Venezuela opposition will consider privatizations

They might have a point. Control those ideas because they are simply the propaganda of the corporate sector. We need to bring back the Thought Police, but for the capitalists this time.

And ya, where DO they all come from? - those ideas about privatisations? - from the Bilderbergers? Yale's Skull and Bones Soc.? ahhh yes, it is the dreaded Elites and their little clubs isn't it. We have a similar problem here in Canada, where 40% or more of Canadians support the capitalist imperialist corporate culture "that seeks to fleece the people" [their pensions depend on it?].

They have a real electoral system in Venezuela. And a true majority of them voted against American domination of their economy. 

That's what our corrupt stooges and their rich American friends are afraid of in Canada. They would never trust Canadians with a modern electoral system in the same way the doctor and madman said Chileans couldn't be trusted with democracy in 1973.

Yes, as I was saying before, our corrupt stooges in Canada would dearly love to achieve 48% support in legitimizing their rule. 48% by our illegit FPTP system would be considered a landslide victory. But your corrupt stooges in Ottawa won't be winning that kind of support at the polls anytime soon. They would likely fair even worse by a real electoral system such as MMP.

And for Chavez' socialists, that's 48% [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18241]in spite of US attempts at election rigging in Venezuela[/url]

Imagine what our corrupt Bay Street stooges would say if China or India started shovelling money to opposition parties in Amreeka an' Bananada? They'd surely consider it an act of war.

ETA: And in case you didn't know it before, [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18618]CIA-backed military coups[/url] have absolutely nothing to do with free will of the electorate in any of the dozens of countries where the right has participated in election rigging, assassinations of foreign leaders, and even false flag terrorism.

[url=http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Afghan_ESal_Iraq_Elections.h... Afghan, El Salvador, and Iraq Elections[/color] U.S. managed elections, with the threat of violence,

are called "democratic"[/url]

Do you  have anything else to say incredibly naive or otherwise?

Snert wrote:

Quote:

48% by our illegit FPTP system would be considered a landslide victory.

 

Looks like it's a landslide victory under Venezuela's "superior" system too!

 

50% more seats for 1% more votes!

 

(I think you'll need to choose between reflexively supporting Venezuela, and credibility on this one).

If you'll notice, PPT won 3% of the vote and still have 2 seats in Venezuela's Parliament. UNder our very undemocratic and corrupt electoral system in Bananada, the mathematically absurd FPTP system simply shuts-out democratic voices of parties winning nearly 7% of the popular vote. How democratic, you say.

As I was saying before,  our corrupt stooges here would never support such a modern system that entrusts so much choice to the electorate on a whole. So you're not arguing from a POV that makes any sense for the corrupt stoogeaucracy or the vicious empire still relying on a 19th century electoral system to rig elections with money in politics and bad math right here in North America, the last safe bastion for right wing conservatism in the world.

You have no argument. Give over.

I'm sorry but there are always two sides to every election rigging story involving the American CIA and friends.

I notice you've said nothing about the US-backed military coup against Chavez, and nothing about US taxpayers funding the political opposition in Venezuela.

Where are your democratic principles now? Remember those?

Was the CIA's abduction of Haiti's first democratically elected president a democratic thing to do as well?

Your only concern here seems to be that the Yanks and their rich friends in Caracas can't rig elections properly in Venezuela.

Because if that's all you're worried about, then TTFN.

Well you know Venezuela, leaving the capitalist in their place always just lets them regain their strangth. Bad ideas always have to be discredited fro the get go.

I think Venezuela's MMP is still a work in progress. In the years prior to Chavez, the rich managed to steal a lot of land in the country sides from the poor who were given deeds under the socialists. Since then the poor are mostly huddled masses in the cities barrios. 

MMP there is still better than Harper and McGuinty winning government here with just 22% of the eligible vote. In McGuinty's case the 100% dictatorial rule is more obvious without having to have the other wing of the party propping them up.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Rember the gravy years in Canada during the cold war when communist parties didn't have to worry about funds because the USSR sent them millions of dollars to fund ongoing propoganda campaigns and elections. 

If they had done that during the cold war, it would have been considered an act of war by our stooges and their masters in Washington. 

While our politicos puffed up their chests and spoke out a little against apartheid and a few thousand shot climbing over a wall in Berlin, our stooges in Ottawa said nothing of hundreds of thousands of indigenous and other people in Latin America who were slaughtered at the hands of brutal US-backed right wing dictatorships. And their friends the Nazis helped them spy on the Sovs after WW II and committed other crimes against peace which also had nothing to do with democracy.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Rember the gravy years in Canada during the cold war when communist parties didn't have to worry about funds because the USSR sent them millions of dollars to fund ongoing propoganda campaigns and elections. 

I don't know about any other country, but the Soviets helped the Canadian CP by buying many copies of their paper, at full price, and selling it in Kiosks from Moscow to Vladivostok. Anything more than that is probably just Cold War fiction as Fidel has outlined.

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Rember the gravy years in Canada during the cold war when communist parties didn't have to worry about funds because the USSR sent them millions of dollars to fund ongoing propoganda campaigns and elections. 

given the electoral showings of the CPC and CPUSA in the Cold War era, I don't think Moscow got much bang for its North American ruble.

And don't forget ol' Chiang Kai-shek who they supported. His KMT gangsters murdered ten million Chinese before fleeing the country. Some of those guys split for Burma after 1949 and dealt in drugs and weapons for years with the CIA's helping hand. Maoists chased Chiang and the rest of his outfit to the island of Formosa(Taiwan). Chiang's WACL was funelling money to the contras and other right wing mercenary groups around the world long time.

N.Beltov wrote:

If its' "bang for your buck" that is really important then maybe you should look at US funding of Contras in Nicaragua (and similar undertakings).

I always opposed U.S. funding for the Contras and the entire Reagan foreign policy agenda.  What does THAT have to do with my observation that, whatever intentions the Soviet Union may have had in funding the CPC and the CPUSA, those parties didn't end up having any political impact at all in the countries in which they were operating?

Quote:

It's not like the right-wing beat the chavistas in Venezuela, snert. And some of the "opposition" vote went to left parties that would, we can assume, oppose the privatizations.

So quit acting as if Harper would get a majority there.

Sorry to be unclear. I was more referring to us than the people of Venezuela (who I've no doubt would have zero time for Stephen Harper).

Northern Shoveler wrote:

N.Beltov wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Rember the gravy years in Canada during the cold war when communist parties didn't have to worry about funds because the USSR sent them millions of dollars to fund ongoing propoganda campaigns and elections. 

I don't know about any other country, but the Soviets helped the Canadian CP by buying many copies of their paper, at full price, and selling it in Kiosks from Moscow to Vladivostok. Anything more than that is probably just Cold War fiction as Fidel has outlined.

Does nobody have a sense of humour?  

Claims of "Moscow gold" were treated as serious and used to justify all sorts of repression ... including the banning of the CP for the third time, etc., etc., etc... I can't imagine any of that was amusing to people who were black-listed, lost their jobs, and so on.

Perhaps you should add the tongue in cheek icon or something.

I know that full well.  And I wasn't implying that Soviet funding for the CPC or the CPUSA was as horrific as U.S. funding for the Contras or the rest of what my country's imperial leaders have done.

I just meant they didn't seem to get much value for money.  OK?

This gives us an idea of what the cold war propaganda machine was like at home: [url=http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Norman_Solomon/Fourth_Estate_USNS.html... Estate or Fourth Branch of Government?[/url]

excerpted from the book Unreliable Sources

Quote:

Back in the United States, the CIA set in motion the Crusade for Freedom, a multimillion-dollar PR project which served as a domestic counterpart to the Agency's global propaganda effort. As such, it constituted a violation of the National Security Act of 1947, which explicitly prohibited the CIA from engaging in domestic propaganda activity. Designed to mobilize public opinion in support of the government's Cold War policies, this exercise in mind control depended on the cooperation of big media personalities in the United States. It was rather convenient that people like Henry Luce of Time-Life, C.D. Jackson of Fortune, and Eugene Lyons of Reader's Digest sat on the board of directors of the National Committee for a Free Europe (NCFE), which functioned as a thinly-veiled private-sector cover for channeling funds to neo-Nazi emigre groups intent on "liberating" their homeland. Other NCFE board members included CIA director Allen Dulles and former OSS chief William "Wild Bill" Donovan.

The Dulles brothers were the face of US shadow government evil for many years as was the likes of E. Howard Hunt who orchestrated dirty tricks, foreign assassinations, and sometimes invasions of small Latin American countries in order to prevent outbreaks of communism in this hemisphere. I think it was the National Security Act which led to creation of the cold war era CIA, previously the OSS. And the NSA is supposed to collect information on foreign militaries, but today their prime directive seems to be spying on the lives of millions of Americans with technical assistance from private telcos.

N.Beltov wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:

N.Beltov wrote:

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Rember the gravy years in Canada during the cold war when communist parties didn't have to worry about funds because the USSR sent them millions of dollars to fund ongoing propoganda campaigns and elections. 

I don't know about any other country, but the Soviets helped the Canadian CP by buying many copies of their paper, at full price, and selling it in Kiosks from Moscow to Vladivostok. Anything more than that is probably just Cold War fiction as Fidel has outlined.

Does nobody have a sense of humour?  

Claims of "Moscow gold" were treated as serious and used to justify all sorts of repression ... including the banning of the CP for the third time, etc., etc., etc... I can't imagine any of that was amusing to people who were black-listed, lost their jobs, and so on.

Perhaps you should add the tongue in cheek icon or something.

I know that history well and I wish there was a tongue in check emoticon.  Socialist and communist ideas in Canada were brutally repressed after WWII.  In fact the mere suggestion that there were any funds coming into Canada from communist countries was treated by the MSM as treason. 

Somehow it is anti-democratic for Venezuela's government to be against American money funding their political parties? Snert you can sure be a contortionist on some issues.  If you didn't hate all things socialist you would have an easier time with consistency on democracy issues.  You know like if it is anti-democratic to allow corporations to buy our elections it is also anti-democratic for corporation to buy election in countries where their are socialist governments.  

Snert wrote:

I don't believe that corporations "buy elections". Last time I voted, I was free to vote for anyone I wanted to. Weren't you? If corporations bought my vote, they got ripped off. Did you vote the way they wanted you to? 

I don't believe corporations waste money on advertising I think they advertise because it works. A large part of our economy is based on ad revenue, especially the media.  You are ACTUALLY telling me that none of it works?  

Your definition of freedom sometimes seems to line up with corporate propaganda, like in this case, so I think some of it even works on you.  I hear the message loud and clear,  "there is nothing to fear from corporations they are a benevolent force in our political realm."

Quote:

I don't believe corporations waste money on advertising I think they advertise because it works. A large part of our economy is based on ad revenue, especially the media.  You are ACTUALLY telling me that none of it works?

Are you eating a Big Mac while writing this? If not then I guess it works on everyone else, but you've developed a special immunity and are a free thinker, yes?

I've met lots of people who think advertising suckers us, but when pressed, none will ever admit to being fooled by a catchy jingle.

I'm betting that when voting, you believe you're voting using your brain, yes? Will you grant that same assumption to others?

I watch my neighbours buy and soon throw out mounds of useless plastic junk.  If you think advertising does not work that is your opinion.  I assume that propaganda exists because it is capable of swaying public opinion.  That is not an indictment of any one else just an observation.  I think people destroying our planet with throw away junk also believe they are using their brains to allocate their scarce resources.   Why is this analysis of Venezuela not carried over by you into your analysis of countries under the IMF thumb?  Many of them allow complete privatization and the places where that agenda has been in place since the 80's are the places that now have the people rising in the streets.  

You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.  Such a radical opinion, eh?  I prefer to not allow corporations to fool any of the people any of the time.  That is democracy to me. Allowing corporations and their shadow owners  to con as many sheep as they can with unlimited advertising dollars is a con game.  I just don't understand why you can't see the obvious con.  It is guaranteed to fool some of the people, the only question is how many. I think marketeers would tell you one of the factors in a marketing campaign's success is the extent of the advertising buy.  Unlimited funds for one brand and limited funds for another works to sell all kinds of shitty consumer throw away products.

Snert wrote:

Coulda used that kind of respectful distance after the U.S. elections in 2004, eh? I'm betting a lot of people inappropriately commented on the legitimacy of those elections, including a lot of people here (yourself excluded of course... I know you don't have the kind of imperialist mindset needed to cross that boundary).

With imperialism, actions which defend against it, or dialogue which describes its potential to spread like the inhuman plague that it is, is somewhat different than running at the mouth against people in other countries who at long last finally get a taste of what democracy is all about.  The US purports to represent the interests of the so called 'free western world' without putting the question of this leadership at our disposal for a vote.  The least we should retain for ourselves as the represented in that regard is the ability to speak amongst one another on the matter.  The US empire's vicious tentacles reach far and wide after all.  Venezuela's?...not so much.

Why, it would leave us reading YOUR bloviations much more than we currently do. Win win all around.

Slumberjack wrote:

"The US empire's vicious tentacles reach far and wide after all.  Venezuela's?...not so much."

So, then, I guess there's no rationale for discussing Swiss elections(like for example the recent one where they voted to outlaw Muslim minarets), because Switzerland doesn't have very extensive imperial tentacles, and in fact is pretty much the polar opposite of an empire(what with being neutral for centuries and never having any overseas territories).

And if Ireland continues to elect governments that maintain the total ban on abortion, well, no reason for us to comment on that, Ireland doesn't claim to be leading the free world, and those laws effect no one outside of Ireland.

Snert wrote:

Well, there's the conundrum of the day.

Capitalists and their evil ilk propose privatization to "fleece" the people... and yet the people don't seem to feel fleeced, and give their approval at the ballot box.  Now what??

Kind of makes me think of "The Greatest Canadian"... remember that?  Lots of people voting for Tommy Douglas and Norman Bethune and Pierre Trudeau and such, and then someone had to come along and vote for Don Cherry.  Don!  Cherry!

The nerve of people, misusing their free will to want something they shouldn't want!  Everyone deserves a voice, but not if they're going to waste it on stupid beliefs and attitudes!!  That's not what freedom is for!

Anyway, I guess the huge worry here is that if the opposition can propose something like privatization, the people might actually decide they want that.  Is that it?

Bait and switch much Snert.  At post #4 you introduced the drift and at #48 you feign offence at the thread drift.  It seems that if you run out of distractions you merely try to chance the channel even when you tuned it in, in the first place.