- Joined
- 20 Oct 02
- Moves
- 610682
Originally posted by no1marauderDave, Dave, slow down bro. You have got to stop treating people like dirt uner your nails, we will not invite you to the Albany meet up if you dont change your ways🙂
I suggest you try actually reading my posts and the link provided. You are acting like a simpleton as usual.
Originally posted by whodeyBefore Chávez came to power Venezuela was formally bound by human rights standards, but in practice often violated them. Torture, censorship, and violations of the right to assembly were quite common, especially during the second presidency of Carlos Andres Perez (1989-1993). Those who suffered from these human rights violations were to a very large extent the same people who swept into power with the election of Chávez as president. Many of these individuals thus participated in the formulation of the new constitution as members of the constitutional assembly. As a result, they gave human rights a central place in the constitution. However, the human rights that the constitution mentions go far beyond what most constitutions incorporate. Not only civil rights, such as the freedom of expression, assembly, and political participation are included , but so are social human rights, such as the right to employment, housing, and health care.
And a Merry Christmas to you as well. I have two points to make. The first is that the current constitution you provided shows that the people have a right to medical care. Did I ever bring up medical care? I believe I discussed such rights as due process of law as we have in the United States and the right to private property as we have in the United Sta ...[text shortened]... you think if you were told that the President of the United States would become an Archbishop?
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1003
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHey Dwayne, a 'right' is the soveriegnty to act without the permission of others, so a house is not a 'right'. People have a right to aquire a house. Same goes for the other "social human rights".
Before Chávez came to power Venezuela was formally bound by human rights standards, but in practice often violated them. Torture, censorship, and violations of the right to assembly were quite common, especially during the second presidency of Carlos Andres Perez (1989-1993). Those who suffered from these human rights violations were to a very large exte ...[text shortened]... mployment, housing, and health care.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1003
Originally posted by WajomaAbsent positive legislation, people don't have a "right" to acquire a house. The terminology being used by Venezuela's constitution is a loose one but most modern documents refer to "rights" in the same manner.
Hey Dwayne, a 'right' is the soveriegnty to act without the permission of others, so a house is not a 'right'. People have a right to aquire a house. Same goes for the other "social human rights".
Originally posted by WajomaNo they are not biaised, they are paid by US corporations - among which the ones that are loosing money for having lost the control on the Venezuelan oil.
So they're biased, we all know that.
They finance Fox news to give you their vision of the world where USA is a great country making a lot of profit, so you don't have to look at the terrifying reality of their jobs which includes creating artificial wars and placing US-friendly dictators all over the world to make an extra trillion.
Like Chomsky said, US media are any dictatorship wetest dreams.
Here's the other side of the story: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=revolution+will+not+be+televised
Originally posted by Jee...and who financed the propaganda you've posted, an organisation with ideas so bad they are funded by money taken by force.
No they are not biaised, they are paid by US corporations - among which the ones that are loosing money for having lost the control on the Venezuelan oil.
They finance Fox news to give you their vision of the world where USA is a great country making a lot of profit, so you don't have to look at the terrifying reality of their jobs which includes creating art ...[text shortened]... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=revolution+will+not+be+televised
Originally posted by WajomaDunno what you refer to, could you be more explicit please, because if someone is financing me I have to complain now for not recieving the cheque!
...and who financed the propaganda you've posted, an organisation with ideas so bad they are funded by money taken by force.
If you talk about the documentary about the pathetic missed coup against Chavez by the US media/corporation, it has been done by two irish guys - cant be more pro american than that - who just happened to be there and have a first hand view on the US propaganda falling flat on it's face.
Seitse has started another thread about Latin america who's having democratically elected president with a lot of popular support. Those presidents try to fight poverty and to regain soverignty for their own country which means kicking the US corporation out of their country. So expect a lot of bashing about all of them - Chavez is just the first on the list. Expect a lot of US propaganda to tell us how bad they are and why it's justify to bomb them and hung their presidents whithin 30 days. It will make no difference who's gonna be elected in the US, because like always, corporations will tell them what to do.
7 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSo Roman Catholics cannot be evangelicals? The term evangelical refers to those things pertaining to the Christian gospel and especially the gospels of the New Testament. At least that is how my dictionary reads. I don't know how the dictionary according to marauder reads, however. (And he calls me an idiot)
Last I knew, Idiot, Chavez was a Roman Catholic. Do you pray for his assassination like your fellow evangelical Christian Pat Robertson asked you to?
Edit: That was a nice touch bringing up Pat Robertson BTW. Unfortunatly, however, I never brought him up so I can only assume you brought him up in a desperate attempt to defend your own position. Oh well, so much for defending your position. I in no way endorse what Pat said in regards to assassinating Chavez. I do realized, however, in your mind you must assume that all evangelicals think and talk alike. I hate to burst your bubble but the world is a much bigger place than what you give it credit for being.
Originally posted by whodeyPat Robertson , Jimmy Swagart ... the same thing
So Roman Catholics cannot be evangelicals? The term evangelical refers to those things pertaining to the Christian gospel and especially the gospels of the New Testament. At least that is how my dictionary reads. I don't know how the dictionary according to marauder reads, however. (And he calls me an idiot)
Edit: That was a nice touch bringing up Pat ...[text shortened]... burst your bubble but the world is a much bigger place than what you give it credit for being.