni modo, mijita...

So, even by clavos' admission, the Venezuelan campesino who gives his vote for land and money is WAY ahead of the game.

Only if he GETS the land and money. So far, el payaso Chavez has done very little for the campesinos, by all accounts.

But by spending enormous amounts of money on guns, and giving money to other countries (including more than 2 BILLION to Castro's Cuba), while controlling prices to the degree that there are severe shortages of food products, he's also managed to cut the market value of the Bolivar IN HALF and has given Venezuela the highest inflation rate in Latin America, at 17%.

Glad to see you finally admit that Chavez' "democratic" elections boiled down to buying votes with unfulfilled promises.

He HAS, however, seized ALL the power and authority in the country, as well as considerable PRIVATE asets.

He is the ONLY lawmaker in Venezuela now, ruling by decree, and he's set himself up to be president of Venezuela indefinitely.

He's also seizing opposition news outlets and intimidating opposition journalists and politicians.

Yep, real democratic, alright.

moonraven has made some of the most informative and thoughtful comments on bc so far.

Well, that confirms my nascent opinion of Paul [Personal attack deleted].

and if you'd know anything about venezuela you'd know that mr. chavez has been democratically elected. that is an undisputed fact.

Hitler was democratically elected too, Paul. Another undisputed fact.

Dave

More bullshit from [Edited] clavos.

I really find it offensive that he says [Edited] things such as "by all accounts" when the only account he refers to is his OWN--and he has never been to Venezuela since Chavez became president in 1999--which means by NO accounts.

A quick google search will turn up the number of hectareas that have been distributed to campesinos since the Agrarian Reform went into effect. The first entry I found indicated almost 5 million acres from 2001 through 2004. That was two years ago--and the redistribution program has escalated considerably. Not exactly to be sneezed at--even in Southern Florida. The campesinos are doing great under Chavez--except for the ones who have been murdered by the oligarchy... to which clavos aspires membership.

Food shortages in Venezuela are due to the same culprits as those in Mexico--intermediaries hoarding food and refusing to comply with prices that have been fixed. Chavez is not hoarding, but providing.

Chavez is not ruling by decree--another lie. Nor is he seizing any media property. And if clavos [Edited] can name a journallist or politician he has intimidated I will personally eat that person.

Democracy is alive and well in Venzuela.

Too bad it is not alive and well in the US--where the president is a dictator who calls himself The Decider and rules by decree (read signing agreements).

As for historically-challenged Dave: Hitler was appointed chancellor by von HIndenberg.

Dave has gone to great lengths to tell us on this site that some folks are elected and others are appointed.

Hitler was appointed. Not democratically, either.

Anyone who happens to agree with my point of view--and I actually have one, unlike you clowns who belch out Fox news bites--does not have shit smeared all over his or her nose like the Deliverance folks who agree with Nalle.

I really find it offensive that he says asshole things

moonraven finding what I write "offensive" is very satisfying.

I know I'm doing it right when I make her so mad she runs right off the rails, as she did in #34.

It's especially gratifying when she goes into denial. Here, for example:

Chavez is not ruling by decree--another lie.

A lie? Judge for yourselves, folks.

Fair dinkum Clav, you're one of the worst gusanos I've ever encountered. You should bloody well be ashamed of yourself. Consider this an extra slap on the wrist. I also can't believe that you'd continue to bait moonraven for no good reason ...

Mea culpa, Stan...:>)

Utinam patribus nostris digni simus :)

Is Scots College your alma mater, STM?

Or are you simply paying tribute to our forefathers?

Ah, lovely bit of homework there Clav. But no ... that earhole-assaulting, bagpipe playing, flag-waving, skirt-wearing pack of Scottish heathen bastards.

We must honour our forefathers, however, particularly by not being gusanos. You must enlighten me further, BTW :)

OK, Stan. At your service, mate.

Gusano(s): Literally, worm(s)

Misapplied to me by moonraven because I live in Miami.

Actually, it's Fidel Castro's epithet for the Miami Cubans, whom he obviously holds in contempt, for the brain drain they caused him in the early 60s, and ultimately, because they've done stunningly well here, while the island sinks ever deeper into poverty and chaos under his leadership.

He also calls them the Miami Mafia.

That old moonraven, she'll try any trick in the book. It's a great insult though - nicely derogatory. How's Miami this fine evening?

It's just a very generic term. Clavos is not a cubano, but he is a wannabee gusano.

Even lower on the totem pole.

He just wants attention and acceptance--demonstrated by his sucking up to the Cuban Mafia and to Dave Nalle.

He couldn't possibly give a fuck what happens in Venezuela.

What he doesn't seem to get is that Venezuela couldn't possibly give a fuck what happens to him....

And now a direct comment to the gusano:

You don't make me mad. I stated very clearly that you are offensive--like a piece of snot left on the computer keyboard by some silly little nosepicker....

BTW, Dick Cheney's just lost whatever allies he might have had in my neck of the woods by having the entire Sydney Harbour Bridge closed today (on a beautiful Saturday morning when everyone is out and using it), including the trains, for eight minutes while he crossed from a meeting with Howard in the city to the lower North Shore for lunch and a cruise at harbourside Kirribilli House, the PM's spectacular old Sydney residence.

The rest of us poor mugs were left trying to squeeze into the suddenly gridlocked harbour tunnel or sitting on the bonnets (hoods?) of our cars in the sun while sitting on the freeway on the bridge approaches. While it was just eight minutes for him, it was an hour or more for the rest of us while the traffic bottlnecks all over town slowly melted away.

I don't understand why the Navy couldn't have just flown him over by chopper instead of bringing the whole bloody city to a grinding halt to get one bugger and his motorcade of heavily armed secret service agents over the other side of the bridge, a journey that would normally take a few minutes. Fair enough, he's a visiting dignitary, but fair fu.king dinkum ....

My favourite anti-Cheney protest placard from this week: "Go home Cheney, take Howard hunting."

Lol.

Thanks for enlightening me even further moonraven. I bet Clav is happy.

Also Clav, and this would interest you and Nalle, the New South Wales Government had to temporarily change the state's gun laws last week to allow Cheney's bodyguards to bring their weapons in and carry them around whilst here. Seems bizarre, especially as the local cops are heavily armed and have a specialist anti-terror unit. But apparently, it's a special condition generally granted for high-ranking members of the US administration. Just what we need, eh? ... armed Americans running wild through town whilst holding their ears and appearing to speak to themselves.

Once again, moonraven, I'm delighted that you find me offensive.

Thanks for the encouragement!

Clavos obviously has alzheimers and is reliving is 14th year, and has chosen to do that on this site.

I guess it takes all kinds....

Clavos, #23 obviously you don't agree with Mr. Chavez policies. That does not mean that you can assume that he wasn't elected. He was elected three times with a very big margain.

obviously you don't agree with Mr. Chavez policies

What rational person would, Paul? Do you support suppression of the press, dictatorship, asset seizure and land redistribution?

Just so we know where we all stand...

I'm with Clavos and against tyrrany. Where are you again?

Dave

Dave:

1. What press was suspended? I can tell you that: In Venezuela the only media suppression occurred the night of April 11, 2002--when the coup plotters took Channel 8 (the GOVERNMENT channel) off the air. That suppression was done by the jerk-offs that YOU support. (The same j-o's that abolished due process, the constitution, the national assembly and the supreme court--and installed Pedro el Breve for his 47-hour dictatorship.)

2. What dictatorship? The only dictatorship in this hemisphere is headed by GW Bush--with the exception of the 47 hours mentioned in number 1, above.

3. Whose assets were seized? The owners of the businesses that have been nationalized have already received payment and THEY are not complaining. Why should YOU?

4. Land redistribution is a GOOD thing. It was the priority number one indicated by JFK for the Alliance for Progress and the OAS. Since when is JFK suddenly the prime mover of BAD ideas in Latin America?

What a load of baloney and ignorance are Dave and Clavos smearing on this site.

[Personal attack deleted]

[Edited]

Oh and MR the press is anything but free under Chavez. You know, the law that allows him to shut down media that he determines are public nuisances. If George W. had passed that kind of law, you would be hopping up and down like an angry monkey seeing a banana[Edited].

Or if you want one article, one among many, here is one.

A correction to my #32, in which I reported Venezuela's rate of inflation at 17%:

According to a Bloomberg report published today, Venezuela's Central Bank has announced the annual rate of inflation has reached 18.4%.

In making this announcement, the Central Bank has drawn the wrath of Chavez. According to Bloomberg:

Chavez also today questioned the central bank's method of measuring inflation, which reached 18.4 percent last month, the highest annual rate in Latin America. The move echoes his vows to slash the bank's autonomy, which he has called a ``neo-liberal'' and ``perverse'' concept unsuited to his vision for Venezuela.

Chavez has also taken aim at the Venezuelan National Statistics Institute, again, for publishing the truth, rather than the Party line as defined by the Venezuelan caudillo:

Chavez also declared that methods for measuring poverty rates, used elsewhere in the world, ``aren't valid in Venezuela,'' which officially reported 39.7 percent household poverty at the end of 2005, according to the National Statistics Institute.

The Bloomberg article, titled "Chavez Says Private Property Won't Be Eliminated," also notes:

While preserving private property, a revised constitution would also protect ``social'' and ``collective'' property, such [as] the nation's oil reserves, the seventh-largest in the world, Chavez said, without giving further details.

Constitutional changes, to be drafted by a presidential committee and submitted for public approval in a national referendum later this year, are the first of ``five engines'' of reform Chavez has outlined for Venezuela since beginning his second, six-year term in office on Jan. 10...

...He has since used decree powers to nationalize the country's largest telephone and electricity companies and seize a larger stake in foreign oil joint ventures. Yesterday, his government ``temporarily expropriated'' two meat-processing plants, further raising concern that private property rights will soon disappear.

Democracy, Chavez style...

Dictatorship/"Tyranny"

Hugo Chavez has been elected democratically with 62.84 % in the 2006 presidential elections and for the third time.

The European Union Election Observation mission to Venezuela concludes that "the 2006 Presidential Elections were held in respect of national laws and international standards concerning electoral administration and the electronic voting system. The high turnout, and peaceful atmosphere in which they were held, together with the acceptance of results by all those involved, represent significant progress as compared to the 2005 Parliamentary Elections."

So obviously no dictatorship and no tyrany. There is nothing to dispute here, even if you don't agree with his policies.

Freedom of Press

The above report also describes that the press in the country is either biased against or biased against Mr. Chavez. The press affilated with the parties that governed before Chavez, representing a minority of the population, incited the 2002 coup against Mr. Chavez.

"After Chávez came to power in 1998, the five main privately owned channels - Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión and CMT - and nine of the 10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País, and El Mundo, have taken over the role of the traditional political parties, which were damaged by the president's electoral victories. Their monopoly on information has put them in a strong position. They give the opposition support, only rarely reporting government statements and never mentioning its large majority, despite that majority's confirmation at the ballot box.

...Their investigations, interviews and commentaries all pursue the same objective: to undermine the legitimacy of the government and to destroy the president's popular support.

Venezuela's press power, LeMonde Diplomatique, August 2002 by Maurice Lemoine

US involvement in Venezuela

As noted, Chavez has been elected. Even so, the US openely criticizes his domestic policies and supports opposition groups and opposition media, when it is none of their business including an involvement in the 2002 coup attempt, as USAID and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and others transferred and are still transferring millions of dollars to opposition groups in the country.

US Tax Dollars Helped Finance Some Chavez Foes, Review Finds, Boston Globe, by Mike Ceaser, August 18, 2002

Policies

It's up to an elected leader to design his policies as he wishes. Many of the the Venezuelans have remained very poor under the former administrations, although the country has rich natural resources. There was a huge gap between a well-off minority and the rest of the population. It is all the more shocking since Venezuela has over the past 25 years earned some $300 billion from petroleum sales - the equivalent of more than 20 Marshall Plans. Yet more than 60% Venezuelans lived in poverty, a quarter of the population of working age were unemployed, a third of those who do have jobs managed by moonlighting, and over 200,000 children survived by begging.

According to the last agricultural census (1998), 70% of good quality arable land is owned by the 20% of landlords who have more than 500 hectares, while 75% have only 6% of the land. Some 60% of rural farmers do not have the deeds to the property they occupy. (LeMondeDiplomatique, October 2003). So if land reform serves a greater distribution of wealth and independence of the individual Venezuelans, why shouldn't that by a good idea ?

Chavez has launched anti-poverty initiatives, the construction of thousands of free medical clinics for the poor, the institution of educational campaigns that have reportedly made more than one million adult Venezuelans literate and introduced food and housing subsidies. There have been improvements in the infant mortality rate between 1998 and 2006 according UNICEF.

My point was that the fact that Chavez was elected is something everyone must accept. He's pursuing social reform and he is democratically legitmized to do that. If you don't like what he's doing, you can criticize that, but you can't argue that he's a dictator, a tyrann and oppresses the media or that his voters have been tricked into voting for him for the third time. And it doesn't legitimize US intervention either.

#53

There is a very special situation in Venezuela because of a media war between the opposition and followers of the gov't. The opposition staged the coup against Chavez in 2002.

Clavos

Chavez was elected and then got approval from the parliament for special authorities for a limited time frame.

No one "seized power"... as you can read above.

And so what if property is being redistributed in a a legal framework. Its the right of every country to do that. He was elected on that basis.

Paul,

From the same Bloomberg article I cited above:

Venezuela's current constitution, drafted and approved by referendum shortly after Chavez first took office in 1999, introduced new education, health care and environmental rights and eliminated the country's bi-cameral legislature, creating a single assembly now entirely controlled by Chavez supporters.

That same unicameral legislature (now with no viable opposition members) gave him the power to rule by decree for the next 18 months. In other words, he and he alone is the sole lawmaker in the country. All government power and authority is his alone.

That's the very definition of a dictator.

I don't contest the fact that he was "elected" by a majority of the voters, though it's obvious he bought the campesino vote with promises which mostly have not been fulfilled as of now.

Elected or not, his actions have invariably been undemocratic and dictatorial. And he has no knowledge of economics. His actions have created the worst inflation in Latin America, a situation which hits the poor, the very people who elected him, worst of all.

Now he is controlling food prices, with the expected result of widespread shortages in food; again hurting the poor most of all.

He blames the food retailers for the shortages, but, if you're running a corner grocery and are forced to sell a loaf of bread that costs you a dollar wholesale for 69 cents, how long will you continue to do that?

With all the purported land reform that has supposedly taken place, how is it possible that there isn't enough food?

He's not a dictator by virtue of how he was elected; he's a dictator because of his actions since taking office.

So the elected one-party chamber gave him special powers for 18 months... okay.

Thats not a dictator.

You can disagree with his policies, you can even say that he is incapable of running the country, but that doesn't undermine his legitimacy. We've seen a lot worse rulers in South America.

If the voters are discontent, they can vote for someone else next time.

If the voters are discontent, they can vote for someone else next time.

There will not be "a next time."

I know that the Chavez-lovers here don't care about reality, but they ought to keep in mind that the party which controls the voting machines controls the outcome of the vote. Chavez certainly knows his Stalin. Michael Barone has a rather thorough article on the subject.

Paul's naive claim that the voters can 'vote for someone else next time' makes the erroneous assumptions that they will be allowed to vote at all, and that their votes will actually be counted. What's more, he forgot that Chavez also had himself made president for an indefinite term and suspended elections.

And sorry, no requirement to stand for election and the ability to pass fiat laws is the definition of a dictator, elected or not.

I do agree that there have been worse rulers in South America, though. The truth is that some of the better rulers in the region have been dictators, with Pinochet leading the way.

Dave

The ignorant are again claiming expertise about Venezuela.

The National Assembly is controlled by chavistas because the fools in the opposition boycotted the last election for National Assembly members.

Your heros the esqualidos shot themselves in the foot and you are in no position to blame Chavez for that. They were just dummies like you.

Your foolish logic would indicate that the more support an elected leader has, the more he is a dictator! Even YOU should recognize that that is not logical. Even GW Bush, the Low IQ Decider (if that isn't a dictatorial posture I will eat HIM, too) would recognize that something is very wrong with your thinking.

The bottom line is...the bottom line. You fascist fogeys have been claiming for 9 years now that Chavez will be a dictator any minute, will close down opposition media, destroy the economy and persecute opposition politicians. NINE YEARS LATER-he is not a dictator, has closed no media, persecuted no politicians and the Venezuelan economy is the fastest growing in the hemisphere and one of the fastest growing in the world.

Just when, oh untravelled armchair expert, will your predictions come true?

We have had NINE YEARS of hearing you cry wolf--enough data to viably predict that none of what you have shrieked about is going to happen--and that you will continue to be full of shit.

Time to buy my manual, Politics for Morons, Vol. 1. Cheap at 50 bucks and complete with a plastic petard for you to hoist yourself on.

I, too, would have spat upon Pinochet's coffin. Better ruler? Master of genocide and offshore bank accounts, yes.

"keep in mind that the party which controls the voting machines controls the outcome of the vote"

The European Union, the Carter Center and the Organisation of American States have certified the elections, some sources are noted above.

Just Dave Nalle, an experienced election observer, knows that the elections were "flawed". Yeah, right. If you want to know more, check out the following report:

Dave Nalle: "Flawed elections in Venezuela", Vox Populi Press, Austin, Texas, 2007.

gon Paul writes:

If the voters are discontent, they can vote for someone else next time.

He's given himself the right to stay on indefinitely. What are the odds that there will BE a "next time"?

These rights granted have been issued to many of his predecessors and himself before and they are legitimized by the constitution and the parliament. They are limited to eleven specific areas. They are limited to 18 months. Chavez never said that there won't be any more elections. You can only conclude that when he's actually done that.

Clavos, do you think that the Hamas government is legitimate ?

Paul,

Clavos and Nalle are only writing what they call "articles" here and making comments in order to practice the questionable practice refined to a fine art in the 1930's by J. Goebbels of disinformation. They invent stuff and insult the intelligence of the rest of us by assuming that we won't bother to check out the veracity of what they right.

They are just shills for the Bush Gang--and not very bright ones, either, as apparently they are doing this for FREE.

Soory about the bad pun--couldn't help myself--of "right" for "write".

Paul:

These rights granted have been issued to many of his predecessors and himself before

Do you have links for that? Particularly as to his predecessors?

and they are legitimized by the constitution and the parliament

The constitution has been heavily modified (to include those specific issues) to his advantage by Chavez' pet legislature during the 8+ years he's been in office.

Chavez never said that there won't be any more elections

Would YOU telegraph your plans? Nonetheless, he HAS set the stage-why?

Clavos, do you think that the Hamas government is legitimate ?

You're "new" here, so you may not have noticed that I never comment on ME issues.

And Hamas is not in Venezuela.

Ridiculous that the same people giving Chavez shit, with poor information (he may be a real dick, I just don't know...not being Venezuelan), are arguing that he is taking too much personal power. Yet those very same people argue for Bush to have emperor powers under a "unitary executive".

Bullshit

Not this writer, killer.

Clavos, should I go and dig up all the utter violation of rational thought you have put up here in the name of pure partisan bickering? Some of this you are not guilty of, to be certain.

Yet there remains plenty of foolish fodder spewed from your keyboard that should be "killed".

When I bother, I try not to make what fools get trounced personal, never mentioned you specifically.

Guilty conscience?

THIS poster has links to that.

The first incidence of ruling by decree was in 1974 (when Chavez was a 20-year old military cadet)--for Carlos Andres Perez--one of clavos's HEROES who spends a lot of time in Miami calling for the assassination of Chavez...

The National Assembly did not have an overwhelming majority of chavistas UNTIL the opposition boycotted the 2005 elections--ergo, clavos is misrepresenting the conditions under which the new Constitution was approved in 1999. Not 2006, gusano, 1999!

Now we see that clavos admits that he has absolutely no FACTS to support his claim that there will be no more elections in Venezuela.

Let's examine, very briefly, his logic: Chavez has stood for election 4 times (including the referendum on his presidency in 2004) since 1998. What in those FOUR times indicates that there will be NO FIFTH time?

Does clavos have SECRET information that no one else has?

Is he such an intimate associate of Chavez that he knows more than Chavez does?

Not too likely--especially since clavos hasn't gone to Venezuela and has never met Chavez.

This poster has done both of those things. Several times.

And I would NEVER resume to know more about Chavez' plans than he does,

(Probably because I am not nuts, and am not a liar....could be.)

As for Hamas not being related to Venezuela--I do not believe that the topic of this thread was Venezuela.

Therefore, it seems fair that clavos shold NOT have control of the topics other posters care to address.

His fascist fangs can now be removed from the typing wrist of other folks here.

Clavos doesn't comment on Middle East issues--presumably because he has never spent time there and knows nothing (/)--yet he feels free to proclaim his laughable "expertise" on Latin American issues when all he does is sit on his ass in South Florida. His successful business picking and running boats for narcotraficantes doesn't allow for a cheap plane ticket to Caracas?

Last I checked Miami to Caracas was about 237 bucks, round trip.

Bullshit is much too tame a word for what clavos gusano is smearing on this site.

Guilty conscience?

Nope.

When I commit an error (and I do all the time) why should I feel "guilty" about it? I don't feel guilty about anything I say or do in good faith.

I haven't supported giving Bush (or letting him seize) "emperor powers".

Of course I'm a partisan, as is virtually everyone, but my partisanship is not for this administration, though there are aspects of it I think are good.

Generally speaking, I'm opposed to most of what the USA (not just the administration) stands for these days. I believe I've posted a number of comments over time that have demonstrated that.

Clavos - it's the partisanship over all that IS the problem, and defines a certain type of Fool who is more part of the problem that the correct mission of politics, which is to find peaceful solutions.

When ANY partisan places their loyalty to their party over the cause of the greater good for all, then they are naught but Fools to my eyes.

And if you are not feeling guilty, then comment #70 indicates you are wearing your Freudian slip.

Everyone is NOT partisan, clavos.

If it were the case, no one would have to vote--they would just register for a political party.

Duh....

Some folks even PREFER not being partisan. Of course they are the ones with the open minds....Not the ones sealed with a manhole cover.

Even more, there are some folks who do not ally themselves with an IDEOLOGY.

And who think that's a GOOD thing....

Clavos does not feel guilty because that would imply that he should change his behavior.

[Personal attack deleted]

Oh yes, Clavos..Paul is NOT gonzo, as you attempt to indicate in #64, wrong again.

Only Fools keep on thinking they have all the answers after being shown they are completely wrong time after time.

Like Iraq.

killer,

When I said I (and everyone) am a partisan, I meant that I believe in a specific philosophy and set of political ideas, NOT that I have allegiance to a specific party, or even a specific government.

Clearly, you have a different idea about "partisan", which is fine; I just wanted to clarify my meaning.

My comment in #70 was in response to your comment that everyone who opposes Chavez is arguing for or in favor of Bush having more power, as I explained in #73. No Freudian slips.

So I'm wrong about Paul being gonzo. That obviously invalidates everything I've ever posted or commented on BC...

sheesh.

Clavos - not, not invalidates anything, don't get your panties in a twist. Did i single you out for my barb or did I make a general statement to all reading?

That's your guilty conscience, to think that I am only talking to you.

Your mistake on one thing does not invalidate your thinking, but does call your judgment into question, as an example.

This is where many Fools stumble, they spout their party partisan bullshit over and over, and think people will forget when they are proven wrong, time and again. So they repeat the behavior over and over.

Eventually, people get wise and ignore the Fool who has been proven wrong, again and again.

The process can be painful, but it is required in a republic.

And what calls your own judgment into question really boils down to incidents where you strikeout blindly at your political opposition in a purely unthinking and Foolish partisan fashion, rather than listening and working on solutions.

Borderline, but there may still be hope for you...unlike some other Fools.

The European Union, the Carter Center and the Organisation of American States have certified the elections, some sources are noted above.

Both the OAS election monitors and the Carter Center commented after the fact that challenges to the legitimacy of the vote in Venezuela had merit to them and ought to be investigated.

You can't cite things like this out of context and expect to get away with it when we can all use the internet to find out the truth.

Dave

Christopher, you might want to take a look at Moonraven's comment #25. It's beyond just a violation of the comments policy, it's legally actionable.

And MR, as you love to point out, people know your real name and can presumably track down your address. Maybe you think living outside the US protects you, but you might want to avoid engaging in blatant libel. I support your right to free speech, but I also enthusiastically support Clavos' right to sue your ass off for your blatant and destructive lies and personal smears.

Dave

Pot...meet kettle.

Clavos: "He's given himself the right to stay on indefinitely."

LA Times, Feb. 10, 2007: Although Chavez has stated his intention to seek an end to term limits, he does not have the power to do so on his own; such a change would require a national referendum.


Clavos: "The constitution has been heavily modified (to include those specific issues) to his advantage by Chavez' pet legislature during the 8+ years he's been in office."
Clavos: "That's the very definition of a dictator."

Associated Press, Jan 31: The top U.S. diplomat for Latin America, Thomas Shannon, said the enabling law isn't anything new in Venezuela.
"It's something valid under the constitution," said Shannon, the assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, told reporters in Colombia. "As with any tool of democracy, it depends how it is used," he added.

Fool, I'd like you to point out when I've done anything even vaguely similar to accusing someone of being a drug smuggler.

No, don't bother to waste my time with your rationalizations. As usual, you're full of bluster and self-righteous attitude and short on fact.

Dave

None of the three institutions questioned the legitmacy of the election results, although they might give advice for minor improvements. They do that for all countries, even for the USA or others. Everyone knows that, except for Clavos and you in constant obsessive denial.

Paul, they supported the opposition argument that more than a million votes ought to be thrown out. That's not 'minor improvements'.

Dave

You want facts, glad to slay another Fool...again.

Didn't you accuse moonraven of a connection to the Chinese government after tracing her IP route?

And she did not say Clavos was a "narcotrafficante", she stated that he was selling boats to those who did traffic, see the difference?

Now, I can easily agree she should not be calling Clavos "gusano" , or any other directly insulting derogatory term with no basis in fact.

You might want to try the same sometime, rather than spin and attempt to deceive.

"people know your real name and can presumably track down your address. Maybe you think living outside the US protects you, but you might want to avoid engaging in blatant libel."

If anything Dave, then this is threat. So shut up.

You want facts, glad to slay another Fool...again.

You're going to need a higher calibre to get the job done. Something involving accurate facts might be a good start. Better reading skills might help.

Didn't you accuse moonraven of a connection to the Chinese government after tracing her IP route?

All I did was raise the question of why she had a chinese IP. And having a chinese IP is not a crime - in fact even if she WAS working for the chinese government that would not be a crime, so it's hardly comparable.

And she did not say Clavos was a "narcotrafficante", she stated that he was selling boats to those who did traffic, see the difference?

Which IS a crime if he's doing it knowingly. Plus you failed to read it accurately. She also said he was 'running' boats for them, which would mean he was directly involved in their crimes.

Now, I can easily agree she should not be calling Clavos "gusano" , or any other directly insulting derogatory term with no basis in fact.

That's the least of my concerns.

You might want to try the same sometime, rather than spin and attempt to deceive.

You might want to drop the self-rightous posturing when you can't even get the facts straight from a post you only have to scroll up to read.

The next time I attempt to deceive will be the first, and every time you accuse me of it you're lying because you ought to know better.

Dave

It's an abuse of your editorial rights to discuss someone's IP-adress, for whatever reasons, in the first place.

Really Vox?

"the first time" might have been the shit you pulled referencing yourself with another name, but that's a long and well documented bit of drama which proved quite a bit. Shall I drag all that up and link?

No, I don't think that's required right now. Yet, you want to call me any kind of "liar" after it has been PROVEN that you will do just that , and delete the public record, to cover your own tracks there, Scooter.

As for pure factual inaccuracy, and the attempt to spin and deceive, how about your own "No One Died in Iraq Today" thread,where in the opening paragraph even you admit to being factually incorrect, yet your deceptive title stayed on. Your abysmal record on just the Iraq issue alone shows not only poor judgment, but blatant attempts at deceit.

Shall we let it drop now? Or shall I start hitting and linking my bookmarks showing you insulting and slandering people, or partisan spin?

I think it might just be better to let it go, having NO desire to deal with you...other than to debunk your bullshit when needed, since I consider you, personally, as just another part of the problem.

Fool, so long as your primary interest is in destruction, denial and deception you're going to remain the main glaring example of the REAL problem to be found around here.

My attempts to stimulate debate and put forward ideas are POSITIVE actions. What have you ever offered that's in any way positive?

Personally I find your constant lying about my own efforts offensive, but I can live with it. I understand that you can't tell the difference between opinions which later prove to be overly optimistic and lies. I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again - I'd rather look for postives and solutions than spend all my time condemning and judging and spinning the world as negative as possible.

You can't even tell the most basic difference between lie and exaggeration for rhetorical effect, as demonstrated by your reference to the title of my previous article. Obviously, if I point out the inaccuracy of the title in the FIRST SENTENCE of the article, the title is intended for rhetorical effect, not as a lie. If you can't see that then how can we believe anything else you say?

Dave

And BTW, adopting yet another user name which in this case is clearly intended to establish yourself as here for no purpose but to insult and belittle others doesn't exactly raise the level of debate.

Dave

Wrong again, Fool. Click the lil URL link, takes you to my writer's page, showing clearly who I am. Which I did state on another thread, once I realized I did not have my writer's page as my URL.

And there is NO "level of debate" with your kind, Scooter...those who will deceive, twist and cherry pick to attempt validation of their failed Ideology rather than deal straight up with facts to solve problems do not debate.

So when faced with propagandists, spinners, shills and liars...I choose to metaphorically "kill the Fools".

You seem to still be trying to sell yourself as some kind of positive influence, your own actions, writings and comments prove otherwise.

I'll defend your innate Right to pursue your agenda, but also reserve the innate right to call ANY on bullshit when I spot it.

As for "believeing"...never have I asked anyone to believe anything I type, say or write, instead I advise them to look shit up themselves, and figure it out for themselves.

You on the other hand appear to enjoy propagandist and apologist spinning in your own insane quest to stop those evil democrats at all costs.

The record, speaks for itself, no matter what Fools say.

Fool, my 'agenda' is liberty and my weapon is the truth.

You can try to misrepresent what I say and do to your heart's content. The record speaks for itself.

BTW, how does my rather positive article about Bill Richardson fit in with my 'insane quest to stop those evil democrats'?

The more you attack what you don't understand just because you don't understand it, the more ridiculous you appear.

Dave

"And BTW, adopting yet another user name which in this case is clearly intended to establish yourself as here for no purpose but to insult and belittle others doesn't exactly raise the level of debate."
- Dave Nalle

Kinda like your "Vox Populi" guise a few weeks ago, Nalle?

Bullshit.

Your agenda is "stop the democrats at all costs, even if it means cradling the nutsack of Rove and the Religious Right, the ends justify the means"

And you have shown time and again, even with truth or facts right in front of you, you still analyze via the distorted lens of your political ideology to spin shit towards your agenda.

All of it proven in both the "No one die in Iraq Today" and "Global Warming: the Debate is over" threads. There are plenty of other examples on record, but those two do the job adequately.

Any interested individuals can either ask for the links, or just search this site for both articles, and the comments that follow.

I'll gladly let readers decide who is being the Fool here.

"If you can't see that then how can we believe anything else you say?"
- Dave Nalle

What do you mean "we" Nalle? You got a turd in your pocket?

"The next time I attempt to deceive will be the first, and every time you accuse me of it you're lying because you ought to know better."
- Dave Nalle

"I've seen figures similar to the ones Dave quotes."
- Vox Populi

His entries in this thread are enough to prove that Dave is deceiving and lying, distorting facts and inventing new ones so they somehow meet his odd agenda.

@#83:

Nice job of cherry picking, Paul; you quoted:

LA Times, Feb. 10, 2007: Although Chavez has stated his intention to seek an end to term limits, he does not have the power to do so on his own; such a change would require a national referendum.

You failed to mention that this is an editorial, an opinion piece (check moonraven's posts on that point), and the particular quote above appears in a special frame in the middle of the editorial. It is a correction of a previous LA Times editorial and is not complete. Here's the full quote:

FOR THE RECORD: Venezuela: An editorial Saturday said that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was expected to use his newly granted powers to make law by decree to abolish presidential term limits. Although Chavez has stated his intention to seek an end to term limits, he does not have the power to do so on his own; such a change would require a national referendum. --

Here are a few other quotes from the same editorial:

The title and sub title: Venezuela's theoretical democracy

President Hugo Chavez edges a bit closer to becoming a full-fledged dictator now that he can make laws without legislative approval.

A few excerpts: The vote gave Chavez the power to make laws by decree for 18 months, with no need to even use his Assembly's rubber stamp. Seeing as how Chavez already had total control over the judicial branch, how he is taking steps to quell opposition media and how he could have rammed any law he chose through the Assembly with barely a semblance of debate or a whisper of protest, his new powers seem gratuitous. But even symbolic oversight can be messy, bureaucratic and slow. Kind of like democracy.

Venezuela's constitution allows the legislature to cede decree powers to the president, which it has done several times to other presidents and once before to Chavez, in 2000. But normally this occurs in times of fiscal upheaval, not while the nation is swimming in oil revenues. Chavez is expected to use his powers to, among other frightening things, do away with presidential term limits so he can remain in office indefinitely.

And: Democracy still has a faint pulse in Venezuela; any Chavez decree can theoretically be overturned by public referendum, as long as opponents gather signatures from 5% of the electorate. And Chavez, destructive as his economic policies will eventually be to Venezuela, is no Hitler.

Now Mussolini, on the other hand ...

Unlike you, Paul, I am providing a link to the editorial, so other readers can read the whole piece for themselves.

I haven't found the AP article you quoted (and did not link) yet, but I'm still looking.

From your #100: "His entries in this thread are enough to prove that Dave is deceiving and lying, distorting facts and inventing new ones so they somehow meet his odd agenda."

Pot, meet kettle...

@#83 redux: Here it is: Chavez gains free rein in Venezuela

A few choice tidbits: The law gives Chavez, who is beginning a fresh six-year term, more power than he has ever had in eight years as president, and he plans to use it during the next 18 months to transform broad areas of public life, from the economy and the oil industry in particular, to "social matters" and the very structure of the state.

His critics call it a radical lurch toward authoritarianism by a leader with unchecked power -- similar to how Fidel Castro monopolized leadership years ago in Cuba.

"If you have all the power, why do you need more power?" said Luis Gonzalez, a high school teacher who paused to watch in the plaza, calling it a "media show" intended to give legitimacy to a repugnant move. "We're headed toward a dictatorship, disguised as a democracy."

And: The law also allows Chavez to dictate unspecified measures to transform state institutions; reform banking, tax, insurance and financial regulations; decide on security and defense matters such as gun regulations and military organization; and "adapt" legislation to ensure "the equal distribution of wealth" as part of a new "social and economic model."

Also: Venezuelan historian Ines Quintero said that with the new powers, Chavez will achieve a level of "hegemony" that is unprecedented in the nation's nearly five decades of democratic history.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

... it's a gusano! :)

His entries in this thread are enough to prove that Dave is deceiving and lying, distorting facts and inventing new ones so they somehow meet his odd agenda.

Let's see an example of my 'lies' on this thread, Paul. Just one thing I've said which you can disprove.

I won't be holding my breath.

Dave

Got to admire your persistence, Clavos. Surely you've realized by now that no matter how high you make your mountain of fact, people like Paul and Moonraven and Foolkiller will still claim it's a bottomless hole.

Dave

I do, Dave, I do.

I'm not going to quit, though...

Clavos

This might actually be intellectually challenging for you: opinions are not facts:

-I have listed more sources here than you and you obviously haven't read the other ones.
-The LA Times citation was from an editorial. I only cited the part that was actually news, it was put in a special box to separate it.
-I don't use an editorial to support my opinion, you do by citing the opiniated parts here. And I bet you liked that Hitler/Mussolini anecdote. It's so simple.

Clavos: "He's GIVEN himself the right to stay on indefinitely."

None of the two articles say that he has done that. They say that he will rule by decree for eighteen months and that is within the framework of the constitution.

Send us one valid link that proves Chavez has given himself the right to rule indefinitely or apologize.

The second article is actually MY Associated Press article I cited from, but obviously you didn't notice. The article contains a lot of infos and opinion about the "decree rule".

Clavos wrote:"That's the very definition of a dictator.

I cited: "But the top U.S. diplomat for Latin America, Thomas Shannon, said the enabling law isn't anything new in Venezuela. "It's something valid under the constitution," said Shannon, the assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, told reporters in Colombia. "As with any tool of democracy, it depends how it is used," he added. "At the end of the day, it's not a question for the United States or for other countries, but for Venezuela."

Do you recognize it? This says that these are measures used in the framework of the constitution and that others have used this form before. How does this prove that he's a dictator? Send us one link that proves that he is not acting in the framework of the constitution or apologize.

The article also includes a lot of other opinion and info that approve of Chavez, but you chose not to cite. Everyone interested may read the article. You may agree with them, but they prove your allegations.

Dave have you read the EU Monitoring report on the "flawed" elections in Venezuela ?

correcttion

You may agree with them, but they DONT prove your allegations.

You mentioned me, so I'll chime back in after walking away.

Do show us where I have said anything about Venezuela except to say I don't know much about it?

So how does that place me into the argument between those discussing it?

Once again, Vox tries to conflate two different issues, the ones I raised and a completely different discussion I have no part in as some part of a weak attempt to toss me into the same camp as others undeservedly.

Not slander or libel, per se... but an easily proven distortion, either through negligence, or intentionally in an attempt to discredit.

Pitiful attempt, Scooter.

I'll make it simple for the readers, and most especially for you.

"I've seen figures similar to..."

Did you type it and did you go back and delete it once busted on it?

As usual, the initial offense, referring to yourself as another person while using a different name in the same thread, is only a minor thing...worth a small bit of grief, and then easily forgiven...it's the cover up, the deletion of evidence that's damning.

Even then, I wasn't really furious about it, until looking at the Politics page itself...the "above the fold" portion.

Upper right, the book selection... blatant partisan spin not even remotely pretending to be an objective study on the subject.

Then the "focus" articles. A solid op-ed piece from EO , looking at an issue and while showing a bit of his own political leanings, a fair and non-partisan piece.

Next an article from a self professed member of the religious right, a partisan attack piece against the ACLU.

Next, another partisan attack piece, this time from a Fundamentalist preacher who sits in for Limbaugh.

Finally, your own partisan attack piece, a full bore "sky is falling" bit about "the end of the free press" bullshit. All this after your own writings in defense of warrantless wiretapping (credit where it is due, you are also as upset as I about the Patriot Act) among other issues that appear in conflict.

Why in conflict? Simplicity itself, if the GOP does it, you become the apologist, before the dems can even think about doing something close to what you don't like, you launch pre-emptive strikes...regardless of accuracy, as long as it fits your partisan goal.

Do also note, that the entirety of what I've mentioned about the Politics page has nothing what so ever to do with anything actually currently relevant. If forced to guess, I would lay odds that it was in reaction to the outcry from many over the whole Vox thing. Which makes it worse, as another distraction from pertinent issues for your own purposes... no accusation there, or assertion...mere speculation based on all things up to this point.

Nothing about Venezuela here...nor have I read anything by Paul2, and very little from moonraven... definitely nothing in anything I have written to suggest any kind of agreement with them (or disagreement) on topics I do talk about.

Plain enough for you?

I'm just so fucking tired of a metaphorical car running over a dog, one "side" saying they did it on purpose...the other "side" saying it was attempted suicide, give them a few days to find a note...

I say, a car ran over a dog.

Dave Nalle has made threatening statements to me on this thread. This is not the first time he has done so. He has also accused me of working for the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia and China.

I believe that blogcritics may want to consider their liability in this matter, as if anyone is in a position to sue anyone's ass, that person is ME. And since Nalle is an editor on this site--despite an avalanch of complaints about his abusing his editor's role--the site is party to his irresponsible actions.

Point of information: Libel--in this context or others--is not a crime. Libel is a civil matter. Reporting threats is not only in the civil venue, however, but also in the criminal venue.

If clavos would like to try suing me for libel, I will be happy to see him try. Interesting that Nalle is his mouthpiece in that...

Both Nalle and Clavos are once again trying to pass off opinions--and opinion pieces--as facts. They are also browbeating other posters and even insulting their reading skills.

Nalle has already been shown to be an outright liar as well as deliberately deceitful in inventing shills for his propaganda.

Since blogcritics management did nothing to prevent his abuse of power, he is right back at it again--apparently feeling he can do whatever he wants to.

I want to see a stop put to the abusive behavior of Nalle. And I want to see tyhat happen now--no more shitting around on the part of the management about how much he has contributed to this site. His contribution has been to shout down other posters and abuse his power.

Dave have you read the EU Monitoring report on the "flawed" elections in Venezuela ?

Not yet, Paul. I've been trying to avoid going deep into the Venezuela business again, because it seems so pointless to argue over issues where the facts are straightforward, but people keep denying the obvious implications of the facts.

You don't seem like a particularly stupid person, Paul. How do you look at the things Chavez has done in Venezuela and reach any conclusion other than that he's either a dictator or very close to becoming one?

And keep in mind that it doesn't matter how you become a dictator - you can be born into it, stage a military coup, or be elected and have powers voted to you. What matters is where you end up. And if you end up with the powers of a dictator - law by fiat, suppression of the press and an unlimited term of office.

Dave

Paul #107,

Had you read my two comments more carefully, you'd have noticed that I pointed out to you that the first one you cited was an editorial. And you might also have noticed that the part you quoted was NOT news; it was a correction of a previous LA Times editorial, which I ALSO pointed out.

You snarkily remark that the second article is YOUR article, but didn't (again) read my comments carefully enough to notice that I said it was your article, and in fact searched specifically for it to cite from it.

At least read what your commenting on, Paul...

moonraven, You don't read well, either:

Both Nalle and Clavos are once again trying to pass off opinions--and opinion pieces--as facts.

Paul, not I, cited the editorial. I even mentioned to him your previous objections to "opinion pieces" in my comment #101, saying:

You failed to mention that this is an editorial, an opinion piece (check moonraven's posts on that point)

One more thing; In my year-plus of participating on this site, I haven't seen a single regular participant post comments as bitter, vicious, vindictive and vitriolic as yours. [Personal attack deleted]

I'm done. I no longer will respond to you; your comments are not dialogs, they are vituperation.

clavos is bailing out because he has no information to counter any of my rebuttals of his propaganda.

We have heard the sour grapes tango before.

Good riddance.

Do show us where I have said anything about Venezuela except to say I don't know much about it?

Obviously I threw you in because you have adopted the same style as Moonraven and abandonned any pretense of rational discourse.
Did you type it and did you go back and delete it once busted on it?

We've been over this before. I stated publicly
Upper right, the book selection... blatant partisan spin not even remotely pretending to be an objective study on the subject.

If you'd like to submit a feature book and some relevant article links I'll gladly replace it.

As for the article links, if you'd bothered to check, they're the 5 most recent articles on the subject, chosen chronologically. Time is a terrible partisan.

Next, another partisan attack piece, this time from a Fundamentalist preacher who sits in for Limbaugh.

As far as I can tell Selwyn Duke is both not a preacher and has also never 'sat in' for Limbaugh. He says he's been 'featured' on the show. My guess is that he mans that Limbaugh said "look, some blogger agrees with me" and then quoted something he wrote.

I say, a car ran over a dog.

And I say the driver of the car ran the dog over. The car had no conscious involvement in it.

Dave

Dave Nalle has made threatening statements to me on this thread.

Really? Give me an example.

This is not the first time he has done so.

Really? Give me an example. Just one from any thread.

He has also accused me of working for the governments of Venezuela, Bolivia and China.

More like suggested, but what's wrong with that? Wouldn't you be proud to work for them? And that's not a crime, so suggesting you did it carries no particular weight.

I believe that blogcritics may want to consider their liability in this matter, as if anyone is in a position to sue anyone's ass, that person is ME.

Go for it. But don't drag BC into it. Sue me personally. And don't forget to mention that you threatened to have me shot if I ever went to Mexico.

Point of information: Libel--in this context or others--is not a crime. Libel is a civil matter. Reporting threats is not only in the civil venue, however, but also in the criminal venue.

Except that you have no threats to report, and you DID accuse Clavos of a crime, thereby committing libel.

Both Nalle and Clavos are once again trying to pass off opinions--and opinion pieces--as facts.

Really? Where did I do this? And BTW, opinion pieces CAN include facts and research as well as opinions.

Don't worry, I won't be holding my breath while waiting for you to back up any of your ridiculous claims.

Dave

"Let's see an example of my 'lies' on this thread, Paul. Just one thing I've said which you can disprove."
- Dave Nalle

"I've seen figures similar to the ones Dave quotes."
- Vox Populi

Clav re-invented as a tango dancer ... beats the two-step shuffle and tap dance employed by a few others here.

Dave Nalle's threats to me are on this thread and were pointed out by another poster.

At no time have I threatened to shoot him. OFFERING sarcastically to have him shot by a firing squad for the meager sum of $4500 is hardly a threat--merely an expression of my contempt for his utter lack of ethics.

Suing his ass personally will not call attention to the real issue of blogcritics management supporting his abuse of power and his abuse of other posters. I would definitely sue the site.

Be advised that I am not a particularly litigious personality, but I am making a point here that blogcritics is ultimately responsible for Dave's irresponsible behavior as editor of this section.

I called into question clavos' statement about his successful boat business by indicating he couldn't afford 237 bucks for airfare to Caracas and back--so far as I know that is not accusing him of crimes. "Picking and running" are what he supposedly does as a sales agent for boats. Neither is a criminal activity.

Dave Nalle ALWAYS quotes opinion pieces--as there are no facts to support his opinions. While it is true that opinion pieces CAN contain information and facts, his choices obviously do not.

I really don't care whether he holds his breath or not. That is entirely his choice to make.

Dave Nalle's threats to me are on this thread and were pointed out by another poster.

No longer finding your own delusions sufficient you're now going to repeat other peoples craziness. Anyone who reads what I wrote knows that it wasn't a threat to inform you that legal action against you can be pursued whether or not you're hiding in Mexico. I'm not even the one who has a cause of action, so how could I possibly be threatening you?

Dave

Clavos-

apart from the technical stuff, you didn't adress the issue. You seemed to be rather upset. The articles are proof that he is neither a dictator or that he has given himself the power to rule indefintely. What leads you to make these assumptions remains unclear ? A criticism of policies is a different issue, but it needs to be on the basis of the facts.

Nalle has not only threatened me on this thread, he has also threatened to censor me on others.

And the fact that he is giving ME legal advice, when my attorney in Santa Fe is one of the TOP litigators in the country, is just beyond the pale. (Check out Stephen Tinkler at www.tinklerfirth.com)

Clavos is allergic to facts. That's why I call him gusano, as in addition to his role as Nalle's anal tumor, he has a VERY intimate relationship with the Cuban and Venezuelan gusanos in Miami. Those folks are drama queens that spend their time shreiking and hissing and calling for the murder of Castro and Chavez.

Facts--he don't need no stinkin' facts, gringo....

Nalle: FYI NO ONE has a cause of action against me.

The question is whether I have one worth pursuing against blogcritics. org.

Dave-

"Let's see an example of my 'lies' on this thread, Paul. Just one thing I've said which you can disprove."

You have lied repeatedly about the legitimacy of the elections, when major international institutions verified the results. Thats a fact, yet you continue to assume that the election was rigged.

About the changes he's making now: "Chavez noted that under the constitution, his opponents have the right to petition for a referendum to annul any law he enacts by decree, and can force such a vote by gathering the signatures of 5 percent of registered voters."

Hmm..interesting thread here..started with attack on the inefficiency of the House and progressed (or should i say degenerated?) into a raging debate on Hugo Chavez's consolidation of power.

Seems interesting to me that the two people (Dave, Clavos) complaining about the inefficiency of our democratically elected body should be the ones attacking the consolidation of power into a strong executive in Venezuala, while the defenders of the House have been defending the consolidation of power in Venezuala! Are there external motives here? Social? Political? Party-line? Personal? Or is this seeming inconsistency on both sides somehow consistent?

So Dave, why the animosity towards the democratically elected representatives of the people? What exactly is the point of your article? Should we do away with the house of representatives altogether? Were James Madison and Edmund Randolph correct in predicting "the passionate proceedings to which numerous assimblies are liable?" Was Alexander Hamilton right to propose an executive for life with the power to negative all laws passed or proposed? Do we suffer from an excess of democracy?

To this I must emphatically answer, NO. We suffer from a lack of democracy, a lack of intelligent debate. Is 30 million too much to pay to keep the faint pulse of democracy going in America? No, it is not. I, unlike Dave, see the 30 million dollar bill as a symptom of our society at large. It is a desperate attempt to keep debate going and for the representatives to have their opinions heard. Our country suffers from a lack of intelligent debate, as this pitiful thread attests to, and I celebrate any attempt made to express the diverse opinions of the American people. Rather than overstepping its bounds as Dave suggests(micromanaging he calls it), the House has diminished into a body with the power only to ruminate over Resolutions and suggestions for The Decider to consider. Debate is essential to democracy and I can only percieve this shrill attack on debate as an attack on Democracy. ("They're determined to get their chance to waste time and money on a mock debate on a fake bill too.") You want to see a bunch of dry old men ramble on seemingly pointless debates with no end in sight, no goal apparent, and a madening attention to detail.. turn your clock back. Just try reading Jame's Madison's notes on the Federal Convention. It is around 600 pages, infuriatingly detailed, spans a period of four months, incredibly repetitive and all this despite Madison's succinct note taking style. Do you have any idea how many unadopted resolutions, counterpoints, counter-counterpoints, circular arguments, re-reviewed debates re-votes and re-votes of the re-votes it is possible to for even a body of only 30 or so delegates to have?

Now, with respect to the legality of AUMF, I suggest everyone open their copy of the Constitution to Article I section 8.

[1] Congress has the power to "provide for the Common Defense."

[11] "to declare war"

[12] "to raise and support Armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years"

[13] "to provide and maintain a navy"

[14] "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces"

[15] "to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, supress insurections and repel invasions"

[16] "to provide for organizing, arming, and displining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be emplyed in the Service of the United States, reserving tho the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

and finally the all inclusive all powerful resolution 18

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any Department or officer thereof."

See how starkly the Constituion contradicts the comments of the writer of this article, Dave Nalle? Let's look at some of Dave's comments.

"Why did they do it? We all know it is because they do not have the intestinal fortitude to cut funding to the War. I would really like to see them try it."

I think someone pointed out to them that some quaint document called the Constitution gives warmaking power to the chief executive, not them. But I hear an extremist minority are going to give it a shot anyway.

Not only can Congress cut funding for the war, it is its responsibility to chose when to and when not to provide funding. While there are 8 resolutions pertaining to Congresses military powers, there is only one pertaining to the president's military powers.

Article II Section 2

[1] "be Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy"

That's it. Nothing else. Congress possesses the power of raising, equiping, governing, and regulating the Army, as well as the sole power to Declare war. Congress does NOT have the power to delegate it's war powers to the President. Anyone with a clear head can see how this directly contradicts Dave Nalle, and how AUMF is necessarily unconstitutional.

"Chavez noted that under the constitution, his opponents have the right to petition for a referendum to annul any law he enacts by decree, and can force such a vote by gathering the signatures of 5 percent of registered voters