Skip to content

After surgery, Chavez faces troubles in Venezuela

June 20, 2011

After surgery, Chavez faces troubles in Venezuela .

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — While President Hugo Chavez has been recovering from pelvic surgery in Cuba, his troubles at home in Venezuela have been accumulating.

On top of 23 percent inflation and growing government debt, worsening blackouts have emerged as a serious dilemma, forcing Chavez’s government to announce rationing measures including rolling power outages in some parts of the country.

(snip)

She said Chavez no longer has the financial ability to promote oil-funded diplomacy the way he did several years ago, and is increasingly consumed with confronting issues such as the blackouts, deadly prison riots and deficiencies in the health care system

Remember, he was popularly elected through a “democratic” system, and supported by a popularly elected “legislative branch”.

Please also note, how these wonderful elected leaders disregarded private property and the rule of law, and decided to recreate a socialist revolution through centralized planning and control.

Working out great, huh.

But don’t worry. We have only the smartest people in the world running D.C. and making policy and law. This could never happen here.

 Never. We promise.

Advertisements
10 Comments
  1. Michael Eaton permalink
    June 20, 2011 11:34 am

    “This could never happen here.”

    Ah, the constant refrain… Chavez and US progressives are the same… Stupid, unsupportable, completely without any merit (save in conspiracy minded conservatives)…

    Chavez has a LOT more in common with dictators (right and left) than any democratic government. You are begging for a Nazi reference.

  2. June 20, 2011 4:56 pm

    I dunno, certain progressive actors, entertainers and activists have found Chavez to be more than palatable.

    And considering that Chavez has been “popularly” elected by the “people”, I don’t understand why you find him so heavy-handed. I mean, he’s getting rid of those evil corporations and giving jobs and money to the poor? Why, he’s practically accomplishing what so many in Berkely have dreamed about for decades….

    And he does have to work with the popularly elected legislature, chocked full of his supporters true, but there are checks and balances in the system.

    Just like we used to have here in the states….

    Centralized power. Ain’t it grand?

  3. Michael Eaton permalink
    June 21, 2011 5:46 am

    Ah, the old “actors and entertainers” attack. I don’t give a rat’s left cheek for what an “actor” finds palatable. Charles Lindbergh found Hitler palatable. So what?

    “Just like we used to have here in the states…”

    Sad, Craig, that you find the US a northern version of Venezuela… It appears you are not operating with a full deck if that is your conclusion.

    “Centralized power. Ain’t it grand?”

    Sorry, but your comparison lacks a heck of a lot of substance…

    Somalia. Decentralized power… ain’t it grand.

  4. June 21, 2011 8:57 am

    Actors, entertainers AND activists. Darlings of the left.

    Yes Mike, I’m sure they’re meaningless… which is why they’re enlisted every election year and major campaign for Change!™

    And yes Mike, the system of checks and balances are mere shadows of their former selves, at best. And this isn’t some sort of exaggeration. We’ve seen the power of the federal government grow and grow and grow, the old vestiges of sovereign states creating a union supplanted by the strong central government with the states reduced to vassal status. And you know this, you applaud this, and you like this. Don’t be shy. Come out of the closet and be proud!

    And Somalia is your example of decentralized power? Wasn’t aware that our federalist system where more power is vested in the individual states and the federal government is tightly laced by the U.S. Constitution is a return to anarchy. Anyone calling for anarchy is just as much of a danger as the guy who wants to put power in the hands of a few…

    But given between a centralized power and decentralized power, I’ll side with this guy:

    “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” – Thomas Jefferson

    Meh. What did he know? He was a slave owner and lived before the soon to be banned incandescent light bulb…

  5. Michael Eaton permalink
    June 21, 2011 10:38 am

    “Actors, entertainers AND activists. Darlings of the left.”

    Actors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehMl-CztpnA

    Entertainers: Tom Selleck

    Activists: Tea Partiers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnUfPQVOqpw

    “Wasn’t aware that our federalist system where more power is vested in the individual states and the federal government is tightly laced by the U.S. Constitution is a return to anarchy.”

    And I wasn’t that “centralized power” as in Venezuela is exactly what we have here. Yet, that appears to be your point. No more of a stretch…

    “I’ll side with this guy:”

    Yep: “Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.”

    “lived before the soon to be banned incandescent light bulb…”

    Yet again?! Dude, just because you keep repeating something does not make it so. But, as we know, facts have a left wing bias…

    “there is no basis in fact to claim they have been banned in favor of fluorescent bulbs. We rule this claim Pants on Fire.”

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/20/ameripac/conservative-pac-claims-democrats-banned-incandesc/

  6. June 21, 2011 3:29 pm

    Mike, are you know telling me that Hollywood is dominated by right-wing fanatics. And I wasn’t aware that the tea party activists were of any number, I mean, you told me that they were pretty much a small group of ineffectual nobodies…

    Please… continue to pee on my leg and tell me it’s therapeutic urine cleansing…..

    “And I wasn’t that “centralized power” as in Venezuela is exactly what we have here.”

    Mike. What you don’t understand is that, despite your good intentions the motivate your belief in a powerful central government that can cure the ills of and provide for all opens the door for people like Chavez, who, as I have said before, is actually attacking those evil corporations and returning the power and money to “The People™”. You say it could never happen here. Well my friend. It can. And if we continue to turn buy the load you and the other big government progressives are selling, turn back to enjoying our bread and circuses… well… its our fault for letting it happen…

    “Yet again?! Dude, just because you keep repeating something does not make it so. But, as we know, facts have a left wing bias…”

    Dude. Pee on my leg and just call it…. natural exfoliating flow…..

  7. Michael Eaton permalink
    June 21, 2011 4:39 pm

    “What you don’t understand is that, despite your good intentions the motivate your belief in a powerful central government that can cure the ills of and provide for all opens the door for people like Chavez”

    No, Craig. I do believe that a disparate governing system is, by its very nature, weak. If the US were what you envision, we would not be a strong country, able to lead the world in innovation, military expertise, diplomacy or morality, we would be a weak grouping of states with 50+ different agendas. Which is PRECISELY what you want.

    A string central governing system is not the goal, as you seem to think. An effective one is. Chavez is NOT an example of any kind that anyone wants for the US. He is NOT “attacking those evil corporations and returning the power and money to “The People™”.” He is grabbing as much power and control for himself (which is why your attacking Obama is so silly in comparison). Please, truly, compare Chavez and Obama honestly and you will easily see the comparison is nutty (but you won’t do so HONESTLY – it would take too much effort to praise Obama’s restraint on your part).

    And don’t hand me manure and tell me it is the latest organic designer food. You are still trying to feed me crap.

  8. June 21, 2011 5:31 pm

    “No, Craig. I do believe that a disparate governing system is, by its very nature, weak.”

    Mike, we’re not talking about the Articles of Confederation here. The Federal Government has its place.

    “If the US were what you envision, we would not be a strong country, able to lead the world in innovation, military expertise, diplomacy or morality”

    Whoah! And the truth be told! It wasn’t just my vision Mike, it was that of the Founders as well. Atleast we know that the American experiment was a failure…. atleast in your eyes. I remember when you told me you believed in federalism… I still get a chuckle…

    It’s almost like if we didn’t have a group of strong men to lead us stupid plebes, we’d just be sitting, unfocused and bickering amongst each other….. Oh wait, the federal government was created to deal with the interstate issues that might arise, but not to deal with the internal state issues, leaving those to the the state legislatures, also elected by “the people”. Meh.

    And the belief that a strong central government is key to “leading” the world in “innovation, military expertise, diplomacy and morality” is a major error in logic. There are plenty of government with powerful central governments, and they don’t come close to leading in innovation, diplomacy, or morality, though they do tend to have their own strength militarily.

    Methinks there is something else that caused America to become great, and it had little to do with the central government….

    But atleast you are starting to come out of your closet and embracing your big government roots.

    ” we would be a weak grouping of states with 50+ different agendas. Which is PRECISELY what you want.”

    No Mike, the federal government would be in charge of international affairs and representing all 50 states and their citizens through the Congress, leaving the day to day affairs to the states. To confuse local and state control on domestic issues as creating a weaker union is just silly.

    But I do want to worry about what goes on in Texas without having a busy-body in New York or California decide I need to live like them.

    “A string central governing system is not the goal, as you seem to think. An effective one is.”

    And to you, they’re both and the same. I don’t want an effective governing system from a bureaucrat in D.C. or the Distinguished Gentleman from Vermont helping to decide how much salt should be in my food. I elected neither of those men. However, I did elect my state representative, and he’s much closer to me than my U.S. Senator, and I definitely have his ear more so.

    You confuse “effective governing” with protecting liberty, which it most definitely doesn’t.

    “Chavez is NOT an example of any kind that anyone wants for the US. He is NOT “attacking those evil corporations and returning the power and money to “The People™”.” He is grabbing as much power and control for himself (which is why your attacking Obama is so silly in comparison). Please, truly, compare Chavez and Obama honestly and you will easily see the comparison is nutty (but you won’t do so HONESTLY – it would take too much effort to praise Obama’s restraint on your part). ”

    And as usual, you’ve missed the point. Obama is not Chavez, despite the heated rhetoric and hyperbole. What Obama, Bush and every other big government politician is doing is cutting down the checks and balances, creating an entire nanny-state doomed to failure, creating a governmental behemoth with centralized power that opens the way for a “Chavez” to step in with promises of bread and circuses to the masses during the Crisis. Chavez stepped in with those wonderful promises of equality of results enforced by the barrel of the government gun.

    See, it’s okay when its “Your Guy™” who is at the controls. He’s only got the best of intentions.

    That’s the problem with Benevolent Dictators, its what happens when they leave and their successor is not so benevolent. Do we have a dictator, by no means. We have 536 tyrants.

    Reminds me of this prophetic quote from the Patriot, a paraphrase from Dr. Mather Byles:

    “Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man’s rights as easily as a king can.”

    And here’s the thing, and why I believe this country hasn’t been this divided since the War Between the States, a large portion of Americans do not want your benevolent nanny state any more, nor do they want any of the associated costs that its promises bring. The resistance to such centralization of power will continue to build, and it won’t wane, that much I can promise you.. A large portion of the citizenry is realizing that your “effective centralized governing” structure is contrary to the compact that was created in 1789. Unfortunately, though not surprising, the progressives have ignored that compact and simply “reinterpreted” as necessary to justify creating this new Leviathan, not even bothering to go through an amendment process to make changes, as its too….. what’s the word I’m looking for…

    Oh yeah…

    Inefficient…

    (/rant)

  9. June 21, 2011 5:35 pm

    “Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship.” -Harry S. Truman

    Meh.

    “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” — Daniel Webster

    Yep. Masters. And you’d willingly lick their hands and take upon their chains for, apparently, the efficiency of governance they bring wrapped in their good intentions….

  10. June 21, 2011 6:01 pm

    One other thought on your efficiency argument, based on the sheer amount of wasted dollars consumed each year by the federal bureaucratic behemoth, my assption is you weren’t talking about fiscal efficiency…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: