20 Nov 08
Originally posted by generalissimoFor those interested in a more balanced analysis: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3963
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/19/do1905.xml
Hooray!
Four years ago, Chavez supporters won an overwhelming victory in regional elections, taking 22 of 23 State governors and almost 90% of the mayor's races. It would be remarkable for any government in a democracy to duplicate such a showing and Chavez's party almost certainly won't. However, most pollsters expect Chavez's movement to retain a solid majority of both governors and mayors.
20 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderDon't tell me Soros bought the election for Chavez as he did for Obama.
For those interested in a more balanced analysis: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3963
Four years ago, Chavez supporters won an overwhelming victory in regional elections, taking 22 of 23 State governors and almost 90% of the mayor's races. It would be remarkable for any government in a democracy to duplicate such a showing and C ...[text shortened]... pollsters expect Chavez's movement to retain a solid majority of both governors and mayors.
GRANNY.
20 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderLOL
For those interested in a more balanced analysis: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3963
Four years ago, Chavez supporters won an overwhelming victory in regional elections, taking 22 of 23 State governors and almost 90% of the mayor's races. It would be remarkable for any government in a democracy to duplicate such a showing and C pollsters expect Chavez's movement to retain a solid majority of both governors and mayors.
Im sure that venezuelananalysis is ''balanced''.
Have you tried ''socialistworker''?
Its even more balanced and unbiased.
20 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderDo you think this is ''unbalanced'' as well?http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/20/chavez-threatens-election-crackdown/
Is that all you have to say?
The quality of the analysis in the article cited v. the Telegraph's propaganda piece speaks for itself.
20 Nov 08
Originally posted by generalissimoYes, the Washington Times is a notorious right wing rag and its article is high on hysteria and low on facts as is par for the course for its "reporting". Even that article concedes that Chavez has "broad support". I think you are going to be very disappointed when the vote totals for the Sunday elections comes in (not that you support elections); the "ignorant peasants" look like they will give Chavez another victory although not of the unprecedented magnitude of four years ago.
Do you think this is ''unbalanced'' as well?http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/20/chavez-threatens-election-crackdown/
21 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFNo. But the Daily Telegraph is a famously skewed source that independent thinking Brits across the political spectrum scoff at. Except for its obitiuries and cricket coverage.
For some people the Daily Telegraph Effect wears off pretty quickly too.
Originally posted by generalissimo
is that all you have to say? Has your hero (chavez) disappointed you?
21 Nov 08
Originally posted by no1marauderhave a look at this:
Yes, the Washington Times is a notorious right wing rag and its article is high on hysteria and low on facts as is par for the course for its "reporting". Even that article concedes that Chavez has "broad support". I think you are going to be very disappointed when the vote totals for the Sunday elections comes in (not that you support elections); the "i ...[text shortened]... give Chavez another victory although not of the unprecedented magnitude of four years ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/20/AR2008112003817.html
Quotes from the article
''"Here the government has had it all -- the mayor's seat, the state governorship, the ministries, the congress,"
"Everything belongs to Chávez, and the municipality is worse off. People live worse than before, and that is why they are looking for change."
Its pathetic of you to ignore the failures of the Chavez regime, you pretend the evidence is false simply because in your narrow mind the washigton times (and any other truly balanced media) is ''right-wing''.
Hugo Chavez is a lying tyrant, the evidence is right in your face, don't just stick your head in the sand and pretend its all lies.
21 Nov 08
Surely Human Rights Watch will be a satisfactory middle ground?
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/venezuela0908web.pdf
Unfortunately, the US sponsored coup in 2002 appears to have made Chavez paranoid enough to undo the good work he did prior to the attempted revolution. He needs to stick by the constitution he enacted.
22 Nov 08
Originally posted by generalissimoAccording to that article:
have a look at this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/20/AR2008112003817.html
Quotes from the article
''"Here the government has had it all -- the mayor's seat, the state governorship, the ministries, the congress,"
"Everything belongs to Chávez, and the municipality is worse off. People live worse than before, an ...[text shortened]... right in your face, don't just stick your head in the sand and pretend its all lies.
Chavez's personal popularity is still about 60%;
Poverty in Venezuela has went from 53% in 1999 when Chavez took office to 37.7% now; and
Chavez's supporters are virtually certain to win most of Sunday's elections.
Where does the "tyrant" part fit in?